text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We extended a previous qualitative study of the intermittent behaviour of a chaotical nucleonic system, by adding a few quantitative analyses: of the configuration and kinetic energy spaces, power spectra, Shannon entropies, and Lyapunov exponents. The system is regarded as a classical “nuclear billiard” with an oscillating surface of a 2D Woods-Saxon potential well. For the monopole and dipole vibrational modes we bring new arguments in favour of the idea that the degree of chaoticity increases when shifting the oscillation frequency from the adiabatic to the resonance stage of the interaction. The order-chaos-order-chaos sequence is also thoroughly investigated and we find that, for the monopole deformation case, an intermittency pattern is again found. Moreover, coupling between one-nucleon and collective degrees of freedom is proved to be essential in obtaining chaotic states.'
author:
- Daniel Felea
- Cristian Constantin Bordeianu
- Ion Valeriu Grossu
- Călin Beşliu
- Alexandru Jipa
- 'Aurelian-Andrei Radu'
- Emil Stan
title: 'Intermittency route to chaos for the nuclear billiard - a quantitative study'
---
\[intro\]Introduction
=====================
We begin by briefly reminding that a conjugated continuous effort has been made to relate the emergence of the collective energy dissipation through one and two-body nuclear processes with the chaotical behaviour of nuclear systems .
A few options in choosing the collective oscillation frequencies have come into focus in the past years, in connection with the onset of chaoticity for “nuclear billiards”. First of all, the issue of dissipation into thermal motion of the adiabatic collective vibrational energy of the potential well was treated for several multipolarities by Burgio, Baldo *et al.* . On the other hand, when trying to associate different vibration frequencies to various nuclear processes, the path to chaos was found to be changed with the order of multipole [@felea-01; @felea-02; @bordeianu-08a; @bordeianu-08b; @bordeianu-08c; @felea-09a].
This paper was intended to bring a quantitative argumentation, based on a systematic study of the configuration and kinetic energy spaces, power spectra, informational entropies, and largest Lyapunov exponents. The study was done in completion of a few qualitative types of analysis previously presented [@felea-09a]: sensitive dependence on the initial conditions, single-particle phase space maps, fractal dimensions of Poincare maps, and autocorrelation functions.
In short, we remind that, by studying the nucleonic dynamics in a Woods-Saxon potential, one can find an increase of the chaotical degree of the system behaviour as raising the frequency of 2D wall oscillation.
The main result of [@felea-09a] was reported in relation with an intermittent route to chaos for the monopole vibrations close to the resonance phase of a nuclear interaction. Still, we mention that the purpose of these two coupled etudes was only to emphasize the detection of such intermission for the “nuclear billiards” and not to establish its type according to [@pomeau-80], nor to compare it with other intermittency patterns from known experimental results .
\[sec:1\]Toy model
==================
We continue the study on a classical dynamical system proposed by Burgio, Baldo *et al.* , system composed of a number of $A$ nucleons with no charge, spin, or internal structure. A two-dimensional deep Woods-Saxon potential well, regarded as “nuclear billiard”, is periodically hit by the nucleons. The Bohr Hamiltonian in polar coordinates is a sum of two components: kinetic ($E_{kin.}$) and potential ($E_{pot.}$), the kinetic one decoupling into radial ($E_r$), centrifugal ($E_L$), and collective terms ($E_{coll.}$):
$$E_{kin.} = E_r + E_L + E_{coll.} = {\sum_{j=1}^{A}}\left( \frac{p_{r_{j}}^{2}}{2m}+\frac{p_{\theta _{j}}^{2}}{2mr_{j}^{2}} \right)%
+\frac{p_{\alpha }^{2}}{2M},$$
$$E_{pot.} = {\sum_{j=1}^{A}} V\left(r_{j},R\left( \theta _{j}\right) \right)+\frac{M\Omega ^{2}\alpha ^{2}}{2}.$$
The phase space is defined by particle and collective momenta and their conjugate coordinates: $\left( r,p_{r}\right)$, $\left( \theta,p_{\theta}\right)$ and $\left( \alpha,p_{\alpha}\right)$. The collective coordinate $\alpha $ oscillates with $\Omega $ frequency, the Inglis mass $M$ is equal to $mAR_{0}^{2}$, and the nucleon mass: $m=938\ \rm{MeV}$.
For the time being we are not interested in studying the nucleon dynamics beyond the Woods-Saxon barrier:
$$V\left( r_j,R\left( \theta _j\right) \right) =\frac{V_0}{1+\exp \left[ \frac{r_j-R\left( \theta _j,\alpha \right) }a\right] },$$
and therefore we choose a deep well: $V_{0}=-1500\ \rm{MeV}$ and accordingly, a low value for the diffusivity coefficient: $a=0.01\ \rm{fm}$.
When considering the two-dimensional case, the frontier of the collective motion is described as a function of the collective variable $\alpha $ and of the Legendre polynomials $P_{L}\left( \cos \theta_{j}\right)$ [@burgio-95; @baldo-96; @baldo-98; @felea-09a]:
$$R_j = R\left( \theta _j,\alpha \right) =R_0\left[ 1+\alpha P_L\left( \cos \theta_j\right) \right].$$
The oscillation degree of the potential well $L$ is considered for the monopole $\left(0\right)$, dipole $\left(1\right)$ and quadrupole case $\left(2\right)$.
If the surface has a stationary behaviour, or whenever one takes into account the uncoupled Hamilton equations ([UCE]{}) for the particle:
$$\stackrel{\cdot }{r_j}=\frac{p_{r_j}}m,\
\stackrel{\cdot }{\theta _j}=\frac{p_{\theta _j}}{mr_j^2},\
\stackrel{\cdot }{p_{r_j}}=\frac{p_{\theta _j}^2}{mr_j^3}-\frac{\partial V}{\partial r_j},\
\stackrel{\cdot }{p_{\theta _j}}=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial R_j}\cdot \frac{\partial R_j}{\partial \theta _j},$$
and collective degrees of freedom (*d.o.f.*):
$$\stackrel{\cdot }{\alpha }=\frac{p_\alpha }M,\
\stackrel{\cdot }{p_\alpha}=-M\Omega ^2\alpha -\sum_{j=1}^{A}\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial R_j} \cdot \frac{\partial R_j}{\partial \alpha }\right),$$
$R_{0}$ has a fix value, chosen for consistency with previous papers [@burgio-95; @baldo-96; @baldo-98; @felea-09a] as $6\ \rm{fm}$.
A Runge-Kutta type algorithm (order 2-3) with an optimized step size was used for solving the system of differential equations, while keeping the absolute errors for the phase space variables under $10^{-6}$ and conserving the total energy with relative error: $\Delta E/E \approx 10^{-8}$ (Fig. \[fig:1\]).
We imposed the equilibrium condition between the pressure exerted by the particles and the mechanical pressure of the wall [@burgio-95; @baldo-96; @baldo-98; @felea-09a] and thus obtained for the initial equilibrium value of the collective variable, perturbed with a small value:
$$\alpha_{0}=\frac{-1+\sqrt{1+8T/{mR_0^2\Omega ^2}}}{2}+0.15,$$
where $T=36\ \rm{MeV}$ [@burgio-95; @baldo-96; @baldo-98; @felea-09a] is the two-dimensional kinetic energy and also the temperature of the nuclear system, when considering the natural system of units ($\hbar=c=k_{B}=1$).
\[sec:2\]The quantitative analysis of the route to chaos
========================================================
We carry on the study begun in [@felea-09a] by gradually changing the degree of vibration of the potential wall from a slow motion (adiabatic state) to a rapid one (the so-called resonance state of the interaction). In the first case, the collective motion is described by a radian frequency smaller than $0.05\ c/\rm{fm}$. The latter is dominated by frequencies close to the one-nucleon collisional frequency:
$$\omega _{part}=\frac{\pi}{R_0}\cdot\sqrt{\frac{2T}{m}}\approx 0.145\ c/\rm{fm}.$$
The physical motivation for studying the one-nucleon chaotical dynamics in the “nuclear billiard”, ranging the frequencies from the adiabatic to the resonance regime of a nuclear interaction, is explained in some detail in [@felea-09a].
We briefly remind that the process of nuclear multifragmentation can be viewed as a resonance process and that for smaller excitation energies, nuclear evaporation or breakup of a projectile nucleus occurs when the energy is shared between the collective and one-nucleon degrees of freedom.
By using a few types of analyses: sensitive dependence on the initial conditions, single-particle phase space maps, fractal dimensions of Poincare maps and autocorrelation functions, we emphasized that an intermittent route to chaos is observed in the monopole case when increasing the vibrational frequency to $\Omega = 0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$ [@felea-09a]. In the resonance phase of the interaction the onset of chaotical behaviour was found to be earlier than at any other adiabatic oscillations of the Woods-Saxon potential well.
We present here other methods [@schuster-84] promoting the idea that the degree of chaoticity increases when moving from the adiabatic to the resonance regime: analyses of the configuration and kinetic energy spaces, power spectra, generalized informational entropies and Lyapunov exponents. Furthermore, we try to identify possible pathways to chaos, including the intermittent one, previously put in evidence [@felea-09a].
Configuration and kinetic energy spaces
---------------------------------------
In order to establish if a specific physical system presents a chaotic dynamics and to identify possible routes to chaos we analyzed the behaviour of a small bunch of trajectories in the configuration and in the kinetic energy space, respectively. For example, we took five trajectories separated by an $\epsilon = \Delta r=0.01\ \rm{fm}$ aperture, while keeping the rest of the initial phase space variables constant and let the system evolve over a given time $\left(\Delta t = 1,600\ \rm{fm}/c\right)$.
For the transient stages from adiabatic to resonance, the temporal evolution of an initially confined trajectory bundle was studied for the monopole and dipole oscillation modes of the potential wall and also for the limit situation, in which the individual and collective degrees of freedom remain uncoupled (Figs. \[fig:2\] and \[fig:3\]).
The configuration space revealed a high degree of symmetry in $\left(r,\theta\right)$ plane in both cases, $\left( 4+2\right)$ uncoupled nonlinear differential equations and monopole (left and middle panels). Also, that the central zone remained uncovered, reflecting the conservation of the nucleon angular momentum.
Another important conclusion was issued from the definition of the stability concept of a dynamical system. For the aforementioned cases the dispersed trajectory pack periodically regroups on the frontier that delimits the forbidden zone of the phase space. This type of behaviour corresponds with the definition of stability given by Poisson (for e.g., in [@holmes-96]). We will herewith remind that the Poisson stability defines as steady the movement of a particle system of which configuration comes close, from time to time, to the initial position.
At a first glance, on the simple [UCE]{} case one can distinguish two extremities of the radius of the particle periodic motion in the 2D potential well: $r_{min}(UCE) \approx 1.42\ \rm{fm}$, and $r_{Max}(UCE) \approx 5.96\ \rm{fm}$. These values correspond to the roots of the boundary equation:
$$E = \frac{p_{\theta}^2}{2mr^2}+V\left(r \right),$$
for a given one-nucleon energy $E$, when the radial component of velocity vanishes ($\stackrel{\cdot }{r}=0$).
The analysis of the particle motion in the configuration space is similar to that applied to any system with bound unclosed trajectories. The nucleonic motion takes place within a circular crown (the so-called *annulus*) determined by the concentric circles of $r_{min}$ and $r_{Max}$ radii. The trajectory is symmetric about any turning point.
For $\Delta t = 1,600\ \rm{fm}/c$ we descry in the [UCE]{} case as much as $27$ distinct apocenters (at $r=r_{Max}$). These are correlated with a number of $13$ complete and one incomplete revolutions about the center of the force field (*i.e.* $27$ straight lines before $r(t)$ changes its sense of variation).
The particle completely sweeps over twice the 2D configuration space after $1,537\ \rm{fm}/c$. However, we notice that the bound trajectories are open, which means that the orbits never pass twice through a given point (see Fig. \[fig:2\]), which is in concordance with Bertrand’s theorem. We briefly remind that for a bound orbit to be closed, the angle between two consecutive apocenters must be:
$$\Delta \theta = 2\pi \cdot \frac{n_{1}}{n_{2}},$$
*i.e.* after $n_{2}$ revolutions about the center, the radius vector should sweep out a multiple $n_{1}$ of $2\pi$ [radians]{}. For the [UCE]{} case above considered we consequently obtain: $\Delta \theta_{UCE} \approx 4\pi/13$ [radians]{} (Fig. \[fig:2\] - left column).
The kinetic energy points are displayed in right isosceles triangular shaped patterns (Fig. \[fig:3\]), whose hypotenuses are described by Eqs. (11) and (12), for the two specific non-chaotical situations: [UCE]{} and the intermittent monopolar “window” emerged at $\Omega = 0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$:
$$E_{L_{UCE}} = 18.05 - E_r,$$
$$E_{L_{\Omega=0.1\: c/\rm{fm}}} = 18.09 - E_r.$$
Moreover, for the intermittency frequency of monopole oscillations, one can notice a second smaller segment with the same negative slope:
$$E_{L_{\Omega=0.1\: c/\rm{fm}}} = 5.87 - E_r.$$
For the uncoupled differential equations there are a couple of extreme values for the centrifugal kinetic energy: $E_{L_{min}}(UCE) = 1.02\ \rm{MeV}$, and $E_{L_{Max}}(UCE) = 18.05\ \rm{MeV}$, associated with $r_{Max}(UCE)$ and respectively, with $r_{min}(UCE)$ (left column of Fig. \[fig:3\] and Eq. (1)).
As for the monopolar intermittency, we can distinguish just five distinct values for the $E_{L}$: $1.32\ \rm{MeV}$, $2.13\ \rm{MeV}$, $3.01\ \rm{MeV}$, $5.87\ \rm{MeV}$, and $18.09\ \rm{MeV}$ (central plot of Fig. \[fig:3\]), correlated with stationary radii: $r_{1} \approx 5.26\ \rm{fm}$, $r_{2} %
\approx 4.14\ \rm{fm}$, $r_{3} \approx 3.49\ \rm{fm}$, $r_{4} \approx 2.51\ \rm{fm}$, and $r_{5} \approx %
1.43\ \rm{fm}$ (Eq. (1), Fig. 2 of [@felea-09a], and central plot of Fig. \[fig:2\]). Thus, the nucleonic motion for the intermittent case is composed of alternated revolutions about the force field centre, forming a cyclic symmetrical structure, for e.g., $r_{1}$, $r_{5}$, $r_{2}$, $r_{4}$, $r_{3}$, $r_{4}$, $r_{2}$, $r_{5}$, $r_{1}$, and so on (Fig. \[fig:2\]). This behaviour can be easily verified through the sensitivity dependence on the initial conditions analysis, previously presented (third column of Fig. 2 - [@felea-09a]). It should also be mentioned that, following this radius alternation, the nucleon covers in 2D configuration space $\approx 2\pi$ radians after $6$ full revolutions in almost $590\ \rm{fm}/c$.
Concluding, we highlight once more, that ordered, non-chaotical events, exhibit periodical symmetrical patterns in the configuration and kinetic energy spaces. This was shown to be a characteristic feature of the uncoupled nonlinear Hamilton equations case and also, of the steady, intermittent behaviour arisen in the monopole case at $0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$ vibrational radian frequency.
A tendency to compactly fill the kinetic energy space when increasing the monopolar vibrations (from $0.05\ c/\rm{fm}$ to $0.145\ c/\rm{fm}$) was observed, except for the intermittency situation above described. For the $L = 1$ oscillation mode of the potential well, it seems that at the same frequency ($\Omega = 0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$) a somewhat intermittent behaviour could also come out, but this was proved to be elusive, as verified when reverting to this issue with the help of informational entropies and Lyapunov exponents and analyzing the system on longer time periods.
Power spectra
-------------
In order to better distinguish between a multiple periodical behaviour that can also exhibit an erratic pattern and chaos we used the Fourier transform of the analyzed signals:
$$x\left( \omega \right) = \lim_{T\rightarrow \infty} \int^{T}_{0} e^{i\omega t} \cdot x\left( t\right) \ dt\ ,$$
$$x\left( \omega \right) = \lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \sum^{N}_{n=0} e^{i\omega t_{n}} \cdot x\left( t_{n}\right).$$
For a multiple periodical movement the power spectrum:
$$P\left( \omega \right) = \left|x\left( \omega \right)\right|^{2},$$
will only contain a number of discrete lines: the fundamental frequencies of the system and their associated sets of harmonics, while the chaotical behaviour is completely aperiodical and is represented by a continuous or quasi-continuous broadband.
The obtained results are presented in Figures \[fig:4\]-\[fig:7\]. As a persistent feature of the physical system analyzed one should mention that for the monopole and dipole deformation degrees of the potential well (Figures \[fig:5\] and \[fig:6\]) the chaotic behaviour increases in time, thus confirming previous results.
The transition towards a chaotic regime was put again in evidence once passing from the adiabatic to the resonance stage of the interaction. The power spectra reveal, as expected, the intermittent feature of the transition in the monopolar case at $\Omega=0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$.
This can be detected for periods of time large enough ($\Delta t \geq 1,600\ \rm{fm}/c$) to positively identify chaotic patterns, by transition from a quasi-continuous spectrum of the one-nucleon radial coordinate ($\Omega _{ad}=0.02\ c/\rm{fm}$) to a discrete periodical one, containing fundamental frequencies of the system and its harmonics ($\Omega=0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$) and again to a continuous spectrum at the resonance vibrational frequency ($\Omega _{res}=0.145\ c/\rm{fm}$) (Fig. \[fig:5\] - right panels). The order-chaos-order-chaos sequence can be also spotted out for the monopole oscillations in the power spectra of the collective degree of freedom (Fig. \[fig:7\] - second column).
The temporal series of the radius variable show a symmetrical sawtooth waveform for the uncoupled situation at any chosen vibration frequency, and also for the monopole case at adiabatic collective oscillations. For the rest, in general an asymmetrical sawtooth form defines the series, but sometimes, more complicated patterns appear at higher multipole orders (Figures 1-4 - [@felea-09a]).
The difference between two successive maxima in the temporal series of the radius variable for the [UCE]{} case is: $T_{0_{UCE}} \approx 1,537/26 = 59.1\ \rm{fm}/c$ (left column of Fig. \[fig:2\]) and can be also obtained from the sensitive dependence on the initial conditions analysis (see Fig. 1 - [@felea-09a]). The fundamental frequency for the radial sawtooth temporal series: $\omega_{0_{UCE}}=2\pi/T_{0_{UCE}}=0.106\ c/\rm{fm}$ and its first three harmonics: $\omega_{1_{UCE}}=0.212\ c/\rm{fm}$, $\omega_{2_{UCE}}=0.318\ c/\rm{fm}$, and $\omega_{3_{UCE}}=0.424\ c/\rm{fm}$, can be easily traced down in Figure \[fig:4\].
As for the “window” of intermittency at $L = 0$, we obtained: $T_{0_{int}} \approx 590/12 = 49.2\ \rm{fm}/c$ (Fig. 2 - [@felea-09a] and central plot of current Fig. \[fig:2\]). This gives the corresponding fundamental frequency: $\omega_{0_{int}}=0.128\ c/\rm{fm}$ and its associated harmonics: $\omega_{1_{int}}=0.256\ c/\rm{fm}$, $\omega_{2_{int}}=0.384\ c/\rm{fm}$, and $\omega_{3_{int}}=0.512\ c/\rm{fm}$ (Fig. \[fig:5\]).
Shannon entropies
-----------------
In order to further investigate route to chaos, we paid attention to the time evolution of the generalized informational entropy (or Shannon entropy), introduced as usually :
$$S_{Shannon}\left(t\right)=-{\sum^{N\left(t\right)}_{k=1}} p_k \cdot \ln p_k,$$
$N\left(t\right)$ being the number of gradually occupied cells until the time $t$.
This type of entropy is actually a number which quantifies the time rate of information production for a chaotic trajectory [@ott-93]. We consider in the first place the case of a particle that at every moment occupies a cell of the two-dimensional lattice phase space with a $p_k$ probability:
$$p_k=1/N_{total\ cells},$$
where:
$$N_{total\ cells}=N_{r} \cdot N_{p_{r}} \cdot N_{\theta},$$
$N_{r}$, $N_{p_{r}}$, and $N_{\theta}$ are the number of bins of the $\left( r,p_{r},\theta\right)$ lattice. For $p_{\theta}$ is a constant of motion for the monopole and the [UCE]{} cases, we use for comparisons only these three phase space variables.
As an alternative measure for the above defined entropy we also used the cumulative filling percentage of the one-nucleon phase space:
$$\eta\left(t\right)=\frac{N\left(t\right)}{N_{total\ cells}} \cdot 100\ \left(\%\right).$$
In the first place, for a given wall frequency of vibration and for a certain multipolarity (here, for $\Omega _{res}=0.145\ c/\rm{fm}$ and $L = 0$), we studied the dependence of the Shannon entropy with the number of bins. A clear tendency for smoothing the entropy curve was found when decreasing the bin. A reduced number of cells ($N_{b}=2^3$) is characterized by an entropy formed from a small number of high-amplitude Heaviside functions. As the number of bins increases (for e.g., here to $12^3$), the entropy gets a more realistic representation, being composed of a superior number of low-amplitude step functions (Fig. \[fig:8\]).
Moreover, the filling percentage $\eta$ of the one-nucleon phase space maps can drastically differ with the size of the bin. Thus, after the system evolved over $400\ \rm{fm}/c$, a phase space with $8$ bins is entirely covered, $64$ bins can be filled in with $0.8594$ probability, a $26.95$ filling percentage for $512$ cells can be found, and we counted only as much as $226$ bins occupied out of a total of $1,728$ (*i.e.* $\eta = 13.08\ \%$).
At a first glance one can identify a series of entropy plateaus, which could be put in correspondence with stationary or quasi-stationary thermodynamic values of the system if a large number of particles would be under study. Some of them will vanish when considering a large number of bins. However, those surviving for $N_{b} \rightarrow \infty$ could be associated with stationary nucleonic states in the chosen potential well in the limit of a large number of degrees of freedom.
For a given 2D phase space lattice formed of $N_{b}=4^3$ bins we present in Figures \[fig:9\]-\[fig:12\] a comparison between the informational entropies of the physical system in study, starting from the adiabatic stage of interaction and gradually increasing the vibrational wall frequency towards the dipole resonance value, $\Omega _{res}=0.145\ c/\rm{fm}$. The slopes for the resonance frequency case were found to be significantly higher than for the adiabatic one ($\Omega _{ad}=0.02\ c/\rm{fm}$) for all multipolarities involved.
Another comparison revealed significant differences between the onset times of the quasi-constant Shannon entropy values for all cases taken into consideration. Thus, for four vibrational radian frequencies and for four coupling modes of the Hamilton equations we show the informational entropy values after $800\: \rm{fm}/c$ (Table \[tab:1\]) and the associated phase space filling degrees (Table \[tab:2\]). Also, in Table \[tab:3\], are presented the periods of time after which the filling percentages $\eta$ equal unity.
----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
Oscillation frequency [UCE]{} & $L=0$ & $L=1$ & $L=2$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.020\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $3.6889$ & $3.7136$ & $3.7842$ & $3.4340$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.050\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $3.6889$ & $4.0775$ & $4.0775$ & $3.2958$\
$\Omega \:\;\ \ = 0.100\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $3.6889$ & $3.6889$ & $3.8501$ & $4.0073$\
$\Omega _{res} = 0.145\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $3.6889$ & $4.1589$ & $4.0431$ & $4.0254$\
----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
: \[tab:1\]The computed $S_{Shannon}\left(t=800\: \rm{fm}/c\right)$ of the $\left( r\leftrightarrow p_{r}\leftrightarrow\theta\right)$ one-particle phase space maps at several multipolarities and frequencies of wall vibration
----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
Oscillation frequency [UCE]{} & $L=0$ & $L=1$ & $L=2$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.020\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $62.50$ & $64.06$ & $68.75$ & $48.44$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.050\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $62.50$ & $92.19$ & $92.19$ & $42.19$\
$\Omega \:\;\ \ = 0.100\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $62.50$ & $62.50$ & $73.44$ & $85.94$\
$\Omega _{res} = 0.145\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $62.50$ & $100.00$ & $89.06$ & $87.50$\
----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
: \[tab:2\]The filling percentage $\eta$ of the $\left( r\leftrightarrow p_{r}\leftrightarrow\theta\right)$ one-particle phase space maps at several multipolarities and frequencies of wall vibration
----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- --
Oscillation frequency [UCE]{} & $L=0$ & $L=1$ & $L=2$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.020\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $>10^{5}$ & $6,023$ & $6,359$ & $5,356$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.050\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $>10^{5}$ & $1,618$ & $4,223$ & $>10^{5}$\
$\Omega \:\;\ \ = 0.100\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $>10^{5}$ & $11,442$ & $3,241$ & $2,758$\
$\Omega _{res} = 0.145\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $>10^{5}$ & $729$ & $1,887$ & $10,571$\
----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- -- --
: \[tab:3\]The time (in $\rm{fm}/c$) at which the informational entropies of the $\left( r\leftrightarrow p_{r}\leftrightarrow\theta\right)$ one-particle phase space maps at several multipolarities and frequencies of wall vibration have the maximum value (*i.e.* $\eta = 100\ \%$)
We continue the analysis by further defining the Shannon entropy for a group of $w$ nearby orbits:
$$S_{traject.\ pack}\left(t\right)=ln\ N_{w}\left(t\right),$$
so that the number of occupied cells is:
$$1 \leq N_w(t) \leq w,$$
thus describing the spread of the trajectories at each moment of time $t$ (Figs. \[fig:13\]-\[fig:16\]). When reaching the maximum divergence, the entropy for five distinct phase space paths gets its highest value (Table \[tab:4\]).
----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
Oscillation frequency [UCE]{} & $L=0$ & $L=1$ & $L=2$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.020\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $>10^{4}$ & $1,095$ & $555$ & $688$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.050\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $>10^{4}$ & $855$ & $476$ & $122$\
$\Omega \:\;\ \ = 0.100\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $>10^{4}$ & $4,133$ & $333$ & $395$\
$\Omega _{res} = 0.145\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $>10^{4}$ & $279$ & $327$ & $469$\
----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- --
: \[tab:4\]The time (in $\rm{fm}/c$) at which the one-particle Shannon entropies of a pack of $w=5$ close orbits begin having the maximum value (*i.e.* $S_{traject.\ pack} = 1.60944$) for various coupling degrees between the one-nucleon and the collective *d.o.f.* and for the standard chosen wall frequencies
We begin the analysis with the [UCE]{} case. The single and collective uncoupled *d.o.f.* give birth to a quasi-laminar behaviour with a weak development of chaotic states. The one-particle informational entropy shows an identical evolution, no matter the frequency chosen. The orbit covers, after $800\ \rm{fm}/c$, only $62.50\ \%$ of the entire lattice (Table \[tab:2\] and Figure \[fig:9\]) and does not reach $100\ \%$, even after $\Delta t = 100,000\ \rm{fm}/c$ (Table \[tab:3\]). Also, the phase space is not covered up by all five trajectories for the whole range of $10,000\ \rm{fm}/c$ considered, when analyzing $S_{traject.\ pack}$ (Fig. \[fig:13\] and Table \[tab:4\]).
For the dipole oscillations mode, at $\Omega_{ad} = 0.05\ c/\rm{fm}$, it appears that, after only $800\ \rm{fm}/c$, the entropy closes in upon its maximum value: $S_{Max} = ln\ N_{total\ cells} = 4.1589$ (Fig. \[fig:11\] and Table \[tab:1\]). However, on long periods of time, the real tendency is towards filling up the nucleonic phase space as rapid as the vibrational frequency is increased (Table \[tab:3\]). The exact pattern is repeated when studying the Shannon entropy for closeby nucleonic trajectories (Fig. \[fig:15\] and Table \[tab:4\]).
We found quite the same feature for the monopole case, with exception for the intermittent “window” at $\Omega=0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$ (Tables \[tab:1\], \[tab:2\] and Fig. \[fig:10\]). The occupying rate is so small in the intermittent zone, that just at $11,442\ \rm{fm}/c$, the particle would have covered the whole phase space (see Table \[tab:3\]). A similar conclusion can be drawn from Table \[tab:4\] and Fig. \[fig:14\] (with a double temporal scale scanned for the intermittent frequency). The trajectory pack informational entropy reaches its highest value after the longest one-particle evolution time of all: $4,133\ \rm{fm}/c$.
The quadrupole oscillation also reveals an apparent intermittent pattern, this time at $\Omega_{ad} = %
0.05\ c/\rm{fm}$. We call it intermittent because after $800\ \rm{fm}/c$ the nucleon fills in only $42.19\ \%$ of the total number of bins (Figure \[fig:12\] and Table \[tab:2\]), and a longer time than $100,000\ \rm{fm}/c$ is required to get to $\eta = 100\ \%$ (Table \[tab:3\]). However, this behaviour can be a misleading one, the Shannon entropy for a trajectory bunch showing exactly the opposite (see Fig. \[fig:16\] and Table \[tab:4\]), after $122\ \rm{fm}/c$ the orbits being completely dispersed.
Lyapunov exponents
------------------
We furthermore presented another quantitative analysis: the temporal evolution of the Lyapunov exponents, $\lambda\left(t\right)$. As previously shown, initial adjacent points in the phase space $\Delta x_{0} (t=0)$, can generate in time separated trajectories $\Delta x\left(t\right)$. When studying the evolution of a single phase space parameter, the one-dimensional Lyapunov exponent takes the form:
$$\lambda\left(t\right)=\lim_{\left|\Delta x_{0}\right|\rightarrow 0} ln\left|\frac{\Delta x\left(t\right)}{\Delta x_{0}}\right|.$$
The generalization for obtaining the multi-dimensional Lyapunov exponent is then straightforward:
$$\lambda\left(t\right)=ln\frac{\left(\sum_{k=1}^{m}\left[x_{k}\left(t\right)-x_{k0}\right]^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{0.01},$$
where the sum is taken over all $m = 4$ squared differences between final $x_{k}\left(t\right)$ and initial $x_{k0}$ one-nucleon phase space variables. Integration times of the order of $10^{3}$ [fm]{}/c exclude errors when computing the Lyapunov exponents.
In short, we here remind that the trajectories can be classified as function of the Lyapunov exponents. Thus, one can distinguish periodical behaviours, for $\lambda=0$, dissipative movements with a fixed point or a basin of attraction $\left(\lambda<0\right)$, and aperiodical chaotic states $\left(\lambda>0\right)$, when the iterative discrete evolution of the solution series (Eqs. 5 and 6) leads to a chaotic pattern.
Another way of measuring the system sensitivity to initial conditions is to compute the largest Lyapunov exponent ([LLE]{}). Usually a couple of methods can be employed, one based on the time dependence of the multi-dimensional Lyapunov exponent, the other on Wolf’s standard method that uses a Gram-Schmidt Reorthonormalization of the tangent vectors [@wolf-85]. In the latter, the [LLE]{} is obtained by taking the asymptotic value of the multi-dimensional Lyapunov exponent:
$$\lambda_{Max}=\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\lambda\left(t\right)}{t}.$$
Still, this method has the disadvantage that the integration times have to be at least an order of magnitude larger than those here considered. Other methods are slightly less efficacious, being more CPU time-consuming when simulating strong chaotic systems [@ramasubramanian-00].
We consequently used the first method and noticed the saturation behaviour, *i.e.* the arising of a plateau after a certain time $t_{c}$ (Fig. \[fig:17\]). The straight lines represent fits whose slopes match the [LLE]{} (Table \[tab:5\]). They are in inverse proportion with the onset times of chaoticity $(\tau = 1/\lambda_{Max})$, being a measure of the trajectory decoupling at a microscopic level.
[cccc]{} Oscillation frequency & $L=0$ & $L=1$ & $L=2$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.020\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $0.003939$ & $0.008689$ & $0.004306$\
$\Omega \:_{ad} = 0.050\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $0.004432$ & $0.009829$ & $0.023203$\
$\Omega \:\;\ \ = 0.100\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $0.000761$ & $0.015454$ & $0.014402$\
$\Omega _{res} = 0.145\: c/\rm{fm}$ & $0.008739$ & $0.016662$ & $0.010086$\
When the single-particle and collective *d.o.f.* remain uncoupled, the Lyapunov exponents basically oscillate between two quasi-stationary regimes. This happens for all vibrational frequencies involved, reflecting a periodical regrouping of orbits in two basins of attraction. The phase space not being covered, even after a hundred of thousand of $\rm{fm}/c$, computing the [LLE]{} becomes futile for this case.
One can remark for dipole oscillations (Fig. \[fig:17\] - middle column) a faster evolution towards reaching saturation states of the 4-dimensional Lypaunov exponents, once passing from the adiabatic $(\tau _{ad}=115\ \rm{fm}/c)$ to the resonance phase of the interaction $(\tau _{res}=60\ \rm{fm}/c)$.
In the monopolar case the intermittency can be easily traced at $0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$ vibrational frequency (Fig. \[fig:17\] - left panels). During the intermittent stage, independent nearby orbits microscopically diverge with the slowest rate of all: $\tau =1,314\ \rm{fm}/c$ (Table \[tab:5\]). In order to catch the heaving in sight of the stationary plateau at $\approx 4,917\ \rm{fm}/c$, the temporal scale was scanned over $6,400\ \rm{fm}/c$.
The study of the quadrupole collective oscillation case confirms the results obtained with all previous analyses. Namely, the neighbouring trajectories deviate one from each other after just $43\ \rm{fm}/c$ at an adiabatic frequency: $0.05\ c/\rm{fm}$. Also, when increasing $\Omega$, the [LLE]{} evolution pattern exactly matches that found with informational entropy measured for a group of orbits (Tables \[tab:4\] and \[tab:5\]).
\[sec:3\]Conclusions
====================
We investigated the chaotic nucleonic behaviour in a two-dimensional deep Woods-Saxon potential well for specific phases of the nuclear interaction. By comparing the order-to-chaos transition for these cases of interest, from adiabatic to resonance regime, it was shown that the couplings between the one-particle dynamics and high multipole vibrational modes significantly decrease the onset of the chaotic nucleonic motion towards realistic nuclear interaction time scale.
The quantitative study enfolded a plethora of analyses, pointing out that the paths to chaos for the “nuclear billiard” are dissimilar for the studied multipolarities. For the first two multipole degrees we noticed a more rapid emergence of chaotic states as moving on towards higher radian frequencies of oscillation. When analyzing the system with quadrupole collective deformations of the potential well, an order-strong chaos-weak chaos-order sequence is revealed. Still, as emphasized in the “Shannon entropies” subsection, the quadrupole case represents an intricate one, and further analysis would be required before concluding it.
Every type of quantitative analysis strengthened previous results regarding the monopolar intermittency route to chaos for the “nuclear billiard”. The collective oscillation frequency for the intermittent behaviour was located prior to the resonance state of interaction (at $\Omega =0.1\ c/\rm{fm}$).
Further studies along the above issues are currently in progress. The used formalism can be improved by adding spin and charge to the nucleons. A semi-quantal treatment of this problem, including Pauli blocking effect, is hoped to shed more light on the discussed issue in the near future.
We wish to thank to R.I. Nanciu, I.S. Zgură, A.Ş. Cârstea, G. Păvălaş, S. Zaharia, A. Gheaţă, M. Rujoiu, A. Mitruţ, and R. Mărginean for fruitful discussions on this paper.
G.F. Burgio, M. Baldo, A. Rapisarda, and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. C **52**, 2475 (1995).
M. Baldo, G.F. Burgio, A. Rapisarda, and P. Schuck, in *Proceedings of the $XXXIV$ International Winter Meeting on Nuclear Physics, Bormio, Italy, 1996*, edited by I. Iori. arXiv:nucl-th/9602030
M. Baldo, G.F. Burgio, A. Rapisarda, and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. C **58**, 2821 (1998).
J. Blocki, Y. Boneh, J.R. Nix, J. Randrup, M. Robel, A.J. Sierk, and W.J. Swiatecki, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) **113**, 330 (1978).
P. Ring and P. Schuck, *The Nuclear Many Body Problem* (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980) p. 388.
J. Speth and A. van der Woude, Rep. Prog. Phys. **44**, 719 (1981).
C.Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. C **25**, 1460 (1982).
P. Grassberger and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. **50**, 346 (1983).
M. Sieber and F. Steiner, Physica D **44**, 248 (1990).
A. Rapisarda and M. Baldo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 2581 (1991).
A.Y. Abul-Magd and H.A. Weidenmüller, Phys. Lett. B **261**, 207 (1991).
J. Blocki, F. Brut, T. Srokowski, and W.J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys. A**545**, 511c (1992).
R. Blümel and J. Mehl, J. Stat. Phys. **68**, 311 (1992).
M. Baldo, E.G. Lanza, and A. Rapisarda, Chaos **3**, 691 (1993).
J. Blocki, J.J. Shi, and W.J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys. A**554**, 387 (1993).
M.V. Berry and J.M. Robbins, Proc. R. Soc., London, Sect. A **442**, 641 (1993).
E. Ott, *Chaos in Dynamical Systems* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1993).
W. Bauer, D. McGrew, V. Zelevinsky, and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 3771 (1994).
R. Hilborn, *Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics* (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1994).
R. Blümel and B. Esser, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 3658 (1994).
S. Drozdz, S. Nishizaki, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 2839 (1994).
S. Drozdz, S. Nishizaki, J. Wambach, and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 1075 (1995).
W. Bauer, D. McGrew, V. Zelevinsky, and P. Schuck, Nucl. Phys. A**583**, 93 (1995).
C. Jarzynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 2937 (1995).
A. Bulgac and D. Kusnezov, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals **5**, 1051 (1995).
A. Atalmi, M. Baldo, G.F. Burgio, and A. Rapisarda, Phys. Rev. C **53**, 2556 (1996). arXiv:nucl-th/9509020
A. Atalmi, M. Baldo, G.F. Burgio, and A. Rapisarda, in *Proceedings of the $XXXIV$ International Winter Meeting on Nuclear Physics, Bormio, Italy, 1996*, edited by I. Iori. arXiv:nucl-th/9602039
P.K. Papachristou, E. Mavrommatis, V. Constantoudis, F.K. Diakonos, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. C **77**, 044305 (2008). arXiv:nucl-th/0803.3336
D. Felea, C. Beşliu, R.I. Nanciu, Al. Jipa, I.S. Zgură, R. Mărginean, M. Haiduc, A. Gheaţă, and M. Gheaţă, in *Proceedings of the $7^{th}$ International Conference “Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions”, Strasbourg, 2000*, edited by W. Norenberg *et al.* (North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001) p. 222.
D. Felea, *The Study of Nuclear Fragmentation Process in Nucleus-Nucleus Collisions at Energies higher than 1 A GeV*, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bucharest, Faculty of Physics (2002) p. 134.
C.C. Bordeianu, C. Beşliu, Al. Jipa, D. Felea, and I.V. Grossu, Comput. Phys. Commun. **178**, 788 (2008).
C.C. Bordeianu, D. Felea, C. Beşliu, Al. Jipa, and I.V. Grossu, Comput. Phys. Commun. **179**, 199 (2008).
C.C. Bordeianu, D. Felea, C. Beşliu, Al. Jipa, and I.V. Grossu, Rom. Rep. in Phys. **60**, 287 (2008).
D. Felea, I.V. Grossu, C.C. Bordeianu, C. Beşliu, Al. Jipa, A.A. Radu, C.M. Mitu, and E. Stan, “Intermittency route to chaos for the nuclear billiard - a qualitative study”, Phys. Rev. C (submitted).
Y. Pomeau and P. Manneville, Commun. Math. Phys. **74**, 189 (1980).
P. Berge, M. Dubois, P. Manneville, and Y. Pomeau, J. Phys. (Paris) **41**, L344 (1980).
Y. Pomeau, J.C. Roux, A. Rossi, S. Bachelart, and C. Vidal, J. Phys. (Paris) **42**, L271 (1981).
P.S. Linsay, Phys. Rev. Lett. **47**, 1349 (1981).
J. Testa, J. Perez, and C. Jeffries, Phys. Rev. Lett. **48**, 714 (1982).
C. Jeffries and J. Perez, Phys. Rev. A **26**, 2117 (1982).
M. Dubois, M.A. Rubio, and P. Berge, Phys. Rev. Lett. **51**, 1446 (1983).
W.J. Yeh and Y.H. Kao, Appl. Phys. Lett. **42**, 299 (1983).
J.Y. Huang and J.J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A **36**, 1495 (1987).
P. Richetti, P. DeKepper, J.C. Roux, and H.L. Swinney, J. Stat. Phys. **48**, 977 (1987).
N. Kreisberg, W.D. McCormick, and H.L. Swinney, Physica D **50**, 463 (1991).
H.G. Schuster, *Deterministic Chaos: an introduction* (Physik-Verlag, Weinheim, Federal Republic of Germany, 1984).
P. Holmes and F. Diacu, *Intalniri ceresti - originea haosului si a stabilitatii* (Societatea Stiinta si Tehnica SA, Bucuresti, Romania, 1996) p. 150.
O. Penrose, Rep. Prog. Phys. **42**, 129 (1979).
A. Atalmi, M. Baldo, G. F. Burgio, and A. Rapisarda, Phys. Rev. C **58**, 2238 (1998).
A.M. Kowalski, M.T. Martin, J. Nuñez, A. Plastino, and A.N. Proto, Phys. Rev. A **58**, 2596 (1998).
A. Bialas, in *Proceedings of the NATO-ASI International Summer School “Particle Production Spanning MeV and TeV Energies”, Nijmegen, 1999*, edited by W. Kittel, P.J. Mulders, and O. Scholten, NATO Science Series C: Mathematical and Physical Sciences - Vol. 554 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Nijmengen, The Netherlands, 1999).
V. Latora and M. Baranger, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82** 520 (1999).
V. Latora, M. Baranger, A. Rapisarda, and C. Tsallis, Phys. Lett. A **273**, 97 (2000).
A. Wolf, J.B. Swift, H.L. Swinney, and J.A. Vastano, Physica D **16**, 285 (1985).
K. Ramasubramanian and M.S. Sriram, Physica D **139**, 72 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study actions of discrete groups on 2-categories. The motivating examples are actions on the 2-category of representations of finite tensor categories and their relation with the extension theory of tensor categories by groups. Associated to a group action on a 2-category, we construct the 2-category of equivariant objects. We also introduce the $G$-equivariant notions of pseudofunctor, pseudonatural transformation and modification. Our first main result is a coherence theorem for 2-categories with an action of a group. For a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$ with an action of a group $G$, we construct a braided $G$-crossed monoidal category $\mathcal{Z}_G({{\mathcal B}})$ with trivial component the Drinfeld center of ${{\mathcal B}}$. We prove that, in the case of a $G$-action on the 2-category of representation of a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$, the 2-category of equivariant objects is biequivalent to the module categories over an associated $G$-extension of ${{\mathcal C}}$. Finally, we prove that the center of the equivariant 2-category is monoidally equivalent to the equivariantization of a relative center, generalizing results obtained in [@GNN].'
address:
- 'Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía y Física Universidad Nacional de Córdoba CIEM – CONICET Medina Allende s/n (5000) Ciudad Universitaria, Córdoba, Argentina'
- ' Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de los Andes, Carrera 1 N. 18A - 10, Bogotá, Colombia '
author:
- 'Eugenia Bernaschini, César Galindo and Martín Mombelli'
title: 'Group actions on 2-categories'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The theory of 2-categories appears in a natural way in diverse contexts. For example, it was used by Rouquier to “categorify” certain algebraic objects [@R] and appears in topological field theories [@FSV], [@NS]. The theory of representations of 2-categories has been initiated in a series of papers [@MM1; @MM2; @MM3].
Our motivation for the study of 2-categories comes from the theory of tensor categories. For a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$, a representation of ${{\mathcal C}}$, or ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category, is a category ${{\mathcal M}}$ equipped with an associative action ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal M}}\to {{\mathcal M}}$ satisfying certain conditions. Given two ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories ${{\mathcal M}}, {{\mathcal N}}$, the category ${\operatorname{Fun}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal M}},{{\mathcal N}})$ is the category whose objects are ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor between ${{\mathcal M}}$ and ${{\mathcal N}}$, and morphisms are ${{\mathcal C}}$-module natural transformations. The 2-category of (left) ${{\mathcal C}}$-modules ${{}_{{{\mathcal C}}}\rm{Mod}}$ has as 0-cells ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories, 1-cells ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functors between them and 2-cells are ${{\mathcal C}}$-module natural transformations. This 2-category is a strong invariant of the tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$.
Given a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$ and a 2-monad $T:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$ on ${{\mathcal B}}$, in [@MN], the notion of the *equivariantization* 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}^T$ was presented. The equivariantization of a 2-category by a group was studied later in [@HSV].
One of the purposes of the paper is to explicitly describe an action of a group $G$ on a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$, and describe all ingredients of the resulting equivariantization 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}^G$. An action of a group $G$ on a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$ consists of
- a family of pseudofunctors $F_g:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$, $g\in G$,
- pseudonatural equivalences $\chi_{g,h}: F_g\circ F_h\to F_{gh}$,
- invertible modifications $$\omega_{g,h,f}: \chi_{gh,f} \circ (\chi_{g,h} {{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_f }) \Rightarrow \chi_{g,hf}\circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g} {{\otimes}}\chi_{h,f}),$$
for any $g, h, f\in G$, satisfying certain axioms. We also prove a coherence theorem for group action, stating that there exists another equivalent action of $G$ on ${{\mathcal B}}$, such that all pseudofunctors $F_g$ involved in the group action are 2-functors, $ F_g\circ F_h= F_{gh}$, and $\chi_{g,h}$, $\omega_{g,h,f}$ are all the identity. As an application of the coherent theorem we prove that associated to every action of group $G$ on a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$ there is a braided $G$-crossed monoidal category $\mathcal{Z}_G({{\mathcal B}})$ such that the trivial component is $\mathcal{Z}({{\mathcal B}})$, the Drinfeld center of ${{\mathcal B}}$.
An important example comes from the theory of tensor categories. We show that, if ${{\mathcal D}}=\oplus_{g\in G} {{\mathcal D}}_g$ is a $G$-graded tensor category, and ${{\mathcal D}}_1={{\mathcal C}}$, there is an action of the group $G$ acts on ${}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$, the 2-category of representations of ${{\mathcal C}}$, and there is a biequivalence $$({}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}^{{\rm{op}}})^G \simeq {}_{{{\mathcal D}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}.$$ The coherence theorem for group actions allows us to construct an associated strict braided crossed monoidal category and to prove that there is a monoidal equivalence between the center ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal B}}^G)$ of the equivariantization and the monoidal category of pseudonatural transformations of the forgetful pseudofunctor $\Phi:{{\mathcal B}}^G\to {{\mathcal B}}$. When applied this result to the 2-category $({}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}})^G $, we recover the results from [@GNN], on the center of graded tensor categories.
The contents of the paper are organized as follows. In Section \[Section:2-cat\] we recall the basics of 2-categories. For any pseudofunctor ${{\mathcal H}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}'$ we define the monoidal category ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$ of pseudonatural transformations $\eta:{{\mathcal H}}\to {{\mathcal H}}$. When ${{\mathcal H}}$ is the identity pseudofunctor, ${{\mathcal Z}}({\mbox{\rm Id\,}})$ is a braided monoidal category called the *center* of the 2-category.
In Section \[Section:group-2-cat\] we explicitly describe the notion of a group action on a 2-category. Given two 2-categories ${{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}}'$ equipped with an action of a group $G$, we define the notion of $G$-pseudofunctor between them. When a $G$-pseudofunctor is a biequivalence, we say that ${{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}}'$ are $G$-biequivalent. Also, we define the notions of $G$-pseudonatural transformation and $G$-modifications. All these data, turns out to be a 2-category, denoted by ${\textbf{2Cat}}^G({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}}')$. The equivariant 2-category is ${{\mathcal B}}^G={\textbf{2Cat}}^G(\mathcal{I},{{\mathcal B}})$, where $\mathcal{I}$ is the unit 2-category, where $G$ acts trivially.
In Section \[Section:coherence\] we prove that any 2-category with a group action is $G$-biequivalent to another one where the action is *strict*. Section \[Section:equivariant\] is devoted to explicitly describe all ingredients in the equivariant 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}^G$.
In Section \[Section:examples-from-cat\] we show an example coming from graded tensor categories. If ${{\mathcal D}}=\oplus_{g\in G} {{\mathcal D}}_g$ is a $G$-graded tensor category, then the group $G$ acts on the 2-category ${}_{{{\mathcal D}}_1}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$ of left ${{\mathcal D}}_1$-modules. The resulting equivariant 2-category $({}_{{{\mathcal D}}_1}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}})^G$ is biequivalent to ${}_{{{\mathcal D}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$. In Section \[braided-Gcrossed\] we define the $G$-braided center of a 2-category with an action of a group $G$. In Section \[Section-center\], we show that there is a monoidal equivalence ${{\mathcal Z}}( {{\mathcal B}}^G)\simeq {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)^G, $ where $\Phi:{{\mathcal B}}^G\to {{\mathcal B}}$ is the forgetful pseudofunctor. When applied to the example $({}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}})^G$, we recover results from [@GNN].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
The work of E.B and M.M. was partially supported by CONICET, Secyt (UNC), Argentina. M.M. is grateful to the department of mathematics at Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, where part of this work was done, for the kind hospitality.
2-categories {#Section:2-cat}
============
Let us briefly recall the notion of a 2-category. For more details, the reader is referred to [@KSt; @St]. For any 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$, the set of objects, also called *0-cells*, will be denoted by $\operatorname{Obj}({{\mathcal B}})$. The composition in each hom-category ${{\mathcal B}}(A, B)$, that is, the vertical composition of 2-cells, is denoted by juxtaposition $fg$, while the symbol $\circ$ is used to denote the horizontal composition functors $$\circ : {{\mathcal B}}(B, C) \times {{\mathcal B}}(A, B) \to {{\mathcal B}}(A, C).$$ The identity of a 0-cell $A$ is written as $I_A : A \to A$. For any 1-cell $X$ the identity will be denoted ${\mbox{\rm id\,}}_X$ or sometimes simply as $1_X$, when space saving is needed. For any 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$, we shall denote by ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\rm{op}}}$ the 2-category that is obtained from ${{\mathcal B}}$ by reversing 1-cells.
\[initial-2cat\] The unit 2-category $\mathcal{I}$ has a single 0-cell, named $\star$. The monoidal category $\mathcal{I}(\star,\star)$ is the unit monoidal category.
A *pseudofunctor* $(F,\alpha):{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}'$, consists of a function $F:\operatorname{Obj}({{\mathcal B}})\to \operatorname{Obj}({{\mathcal B}}')$, a family of functors $F:{{\mathcal B}}(A,B)\to {{\mathcal B}}'(F(A),F(B)),$ for each $A, B\in \operatorname{Obj}({{\mathcal B}})$, a collection of isomorphisms $\phi_A: I_{F(A)}\to F(I_A),$ and a family of natural isomorphisms $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal B}}(B,C)\times {{\mathcal B}}(A,B) \ar[d]_{F\times F} \ar[rr]^{\circ} & {\ar @{} [d] |{\Uparrow \alpha}}& {{\mathcal B}}(A,C) \ar[d]^{F} \\
{{\mathcal B}}'(F(B),F(C))\times {{\mathcal B}}'(F(A),F(B)) \ar[rr]^-{\circ},&& {{\mathcal B}}'(F(A),F(C))
}$$ for 0-cells $A, B, C$, subject to the usual axioms. A pseudofunctor is called *unital* if $F(I_A)= I_{F(A)}$, for any 0-cell $A$, and the isomorphisms $\phi_A$ are the identities. A pseudofunctor is called a *2-functor* if the associativity isomorphisms $\alpha$ are the identities.
If $F$, $G$ are pseudofunctors, a *pseudonatural transformation* consists of a family of 1-cells $\chi^0_A: F(A)\to G(A)$, $A\in \operatorname{Obj}({{\mathcal B}})$ and isomorphisms
$$\xymatrix{
F(A) \ar[r]^-{F(X)} \ar[d]_{\chi^0_A} & F(B) \ar[d]^{\chi^0_B}\\
G(A)\ar[r]_{G(X)} {\ar @{} [ru] |{\Downarrow \chi_X}} & G(B)
}$$natural in $X\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,B)$, subject to the usual axioms. If $\chi, \theta$ are pseudonatural transformations, a *modification* from to , consists of a family of 2-cells $\omega_A:\chi^0_A\to \theta^0_A$, such that the diagrams $$\xymatrix{
\chi^0_B\circ F(X) \ar[d]_{\omega_B\circ \operatorname{id}_{F(X)}} \ar[r]^{\chi_X} & G(X)\circ \chi^0_A \ar[d]^{ \operatorname{id}_{G(X)}\circ \omega_A}\\
\theta^0_B\circ F(X) \ar[r]^{\theta_X} & G(X)\circ \theta^0_A
}$$ commute for all $A\in \operatorname{Obj}({{\mathcal B}})$. This modification will be denoted as $\omega:\chi\Rightarrow \theta$. Given pseudofunctors $F,G:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$, we shall denote $\operatorname{Pseu-Nat}(F,G)$ the category where objects are pseudonatural transformations from $F$ to $G$ and arrows are modifications.
A 1-cell $X\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,B)$ is called an *equivalence* if there exists a 1-cell $Y\in {{\mathcal B}}(B,A)$ such that $X\circ Y\cong I_B$ and $Y\circ X\cong I_A$. We will say that an invertible 1-cell $X$ is an *isomorphism* if there is $X^{*}\in {{\mathcal B}}(B,A)$ such that $X\circ X^{*}= I_B$ and $X^{*}\circ X= I_A$. The next result will be useful later to simplify some proofs.
\[equivalence-1cells-iso\] Every 2-category (or bicategory) is biequivalent to a 2-category where every equivalence 1-cell is an isomorphism.
The proof goes along the lines of [@GPS Theorem 1.4]. Since every category is equivalent to a skeletal one. Every bicategory ${{\mathcal B}}$ is biequivalent to a locally skeletal one ${{\mathcal B}}'$, that is, each of its hom-category is skeletal. Then in ${{\mathcal B}}'$, every 1-cell equivalence is an isomorphism. By Street’s Yoneda lemma for bicategories [@St2 p.117 ], the Yoneda embedding $${{\mathcal B}}'\to \textbf{Bicat}({{\mathcal B}}',\textbf{Cat}): A\mapsto {{\mathcal B}}'^{{\rm{op}}}(A,-),$$ is locally an equivalence. Therefore, ${{\mathcal B}}'$ is biequivalent to ${{\mathcal B}}''$; the full sub-2category of $\textbf{Bicat}({{\mathcal B}}'^{\operatorname{op}},\textbf{Cat})$ determined by the contravariant representables. Since every equivalence in ${{\mathcal B}}'$ is an isomorphism, every equivalence in ${{\mathcal B}}''$ is an isomorphism and ${{\mathcal B}}$ is biequivalent to ${{\mathcal B}}''$.
The tricategory of 2-categories
-------------------------------
Given a pair of 2-categories ${{\mathcal B}}$ and ${{\mathcal B}}'$, we can define the *functor 2-category*, [**2Cat**]{}$({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}}')$, whose 0-cells are pseudofunctors ${{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}'$, whose 1-cells are pseudonatural transformations, and whose 2-cells are modifications. Given 2-categories ${{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}}'$ and ${{\mathcal B}}''$, we define a pseudo-functor $$\otimes: {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}',{{\mathcal B}}'')\times {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}}')\to {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}}''),$$ called the *tensor product*. The tensor product at the level of pseudofunctors is the composition. The tensor product of pseudonatural transformations is $$\label{tensorp-psnat}
(\xymatrix@C=8pt{ {{\mathcal B}}' \ar@/^0.6pc/[rr]^{G}\ar@{}[rr]|{\downarrow \beta}
\ar@/_0.6pc/[rr]_{ G'} & & {{\mathcal B}}''}\big)\big(\xymatrix@C=8pt{ {{\mathcal B}}\ar@/^0.6pc/[rr]^{F}\ar@{}[rr]|{\downarrow \alpha}
\ar@/_0.6pc/[rr]_{ F'} & & {{\mathcal B}}'}\big)=\big(\xymatrix@C=9pt{ {{\mathcal B}}\ar@/^0.7pc/[rr]^{GF}\ar@{}[rr]|{\downarrow \beta\otimes \alpha}
\ar@/_0.7pc/[rr]_{ G'\!F'} & & {{\mathcal B}}''}\big),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
(\beta \otimes \alpha)_A&=\beta_{F'(A)}\circ G(\alpha_A)\\
(\beta \otimes \alpha)_X&=(\beta_{F'(X)}\circ \operatorname{id}_{G(\alpha^0_A)})(\operatorname{id}_{\beta^0_{F'(B)}}\circ G(\alpha_X)).\end{aligned}$$ Here, the isomorphisms constraints of the pseudofunctors have been omitted as a space-saving measure. If $\beta':G\to G'$ and $\alpha':F\to F'$ are another pseudonatural transformations and $\omega:\beta\to \beta'$ and $\omega':\alpha\to \alpha'$ are modifications, their tensor product is defined as $\omega \otimes \omega': \beta{{\otimes}}\alpha\to \beta'{{\otimes}}\alpha'$, $(\omega \otimes \omega')_A := \omega_{F'(A)}\circ G(\omega'_A)$, for any 0-cell $A$. If $\alpha:F\to F'$ and $\beta: H\to H'$ are pseudonatural transformations between pseudofunctors $F,F'\in {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}',{{\mathcal B}}'') ,H,H'\in {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}}')$, then there is a modification
$$\xymatrix{
&F'H \ar[rd]^{{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F'}\otimes \beta}&\\
FH {\ar @{} [rr] |{\Downarrow c_{\alpha,\beta}}} \ar[rd]_{ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_H\otimes \beta} \ar[ru]^{\alpha\otimes {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_H}&& F'H'\\
&FH' \ar[ru]_{\alpha\otimes {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{H'}}&
}$$ given by $$\label{comparison-const}
(c_{\alpha,\beta})_A:=\alpha_{\beta_A}^{-1}: F'(\beta_A)\circ \alpha_{H(A)}\to \alpha_{H'(A)}\circ F(\beta_A).$$ This modification is called the *comparison constraint.*
The tensor product is associative only at the level of pseudofunctors, but not for pseudonatural transformations. There exists an associativity constraint
$$\xymatrix{
KHG {\ar @{} [rr] |{\Downarrow a_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}}} \ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{(\alpha \otimes \beta)\otimes \gamma} \ar@/_2pc/[rr]_{\alpha\otimes (\beta\otimes \gamma)}&& K'H'G'
}$$ for pseudonatural transformations $\alpha:K\to K'$, $\beta:H\to H'$ and $\gamma:G\to G'$. The modification $$(a_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma})_A:\alpha_{F'H'(A)}\circ G(\beta_{H'(A)})\circ GF(\gamma_A)\to\alpha_{F'H'(A)}\circ G(\beta_H'(A)\circ F(\gamma_A))$$ is defined by $(a_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma})_A=\operatorname{id}_{\alpha_{F'H'(A)}}\circ G_2(\beta_{H'(A)},F(\gamma_A))$. It is easy to see that $a$ satisfies the pentagonal identity.
Finite tensor categories {#subsection:tensorcat}
------------------------
A (strict) monoidal category is a 2-category with one single 0-cell. A *finite tensor category over* ${{\Bbbk}}$ is a finite ${{\Bbbk}}$-linear abelian rigid monoidal category ${{\mathcal C}}$ such that the tensor product functor $\otimes : {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ is ${{\Bbbk}}$-linear in each variable. The reader is referred to [@eo].
Suppose ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ are strict tensor categories. A *monoidal functor* $(F, \xi, \phi):{{\mathcal C}}\to
{{\mathcal D}}$ is a pseudofunctor between the corresponding 2-categories. Explicitly, it consists of a functor $F:{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal D}}$, natural isomorphisms $\xi_{X,Y}:F(X){{\otimes}}F(Y)\to F(X{{\otimes}}Y),$ $X, Y\in {{\mathcal C}}$, and isomorphism $\phi:{ \mathbf{1}}\to
F({ \mathbf{1}})$, satisfying certain axioms. If $(F,\xi,\phi), (F',\xi',\phi')$ are monoidal functors , a [ *natural monoidal transformation*]{} $\theta:(F,\xi,\phi)\to
(F',\xi',\phi')$ is a natural transformation $\theta:F\to
F'$, such that for any pair of objects $X, Y$ $$\label{tensort1} \theta_{{ \mathbf{1}}}\phi=\phi',\quad
\theta_{X{{\otimes}}Y}\xi_{X,Y}=\xi'_{X,Y} (\theta_{X}{{\otimes}}\theta_Y).$$
The endomorphism category of a pseudofunctor {#relative-center}
--------------------------------------------
If ${{\mathcal B}}$ is a 2-category, the monoidal category $${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal B}})={\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}})({\mbox{\rm Id\,}}_{{{\mathcal B}}},{\mbox{\rm Id\,}}_{{{\mathcal B}}})$$ is exactly the center of ${{\mathcal B}}$, *i.e.*, the obvious generalization of the center construction of a monoidal category. See [@MS].
Let ${{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}}'$ be two 2-categories and $({{\mathcal H}}, \alpha): {{\mathcal B}}\to{{\mathcal B}}' $ be a unital pseudofunctor. Denote ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})={\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}}')({{\mathcal H}},{{\mathcal H}})$; the category of pseudonatural transformations of the pseudofunctor ${{\mathcal H}}$. This is a monoidal category with tensor product described in the previous section. Explicitly, objects in ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$ are pairs $(V,\sigma)$, where $$V=\{V_A\in {{\mathcal B}}'({{\mathcal H}}(A),{{\mathcal H}}(A)) \text{1-cells, for any} A\in {{\mathcal B}}\},$$ $$\sigma=\{\sigma_X: V_B\circ {{\mathcal H}}_{A,B}(X)\to {{\mathcal H}}_{A,B}(X)\circ V_A\},$$ where, for any $X\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,B)$, $\sigma_X$ is a natural isomorphism 2-cell such that $$\label{relativ-cent1} \sigma_{I_A}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{V_A},
(\alpha_{X,Y}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{V_A}) \sigma_{X\circ Y}= ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{{{\mathcal H}}(X)}\circ \sigma_Y)(\sigma_X\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{{{\mathcal H}}(Y)})({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{V_B}\circ \alpha_{X,Y}),$$ for any 0-cells $A,B, C\in {{\mathcal B}}$, and any pair of 1-cells $X\in {{\mathcal B}}(C,B)$, $Y\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,C)$.
If $(V,\sigma)$, $(W,\tau)$ are two objects in ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$, a morphism $f:(V,\sigma)\to (W,\tau)$ in ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$ is a collection of 2-cells $f_A:V_A\Rightarrow W_A$, $A\in{{\mathcal B}}$ such that $$\label{relativ-cent2}
({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{{{\mathcal H}}(X)}\circ f_A)\sigma_X=\tau_X (f_B\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{{{\mathcal H}}(X)}),$$ for any 1-cell $X\in{{\mathcal B}}(A,B)$. The category ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$ has a monoidal product defined as follows. Let $(V,\sigma), (W,\tau)\in {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$ be two objects. Then $(V,\sigma){{\otimes}}(W,\tau)=(V{{\otimes}}W, \sigma{{\otimes}}\tau)$, where for any 0-cells $A, B\in {{\mathcal B}}$, and $X\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,B)$ $$\label{tensor-prod-relativ} (V{{\otimes}}W)_A=V_A\circ W_A,\quad
(\sigma{{\otimes}}\tau)_X = (\sigma_X\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{W_A})({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{V_B}\circ \tau_X).$$ If $(V,\sigma), (V',\sigma'), (W,\tau), (W',\tau')\in {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$ are objects, and $f:(V,\sigma)\to (V',\sigma'),$ $f':(W,\tau), (W',\tau')$ are morphisms in ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$, then $f{{\otimes}}f':(V,\sigma){{\otimes}}(V',\sigma') \to (W,\tau){{\otimes}}(W',\tau')$ is defined by $$(f{{\otimes}}f')_A=f_A\circ f'_A,$$ for any 0-cell $A$. The unit $({ \mathbf{1}},\iota)\in{{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$ is the object $${ \mathbf{1}}_A=I_A, \quad \iota_X={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_X,$$ for any 0-cells $A, B$ and any 1-cell $X\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,B).$ The center ${{\mathcal Z}}({\mbox{\rm Id\,}}_{{\mathcal B}})$ of the identity pseudofunctor ${\mbox{\rm Id\,}}_{{\mathcal B}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to{{\mathcal B}}$ is denoted as ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal B}})$, and it coincides with the definition presented in [@MS].
Group actions on 2-categories {#Section:group-2-cat}
=============================
Assume $G$ is a group and ${{\mathcal B}}$ is a 2-category. We shall denote by ${{\underline{\underline{G}}}}$ the 2-category that has 0-cells the elements of the group $G$. For any pair $g,h\in G$ $${{\underline{\underline{G}}}}(g,h)=\begin{cases} \text{ the unit category, if}\quad g=h\\
\emptyset\, \text{ if }\quad g\neq h.
\end{cases}$$ Moreover, ${{\underline{\underline{G}}}}$ is a monoidal 2-category, see [@GPS]. Since ${\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}})$ is also a monoidal 2-category, we define an *action* of $G$ on ${{\mathcal B}}$ as a weak monoidal homomorphism $({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega,\iota,\kappa,\zeta): {{\underline{\underline{G}}}}\to {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}})$. See for example [@GPS].
Explicitly, an action of $G$ on a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$ consists of the following data:
- A family of pseudofunctors $F_g:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$, $g\in G$,
- pseudonatural equivalences $(\chi_{g,h}, \chi^0_{g,h}): F_g\circ F_h\to F_{gh}$, $g, h\in G$,
- a pseudonatural equivalence $\iota: {\mbox{\rm Id\,}}_{{\mathcal B}}\to F_1$,
- for any $g,h,f\in G$ invertible modifications $$\omega_{g,h,f}: \chi_{gh,f} \circ (\chi_{g,h} {{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_f }) \Rightarrow \chi_{g,hf}\circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g} {{\otimes}}\chi_{h,f}),$$ $$\kappa_g: \chi_{1,g} \circ (\iota{{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g} ) \Rightarrow {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g}, \quad \zeta_g: \chi_{g,1}\circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g}{{\otimes}}\iota)\Rightarrow
{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g},$$
such that for any 0-cell $A$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mn1}
1_{(\chi^0_{g,f})_A} \circ F_g(\kappa_f)_A (\omega_{g,1,f})_A= 1_{(\chi^0_{g,f})_A} \circ ( \zeta_g)_{F_f(A)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mn2}\begin{split} &\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_3\circ (F_g(\omega_{h,f,k})_A) \big)\big(\omega_{g,hf,k}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_2 \big)
\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{(\chi^0_{ghf,k})_A}\circ (\omega_{g,h,f})_{F_k(A)}\big)=\\
&=\big((\omega_{g,h,fk})_A\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_4)\big)
\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_5\circ (\chi_{g,h})_{ \chi^0_{f,k}}\big)\big((\omega_{gh,f,k})_A\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_6\big),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for any $g,h,f,k\in G$. Where, $${\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{2}=1_{F_g( \chi^0_{h,f})_{F_k(A)}},\quad {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{3}=1_{(\chi^0_{g,hfk})_A}, \quad {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_4=1_{F_g F_f( \chi^0_{h,k})_A},$$ $${\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{5}=1_{(\chi^0_{gh,fk})_A}, \quad {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{6}= 1_{(\chi^0_{g,h})_{F_fF_k(A)}}.$$ In equation , we are omitting the associativity isomorphisms of the pseudofunctors $F_g$. In the following diagrams we shall denote by ${\overline{g}}$ the pseudofunctor $F_g$, the composition of functors as juxtaposition and the tensor product of pseudonatural transformations also by juxtaposition. Diagrammatically, we have modifications $$\xymatrixrowsep{0.5in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.5in}
\xymatrix{
{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{h}}\ {\overline{f}} \ar[d]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \chi_{h,f}} \ar[rr]^{\chi_{g,h}\otimes 1_{{\overline{f}}}}&& {\overline{gh}}\ {\overline{f}} \ar[d]^{\chi_{gh,f}}\\
{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{hf}} \ar[rr]_{\chi_{g,hf}}&& {\overline{ghf}} {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow\omega_{g,h,f}}},
}$$
such that the next diagrams are equal for all $g,h,f,k \in G$,
$$\label{omega-axiom}
\xymatrixrowsep{0.2in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.2in}
\xymatrix{
& & {\overline{gh}}\ {\overline{f}}\ {\overline{f}}\ar[rrrr]^{\chi_{gh,f}\otimes 1_{{\overline{k}}}} {\ar @{} [ddrr] |{\Downarrow\omega_{g,h,f}\otimes 1_{{\overline{k}}}}} & & & & {\overline{ghf}}\ {\overline{k}}\ar[rrdd]^{\chi_{ghf,k}} & & \\
& & & & & & & & \\
{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{h}}\ {\overline{f}}\ {\overline{k}}\ar[rruu]^{\chi_{g,h}\otimes 1_{{\overline{f}}}\otimes 1_{{\overline{k}}}} \ar[rrdd]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes 1_{{\overline{h}}}\otimes \chi_{f,k}}\ar[rrrr]^{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \chi_{h,f}\otimes 1_{{\overline{k}}}} & & & & {\overline{g}}\ {\overline{hf}}\ {\overline{k}}\ar[rruu]^{\chi_{g,hf}\otimes 1_{{\overline{k}}}}\ar[rrdd]^{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \chi_{hf,k}} & & & & {\overline{ghfk}} {\ar @{} [llll] |{\Downarrow \omega_{g,hf,k}}}\\
& & & & & & & & \\
& & {\overline{g}} \ {\overline{h}}\ {\overline{fk}} {\ar @{} [rrruu] |{\Downarrow 1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \omega_{h,f,k}}} \ar[rrrr]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \chi_{h,fk}} & & & & {\overline{g}}\ {\overline{hfk}}\ar[rruu]_{\chi_{g,hfk}} & &
}$$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.2in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.2in}
\xymatrix{
& & {\overline{gh}}\ {\overline{f}}\ {\overline{k}} \ar[ddrr]^{1_{{\overline{gh}}}\otimes\chi_{f,k}} \ar[rrrr]^{\chi_{gh,f}\otimes 1_{{\overline{k}}}} & & & & {\overline{ghf}}\ {\overline{k}}\ar[rrdd]^{\chi_{ghf,k}} {\ar @{} [lldd] |{\Downarrow \omega_{gh,f,k}}} & & \\
& & & & & & & & \\
{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{h}}\ {\overline{f}}\ {\overline{k}} \ar[rruu]^{\chi_{g,h}\otimes 1_{{\overline{f}}}\otimes 1_{{\overline{k}}}} \ar[rrdd]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes 1_{{\overline{h}}}\otimes \chi_{f,k}} {\ar @{} [rrrr] |{\Downarrow c_{\chi_{g,h},\chi_{f,k}}}} & & & & {\overline{gh}}\ {\overline{fk}} \ar[rrrr]_{\chi_{gh,fk}} & & & & {\overline{ghfk}} \\
& & & & & & & & \\
& & {\overline{g}} \ {\overline{h}}\ {\overline{fk}} \ar[uurr]_{\chi_{g,h}\otimes 1_{{\overline{fk}}}} \ar[rrrr]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \chi_{h,fk}} & & & & {\overline{g}}\ {\overline{hfk}}\ar[rruu]_{\chi_{g,hfk}} {\ar @{} [lluu] |{\Downarrow\omega_{g,h,fk}}} & &
}$$
We say that a group $G$ acts *trivially* on ${{\mathcal B}}$ if the weak monoidal homomorphism $({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega,\iota,\kappa,\zeta): {{\underline{\underline{G}}}}\to {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}})$ is the trivial one. This means that for any $g,h\in G$, the pseudofunctors $F_g$ are the identity, $\chi_{g,h}$ are the identity pseudonatural transformations and all the modifications are identities.
\[unital-act\] An action $({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega,\iota,\kappa,\zeta): {{\underline{\underline{G}}}}\to {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}})$ is called *unital* if $F_g$ is a unital pseudofunctor, $F_1={\mbox{\rm Id\,}}_{{\mathcal B}}$, and $\chi_{g,1}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g}=\chi_{1,g}$, $\kappa_g={\mbox{\rm id\,}}=\zeta_g$ for any $g\in G$. A unital $G$-action will be denoted simply by $({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega)$.
\[strict-act\] An action $({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega,\iota,\kappa,\zeta): {{\underline{\underline{G}}}}\to {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}})$ is called *strict* if each pseudofunctor $F_g$ is a 2-functor, and $F_g\circ F_h=F_{gh}$, and the pseudonatural transformations $\chi_{g,h}$ and the modifications $\omega_{g,h,f}$ are the identities for any $g,h,f\in G$.
A similar argument as in [@Ga2 Proposition 3.1] applied in this case, allows us to consider only unital actions. Assume that ${{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}}'$ are 2-categories equipped with unital actions of a group $G$ via $$({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega): {{\underline{\underline{G}}}}\to {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}}),\,\, (\widetilde {{\mathcal F}},\widetilde \chi,\widetilde \omega): {{\underline{\underline{G}}}}\to {\textbf{2Cat}}(\widetilde{{{\mathcal B}}}, \widetilde{{{\mathcal B}}}).$$
A *$G$-pseudofunctor* between ${{\mathcal B}}$ and $\widetilde{{{\mathcal B}}}$ is a triple $({{\mathcal H}}, \gamma, \Pi)$, where
- ${{\mathcal H}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to \widetilde{{{\mathcal B}}}$ is a unital pseudofunctor,
- for any $g\in G$, pseudonatural equivalences $\gamma_g:{{\mathcal H}}\circ F_g \to \widetilde F_g\circ {{\mathcal H}},$
- invertible modifications $$\xymatrix{
&{\widetilde{f}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{g}} \ar[rr]^{1_{{\widetilde{f}}}\otimes \gamma_g}&& {\widetilde{f}}{\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[rd]^{{\widetilde{\chi_{f,g}}}\otimes 1_{{{\mathcal H}}}}\\
{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{f}}\ {\overline{g}} \ar[ru]^{\gamma_f\otimes 1_{{\overline{g}}}} \ar[rrd]_{1_{{{\mathcal H}}}\otimes \chi_{f,g}}&&&& {\widetilde{fg}}{{\mathcal H}}\\
&&{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{fg}} \ar[rru]_{\gamma_{fg}} {\ar @{} [uu] |{\Downarrow\Pi_{f,g}}}&&
}$$
such that such that for all $f,g,h\in G$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G-funct1} \gamma_1={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{{\mathcal H}}, \quad \Pi_{g,1}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\gamma_g}=\Pi_{1,g},\end{aligned}$$ $$\label{Pi-axiom}
\xymatrixrowsep{0.2in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.2in}
\xymatrix{
& & & {\widetilde{f}}{\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{h}} \ar[rrd]^{1_{{\widetilde{f}}}1_{{\widetilde{g}}}\gamma_h } {\ar @{} [dd] |{\Downarrow1_{{\widetilde{f}}}{{\otimes}}\Pi_{g,h}}} & & & \\
& {\widetilde{f}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{g}}{\overline{h}} \ar[rru]^{1_{{\widetilde{f}}}\gamma_g1_{{\overline{h}}}}\ar[rd]^{1_{{\widetilde{f}}{{\mathcal H}}}\chi_{g,h}} & & & & {\widetilde{f}}{\widetilde{g}}{\widetilde{h}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[ld]_{1_{{\widetilde{f}}}{\widetilde{\chi_{g,h}}}1_{{{\mathcal H}}}}\ar[rd]^{{\widetilde{\chi_{f,g}}}1_{{\widetilde{h}}{{\mathcal H}}}} & \\
{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{f}}{\overline{g}}{\overline{h}} {\ar @{} [rr] |{c_{\gamma_f,\chi_{g,h}}}} \ar[ru]^{\gamma_f 1_{{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{h}}}}\ar[rd]_{1_{{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{f}}}\chi_{g,h}} & & {\widetilde{f}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{gh}}\ar[rr]^{1_{{\widetilde{f}}}\gamma_{gh}} & & {\widetilde{f}}{\widetilde{gh}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[rd]_{{\widetilde{\chi_{f,gh} 1_{{{\mathcal H}}}}}} & & {\widetilde{fg}}{\widetilde{h}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[ld]^{{\widetilde{\chi_{fg,h}}}1_{{{\mathcal H}}}}\\
& {{\mathcal H}}\overline{f}\ \overline{gh} \ar[ru]_{\gamma_f 1_{{\overline{gh}}}}\ar[rrd]_{\chi_{f,gh}} & & & & {\widetilde{fgh}}{{\mathcal H}}{\ar @{} [uu] |{\overset{\widetilde\omega_{f,g,h}}{\Leftarrow}}} & \\
& & & {{\mathcal H}}\overline{fgh} \ar[rru]_{\gamma_{fgh}} {\ar @{} [uu] |{\Downarrow\Pi_{f,gh}}}& & &
}$$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.2in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.2in}
\xymatrix{
& & & {\widetilde{f}}{\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{h}} \ar[ddr]^{{\widetilde{\chi_{f,g}}}1_{{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{h}}}} \ar[rrd]^{1_{{\widetilde{f}}}1_{{\widetilde{g}}}\gamma_h } & & & \\
& {\widetilde{f}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{g}}{\overline{h}} {\ar @{} [rrr] |{\Downarrow \Pi_{f,g}{{\otimes}}1_{{\overline{h}}}}} \ar[rru]^{1_{{\widetilde{f}}}\gamma_g1_{{\overline{h}}}} & & & & {\widetilde{f}}{\widetilde{g}}{\widetilde{h}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[rd]^{{\widetilde{\chi_{f,g}}}1_{{\widetilde{h}}{{\mathcal H}}}} {\ar @{} [dl] |{c_{\widetilde\chi_{f,g},\gamma_h}}}& \\
{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{f}}{\overline{g}}{\overline{h}} \ar[rr]^{1_{{{\mathcal H}}}\chi_{f,g}1_{{\overline{h}}}} \ar[ru]^{\gamma_f 1_{{\overline{g}}{\overline{h}}}}\ar[rd]_{1_{{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{f}}}\chi_{g,h}} & & {{\mathcal H}}{\overline{fg}}\ {\overline{h}} \ar[rr]^{\gamma_{fg}1_{{\overline{h}}}} \ar[ddr]^{1_{{{\mathcal H}}}\chi_{fg,h}} & & {\widetilde{fg}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{h}} {\ar @{} [dd]+<6mm> |{\Downarrow\Pi_{fg,h}}} \ar[rr]^{1_{{\widetilde{fg}}}\gamma_h}& & {\widetilde{fg}}{\widetilde{h}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[ld]^{{\widetilde{\chi_{fg,h}}}1_{{{\mathcal H}}}}\\
& {{\mathcal H}}\overline{f}\ \overline{gh} {\ar @{} [ur] |{\overset{1_{{{\mathcal H}}}{{\otimes}}\omega_{f,g,h}}{\Leftarrow}}} \ar[rrd]_{1_{{{\mathcal H}}}\chi_{f,gh}} & & & & {\widetilde{fgh}}{{\mathcal H}}& \\
& & & {{\mathcal H}}\overline{fgh} \ar[rru]_{\gamma_{fgh}} & & &
}$$ holds in [**2Cat**]{}$({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}})$. In the above diagrams, we are using the comparison constraints $c$ defined in .
Assume that $({{\mathcal H}},\gamma, \Pi), ({{\mathcal H}}',\gamma', \Pi')$ are $G$-pseudofunctors. A $G$-*pseudonatural* transformation is a pair $(\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G})$, where $\theta: {{\mathcal H}}\to {{\mathcal H}}'$ is a pseudonatural transformation, and $\theta_g$ are invertible modifications $$\xymatrixrowsep{0.6in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.6in}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{g}} \ar[r]^{\gamma_g } \ar[d]_{\theta{{\otimes}}{1_{\overline{g}}} } & {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[d]^{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}{{\otimes}}\theta} \\
{{\mathcal H}}'{\overline{g}}\ \ar[r]^{\gamma_{g}'} & {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}' \ar@{}[ul]|-{\Downarrow \theta_g}
}$$
such that for all $g,f \in G$, the equation $$\xymatrixrowsep{0.3in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.3in}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{f}} \ar@{}[rrd]|-{\Downarrow \theta_g{1_{\overline{f}}}} \ar[rr]^{\gamma_g {1_{\overline{f}}}} \ar[d]_{\theta {1_{\overline{g}}} {1_{\overline{f}}}} && {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{f}} \ar@{}[rrd]|-{\Downarrow {1_{\widetilde{g}}}\theta_f} \ar[d]_{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}\theta{1_{\overline{f}}}} \ar[rr]^{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}\gamma_f} && {\widetilde{g}}{\widetilde{f}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar@{}[rrd]|-{\Downarrow c_{\theta,{\widetilde{\chi_{g,f}}}}} \ar[d]_{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}{1_{\widetilde{f}}}\theta} \ar[rr]^{{\widetilde{\chi}}_{g,f}1_{{{\mathcal H}}}} &&{\widetilde{gf}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[d]^{{1_{\widetilde{gf}}}\theta} &\\
{{\mathcal H}}'{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{f}} \ar@/_/[rrrd]_{1_{{{\mathcal H}}'}\chi_{g,f}}\ar[rr]_{\gamma_{g}'{1_{\overline{f}}}} && {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}'{\overline{f}} \ar[rr]^{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}\gamma_f'}&& {\widetilde{g}}{\widetilde{f}}{{\mathcal H}}' \ar[rr]_{{\widetilde{\chi_{g,f}}}1_{{{\mathcal H}}'}}&& {\widetilde{gf}}{{\mathcal H}}' & \\
&&&{{\mathcal H}}'{\overline{gf}} \ar@/_/[rrru]_{\gamma_{gf}'} \ar@{}[u]|-{\Downarrow \Pi_{g,f}'}
}$$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.3in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.3in}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{f}} \ar[d]_{\theta{1_{\overline{g}}}{1_{\overline{f}}}} \ar@/_/[rrrd]_{1_{{{\mathcal H}}}\chi_{g,f}}\ar[rr]_{\gamma_{g}{1_{\overline{f}}}} && {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{f}} \ar[rr]^{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}\gamma_f}&& {\widetilde{g}}{\widetilde{f}}{{\mathcal H}}' \ar[rr]_{{\widetilde{\chi_{g,f}}}1_{{{\mathcal H}}}}&& {\widetilde{gf}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[d]^{{1_{\widetilde{gf}}}\theta} \\ {{\mathcal H}}'{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{f}} \ar@{}[rrr]<-3mm>|-{\Downarrow c_{\theta,\chi_{g,f}}^{-1}} \ar@/_/[rrrd]_{1_{{{\mathcal H}}'}\chi_{g,f}}
&&&{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{gf}} \ar[d]_{\theta{1_{\overline{gf}}}}\ar@/_/[rrru]_{\gamma_{gf}} \ar@{}[u]|-{\Downarrow \Pi_{g,f}}&&&{\widetilde{gf}}{{\mathcal H}}' \ar@{}[lll]<3mm>|-{\Downarrow \theta_{gf}} \\
&&&{{\mathcal H}}'{\overline{gf}} \ar@/_/[rrru]_{\gamma_{gf}'}
}$$ holds in [**2Cat**]{}$({{\mathcal B}},{{\mathcal B}})$.
Assume that $(\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G}), (\sigma, \{\sigma_g\}_{g\in G}):({{\mathcal H}}, \gamma, \Pi)\to
(\widetilde{{\mathcal H}}, \widetilde\gamma, \widetilde\Pi)$ are $G$-pseudonatural transformations. A *$G$-modification* $\alpha: (\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G})\Rightarrow(\sigma, \{\sigma_g\}_{g\in G})$ is a modification $\alpha: \theta \Rightarrow \sigma$ such that
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.4in}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{g}} \ar[rr]^{\gamma_g } \ar@{}[d]|-{\overset{\alpha \otimes {1_{\overline{g}}}}{\Leftarrow }} \ar@/_3pc/[d]_{\sigma \otimes {1_{\overline{g}}} } \ar@/^3pc/[d]^{\theta \otimes {1_{\overline{g}}} } && {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[d]^{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}\theta_g} \\
{{\mathcal H}}'{\overline{g}}\ \ar[rr]_{\gamma_{g}'} && {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}' \ar@{}[ul]|-{\Downarrow \theta_g}
}$$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.4in}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal H}}{\overline{g}} \ar[rr]^{\gamma_g } \ar[d]_{\sigma_g\otimes {1_{\overline{g}}}} \ar@{}[rrd]<-1mm>_{\Downarrow \sigma_g} && {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}\ar@{}[d]|-{\overset{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}\otimes \alpha}{\Leftarrow }} \ar@/_3pc/[d]_{ {1_{\widetilde{g}}}\otimes \sigma } \ar@/^3pc/[d]^{{1_{\widetilde{g}}}\otimes \theta } \\
{{\mathcal H}}'{\overline{g}}\ \ar[rr]_{\gamma_{g}'} && {\widetilde{g}}{{\mathcal H}}'
}$$
Assume that $({{\mathcal H}}^1, \gamma^1, \Pi^1), ({{\mathcal H}}^2, \gamma^2, \Pi^2), ({{\mathcal H}}^3, \gamma^3, \Pi^3)$ are $G$-pseudofunctors, and $(\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G}): ({{\mathcal H}}^1, \gamma^1, \Pi^1)\to ({{\mathcal H}}^2, \gamma^2, \Pi^2)$, $(\sigma, \{\sigma_g\}_{g\in G}): ({{\mathcal H}}^2, \gamma^2, \Pi^2)\to ({{\mathcal H}}^3, \gamma^3, \Pi^3)$ are $G$-pseudonatural transformations. The composition $$(\sigma, \{\sigma_g\}_{g\in G}) \circ (\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G})=(\rho, \{\rho_g\}_{g\in G})$$ is defined as follows. The pseudonatural transformation $\rho=\sigma\circ \theta$. For any 0-cell $A\in {{\mathcal B}}$ and any $g\in G$ $$(\rho_g)_A= \big((\sigma_g)_A\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{ \theta^0_{F_g(A)}} \big)
\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde F_g(\sigma^0_A)}\circ (\theta_g)_A)\big).$$ Here, we are also ommiting the associativity constraints of the pseudofunctor $F_g$. The composition of modifications of $G$-categories is the usual composition of modifications.
${\textbf{2Cat}}^G({{\mathcal B}}, \widetilde{{\mathcal B}})$ is the 2-category in which 0-cells are pseudofunctors of $G$-categories, 1-cells are pseudonatural transformations of $G$-categories and 2-cells are modifications of $G$-categories.
The next result is a consequence of [@GPS Corollary 8.3].
${\textbf{2Cat}}^G({{\mathcal B}}, \widetilde{{\mathcal B}})$ is a 2-category.
We say that the 2-categories ${{\mathcal B}}$ and $ \widetilde{{\mathcal B}}$ are $G$-*biequivalent* if there exists a $G$-pseudofunctor ${{\mathcal H}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to \widetilde{{\mathcal B}}$ that is also a biequivalence.
\[transport\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be a 2-category with an action of $G$ given by $({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega)$. Let ${{\mathcal H}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}'$ be a biequivalence, $$L_g:{{\mathcal B}}'\to {{\mathcal B}}', \ \ \gamma_g:{{\mathcal H}}\circ F_g\to L_g\circ {{\mathcal H}}$$ a $G$-indexed family of pseudofunctors and pseudonatural equivalences, respectively. Then, there is a way to endowed ${{\mathcal B}}'$ with a $G$-action $(L,\chi',\omega')$ such that $({{\mathcal H}},\gamma, \Pi ):{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}'$ is a $G$-biequivalence .
Since $\gamma_g$ and $\chi_{f,g}$ are psedonatural equivalences, we can simultaneously provide the datum $\Pi_{f,g}$ and the pseudonatural equivalences $\chi'_{f,g}:L_f\circ L_g\to L_{fg}$, $f, g\in G$. Now, axiom \[Pi-axiom\] uniquely determines the modifications $\omega_{f,g,h}'$. Axiom \[omega-axiom\] follows from the corresponding axioms of $G$-action via $({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega)$. The pseudofunctor $({{\mathcal H}},\gamma, \Pi ):{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}'$ is a $G$-biequivalence by construction.
\[action with 2-functors\] Every 2-category with a $G$-action is $G$-biequivalent to a 2-category where $G$ acts by 2-functors, that is, all $F_g$ are 2-functors.
By the coherence of theorem for pseudofunctor, see [@tricat-nick Section 2.3], every bicategory ${{\mathcal B}}$ is biequivalent to a 2-category $\operatorname{st}({{\mathcal B}})$ such that every pseudo-functor $F:\operatorname{st}({{\mathcal B}})\to \operatorname{st}({{\mathcal B}})$ is pseudo-natural equivalent to a 2-functor. Then applying Lemma \[transport\] we can transport the action of ${{\mathcal B}}$ to a $G$-biequivalent action on $\operatorname{st}({{\mathcal B}})$ where $G$ acts by 2-functors.
Coherence for group actions on 2-categories {#Section:coherence}
===========================================
The main result of this section is to prove the following coherence theorem for a group action on a 2-category.
\[coherence-groupact\] Let $G$ be a group. Every 2-category with an action of $G$ is $G$-biequivalent to a 2-category with a strict action of $G$.
Assume ${{\mathcal B}}$ is a 2-category equipped with a unital action of $G$, $({{\mathcal F}},\chi,\omega): {{\underline{\underline{G}}}}\to {\textbf{2Cat}}({{\mathcal B}}, {{\mathcal B}})$. By Corollary \[action with 2-functors\] we can assume that $F_g$ is a 2-functor for any $g\in G$. We shall first construct a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$ with a strict action of $G$.
Objects of ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$ are triples $(A,\theta,\alpha)$, where $A=\{A_g\}_{g}$ is a $G$-indexed family of objects, $\theta=\{\theta_{g,h}:F_g(A_h)\to A_{gh}\}_{g,h\in G}$ is a $G\times G$-indexed family of 1-cell equivalences and $$\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.4in}
\xymatrix{
F_{g}F_{h}(A_{f}) \ar[d]_{F_g(\theta_{h,f})} \ar[rr]^{(\chi_{g,h}^0)_{A_f}}&& F_{gh}(A_{f}) \ar[d]^{\theta_{gh,f}}\\
F_g(A_{hf}) \ar[rr]_{\theta_{g,hf}}&& A_{ghf} {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow\alpha_{g,h,f}}},
}$$ a $G\times G\times G$-index family of isomorphism 2-cells, such $$\theta_{1,g}=I_{A_g}, \quad \alpha_{1,h,f}=\operatorname{id}, \quad \alpha_{g,1,f}=\operatorname{id}$$ that for all $g,h,f,k$, and equation $$\label{obj-axiom}
\xymatrixrowsep{0.2in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.2in}
\xymatrix{
& & {\overline{gh}}\ {\overline{f}}\ A_k\ar[rrrr]^{\chi_{gh,f}^0} {\ar @{} [ddrr] |{\Downarrow\omega_{g,h,f}}} & & & & {\overline{ghf}}\ A_k\ar[rrdd]^{\theta_{ghf,k}} & & \\
& & & & & & & & \\
{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{h}}\ {\overline{f}}\ A_{k}\ar[rruu]^{\chi_{g,h}^0\otimes 1_{{\overline{f}}}} \ar[rrdd]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes 1_{{\overline{h}}}\otimes \theta_{f,k}}\ar[rrrr]^{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \chi_{h,f}^0} & & & & {\overline{g}}\ {\overline{hf}}\ A_k\ar[rruu]^{\chi_{g,hf}^0}\ar[rrdd]^{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \theta_{hf,k}} & & & & A_{ghfk} {\ar @{} [llll] |{\Downarrow \alpha_{g,hf,k}}}\\
& & & & & & & & \\
& & {\overline{g}} \ {\overline{h}}\ A_{fk} {\ar @{} [rrruu] |{\Downarrow 1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \alpha_{h,f,k}}} \ar[rrrr]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \theta_{h,fk}} & & & & {\overline{g}}\ A_{hfk}\ar[rruu]_{\theta_{g,hfk}} & &
}$$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.2in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.2in}
\xymatrix{
& & {\overline{gh}}\ {\overline{f}}\ A_k \ar[ddrr]^{1_{{\overline{gh}}}\otimes\theta_{f,k}} \ar[rrrr]^{\chi_{gh,f}^0} & & & & {\overline{ghf}}\ A_k\ar[rrdd]^{\theta_{ghf,k}} {\ar @{} [lldd] |{\Downarrow \alpha_{gh,f,k}}} & & \\
& & & & & & & & \\
{\overline{g}}\ {\overline{h}}\ {\overline{f}}\ A_k \ar[rruu]^{\chi_{g,h}^0\otimes 1_{{\overline{f}}}} \ar[rrdd]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes 1_{{\overline{h}}}\otimes \theta_{f,k}} {\ar @{} [rrrr] |{\Downarrow (\chi_{g,h})_{\theta_{f,k}}}} & & & & {\overline{gh}}\ A_{fk} \ar[rrrr]_{\theta_{gh,fk}} & & & & A_{ghfk} \\
& & & & & & & & \\
& & {\overline{g}} \ {\overline{h}}\ A_{fk} \ar[uurr]_{\chi_{g,h}^0} \ar[rrrr]_{1_{{\overline{g}}}\otimes \theta_{h,fk}} & & & & {\overline{g}}\ A_{hfk}\ar[rruu]_{\theta_{g,hfk}} {\ar @{} [lluu] |{\Downarrow\alpha_{g,h,fk}}} & &
}$$ holds in ${{\mathcal B}}(F_g (F_h(F_f(A_k)), A_{ghfk})$. If $(A,\theta, \alpha)$ is a 0-cell, the identity 1-cell $I_{(A,\theta, \alpha)}$ is defined as follows. $I_{(A,\theta, \alpha)}=(I_{A_g}, l)$, where $l_{g,h}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\theta_{g,h}}$, for any $g,h\in G$.
If $(A,\theta, \alpha)$ and $(B,\rho ,\beta)$ are objects in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$, a 1-cell is a pair $(X,l )$, where $X=\{X_g:A_g\to B_g\}$ is a $G$-indexed family of 1-cells and $$\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.4in}
\xymatrix{
F_{g}(A_{h}) \ar[d]_{\theta_{g,h}} \ar[rr]^{F_g(X_h)}&& F_g(B_h) \ar[d]^{\rho_{g,h}}\\
A_{gh} \ar[rr]_{X_{gh}}&& B_{gh} {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow l_{g,h}}},
}$$ is a $G\times G$-indexed family of isomorphism 2-cells, such that for all $f,g,h\in G$, $l_{1,g}=\operatorname{id}_{X_g}$ and equation $$\label{axiom-1-cell B[G]}
\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.4in}
\xymatrix{
{\overline{f}}\ {\overline{g}}(A_{h}) \ar[d]_{{\overline{f}}(\theta_{g,h})} \ar[rr]^{{\overline{f}}\ {\overline{g}} (X_h)}&& {\overline{f}}\ {\overline{g}} (B_h) \ar[d]^{{\overline{f}}\rho_{g,h})} \ar[rr]^{\chi_{f,g}^0} && {\overline{fg}}(B_h) \ar[d]^{\rho_{fg,h}}\\
{\overline{f}}(A_{gh}) \ar[rrd]_{\theta_{f,gh}} \ar[rr]_{{\overline{f}}(X_{gh})}&& {\overline{f}}(B_{gh}) {\ar @{} [d] |{\Downarrow l_{f,gh}}} {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow {\overline{f}}(l_{g,h})}} \ar[rr]_{\rho_{f,gh}} && {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow \beta_{f,g,h}}} B_{fgh}\\
&& A_{fgh} \ar[rru]_{X_{fgh}} &&
}$$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.4in}
\xymatrix{
{\overline{f}}\ {\overline{g}}(A_{h}) \ar[d]_{{\overline{f}}(\theta_{g,h})} \ar[rrd]_{\chi^0_{f,g}} \ar[rr]^{{\overline{f}}\ {\overline{g}} (X_h)}&& {\overline{f}}\ {\overline{g}} (B_h) {\ar @{} [d] |{\Downarrow (\chi_{f,g})_{X_h}}} \ar[rr]^{\chi_{f,g}^0} && {\overline{fg}}(B_h) \ar[d]^{\rho_{fg,h}}\\
{\overline{f}}(A_{gh}) \ar[rrd]_{\theta_{f,gh}} {\ar @{} [rr] |{\Downarrow \alpha_{f,g,h}}} && {\overline{fg}}(A_{h}) \ar[rru]_{{\overline{fg}}(X_h)} \ar[d]_{\theta_{fg,h}} {\ar @{} [rr] |{\Downarrow l_{fg,h}}} && \\
&& A_{fgh} \ar[rru]_{X_{fgh}} &&
}$$ holds in ${{\mathcal B}}(F_f(F_g (A_h)),B_{fgh})$. If $(X,l),$ $(Y,s)$ are 1-cells, a 2-cell $m:(X,l)\Rightarrow (Y,s)$ is a $G$-indexed family of 2-cells $m=\{m_g:X_g\to Y_g\}$ such that for all $g,f \in G$, equation
$$\label{axiom-2-cell B[G]}
\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.5in}
\xymatrix{
F_{g}(A_{h}) \ar[d]_{\theta_{g,h}} \ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{F_g(X_h)}&& F_g(B_h) \ar[d]^{\rho_{g,h}} {\ar @{} [ll] |{\Downarrow l_{g,h}}} \\
A_{gh} \ar@/^2pc/[rr]_{X_{gh}} \ar@/_2pc/[rr]_{Y_{gh}} && B_{gh} {\ar @{} [ll] |{\Downarrow m_{gh}}}
}$$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.5in}
\xymatrix{
F_{g}(A_{h}) {\ar @{} [rr] |{\Downarrow F_g(m_h)}}\ar[d]_{\theta_{g,h}} \ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{F_g(X_h)} \ar@/_2pc/[rr]^{F_g(Y_h)} && F_g(B_h) \ar[d]^{\rho_{g,h}}\\
A_{gh} \ar@/_2pc/[rr]_{Y_{gh}} && {\ar @{} [ll] |{\Downarrow s_{g,h}}} B_{gh}
}$$ holds in ${{\mathcal B}}(F_g(A_h),B_{gh})$.
The (vertical) composition in each category ${{\mathcal B}}[G]((A,\theta, \alpha),(B,\rho ,\beta))$ is defined pointwise.
Now, let us define the horizontal composition $\circ:{{\mathcal B}}[G]((A,\theta, \alpha),(B,\rho ,\beta))\times {{\mathcal B}}[G]((C,\kappa,\gamma),(A,\theta, \alpha))\to {{\mathcal B}}[G]((C,\kappa,\gamma),(B,\rho ,\beta)).$ If $(A,\theta, \alpha)$ and $(B,\rho ,\beta)$ are 0-cells, and $$(X,l) \in {{\mathcal B}}[G]((A,\theta, \alpha),(B,\rho ,\beta)),\,\, (Y,s)\in {{\mathcal B}}[G]((C,\kappa,\gamma),(A,\theta, \alpha))$$ are 1-cells, define $$(X,l)\circ (Y,s)=(Z,t),$$ where $Z_g=X_g\circ Y_g$, and $t_{g,h}= \big( 1_{X_{gh}}\circ s_{g,h} \big)\big( l_{g,h}\circ 1_{F_g(Y_h)}\big)$, for any $g,h\in G$. The horizontal composition of 2-cells in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$ is just the horizontal composition of 2-cells in ${{\mathcal B}}$.
${{\mathcal B}}[G]$ is a 2-category endowed with a strict action of $G$.
The proof that ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$ is indeed a 2-category follows by a straightforward calculation. Let us define now a canonical strict action of $G$ on the 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$. For any $g\in G$ define the 2-functors $L_g:{{\mathcal B}}[G]\to {{\mathcal B}}[G]$ as follows. If $(A,\theta,\alpha)$ is a 0-cell, $g,x\in G$, then $$L_g(A)_x=A_{xg}, \quad Lg(\theta)_{x,y}=\theta_{x,yg}, \quad L_g(\alpha)_{x,y,z}=\alpha_{x,y,zg}.$$ If $(X,l):(A,\theta,\alpha) \to (B,\rho,\beta)$ is a 1-cell, $$L_g(X)_x=X_{xg}, \quad L_g(l)_{x,y}=l_{xyg}.$$ If $m:(X,l)\Rightarrow (Y,s)$ is a 2-cell, then $L_g(m)_x=m_{xg}$, for any $x\in G$. Since the $L_g $ are 2-functors such that $L_g\circ L_h=L_{gh}$ for all $g, h\in G$ and $L_e=\operatorname{Id}_{{{\mathcal B}}[G]}$, $L$ defines a strict action of $G$ on ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$.
There is a pseudofunctor ${{\mathcal H}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}[G]$ defined as follows. If $A$ is a 0-cell in ${{\mathcal B}}$, then $${{\mathcal H}}(A)= (\{F_g(A)\}, (\chi^0_{g,h})_A,\omega_{g,h,f})_{f,g,h\in G},$$if $X:A\to B$ is a 1-cell, then ${{\mathcal H}}(X)= (F_g(X),(\chi_{g,h})_X)$ and for 2-cells $m:X\to Y$, ${{\mathcal H}}(m)_g=F_g(m)$, where $f,g,h\in G$. The fact that $\omega$ are modifications implies that ${{\mathcal H}}(X)$ is indeed a 1-cell in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$. The following proposition implies immediately Theorem \[coherence-groupact\]
\[propiedades de HH\] ${{\mathcal H}}:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}[G]$ is a $G$-biequivalence.
If $(A,\theta,\alpha)$ is an object in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$, then the 1-equivalences $\theta_{g,e}:{{\mathcal H}}(A_e)_g\to A_g$ and the 2-cells $$\xymatrixrowsep{0.4in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.4in}
\xymatrix{
F_{g}{{\mathcal H}}(A_e)_h \ar[d]_{F_g(\theta_{h,e})} \ar[rr]^{\chi_{g,h}^0}&& {{\mathcal H}}(A_e)_{gh} \ar[d]^{\theta_{gh,e}}\\
F_g(A_{h}) \ar[rr]_{\theta_{g,h}^0}&& A_{ghf} {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow\alpha_{g,h,e}}},
}$$defines a 1-equivalence from ${{\mathcal H}}(A_1)$ to $A$, that is, ${{\mathcal H}}$ is bi-essentially surjective.
Let $A$ and $B$ be objects in ${{\mathcal B}}$, and $(X,l):{{\mathcal H}}(A)\to {{\mathcal H}}(B)$ be a 1-cell in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$. The invertible 2-cells $l_{g,1}:{{\mathcal H}}(X_1)_g\to X_g$ define an invertible 2-cell from ${{\mathcal H}}(X_1)$ to $X$. Then ${{\mathcal H}}$ is locally essentially surjective.
If $X,Y, \in {{\mathcal B}}(A,B)$ and $f,f':X\to Y$ such that ${{\mathcal H}}(f)={{\mathcal H}}(f')$. Thus, ${{\mathcal H}}(f)_1={{\mathcal H}}(f')_1$, but since we are considering a unital action, $f={{\mathcal H}}(f)_1={{\mathcal H}}(f')_1=f'$, that is, ${{\mathcal H}}$ is locally faithful. Suppose $w:{{\mathcal H}}(X)\to {{\mathcal H}}(Y)$ is a 2-cell in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$, condition implies that $w_g=F_g(m_1)$, then $w={{\mathcal H}}(w_1)$. Since, ${{\mathcal H}}$ is bi-essentially surjective and locally fully faithful, ${{\mathcal H}}$ is a biequivalence.
To see that ${{\mathcal H}}$ has a canonical structure of $G$-pseudofunctor, we note that $$({{\mathcal H}}\circ F_g)_x=F_x\circ F_g,\ \ \ \ \ \ (L_g\circ {{\mathcal H}})_x=F_{xg},$$ for any $x,g\in G$. Then, using the pseudonatural transformations $\chi_{x,g}:F_{x}\circ F_g\to F_{xg}$, we define a pseusonatural transformation $$\gamma_g:{{\mathcal H}}\circ F_g\to L_g\circ {{\mathcal H}},$$ as follows. For any 0-cell $A\in {\mbox{\rm Obj\,}}({{\mathcal B}})$ we have to define an equivalence 1-cell $\gamma^0_A:{{\mathcal H}}\circ F_g(A)\to L_g\circ {{\mathcal H}}(A)$ in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$. Set $\gamma^0_A=(X,l)$, where, for any $x,f,h\in G$ $$X_x=(\chi^0_{x,g})_A, \quad l_{f,h}=(\omega^{-1}_{f,h,g})_A.$$ Axiom implies that morphisms $l_{f,h}$ fulfill condition . Thus, $\gamma^0_A$ is indeed a 1-cell in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$. To complete the definition of of the pseudonatural equivalence $ \gamma_g $, we have to define, 2-cells in ${{\mathcal B}}[G]$ $$( \gamma_g )_X: \gamma^0_B\circ
{{\mathcal H}}F_g(X)\to L_g{{\mathcal H}}(X)\circ \gamma^0_A,$$ for any 1-cell $X\in{{\mathcal B}}(A,B)$. Set $\big( ( \gamma_g )_X \big)_x=(\chi_{x,g})_X$, for any $x\in G$. The fact that $\omega$ are modifications, imply that 2-cells $\big( ( \gamma_g )_X \big)_x$ satisfy . To define the modifications
$$\xymatrix{
&L_{f}{{\mathcal H}}F_{g} \ar[rr]^{1_{L_{f}}\otimes \gamma_g}&& L_{f}L_{g}{{\mathcal H}}\ar[rd]^{id }\\
{{\mathcal H}}F_{f}\ F_{g} \ar[ru]^{\gamma_f\otimes 1_{F_{g}}} \ar[rrd]_{1_{{{\mathcal H}}}\otimes \chi_{f,g}}&&&& L_{fg}{{\mathcal H}}\\
&&{{\mathcal H}}F_{fg} \ar[rru]_{\gamma_{fg}} {\ar @{} [uu] |{\Downarrow\Pi_{f,g}}}&&
}$$ we note that $$[(1_{L_f\otimes \gamma_g})\circ (\gamma_f\otimes 1_{F_g})]_x= \chi_{xf,g} \circ (\chi_{x,f}\otimes 1_{F_g}), \ \ x,f,g \in G,$$ and $$[(1_{{{\mathcal H}}}\otimes \chi_{f,g})\circ (\gamma_{fg})]_x=\chi_{x,fg}\circ (1_{F_x}\otimes \chi_{f,g}), \ \ x,f,g \in G.$$ Then we define $(\Pi_{f,g})_x=\omega_{x,f,g}$ for all $x,g,f\in G$.
Since $\omega_{x,f,g}$ are modifications, $\Pi_{g,h}$ turns out to be modifications for any $g,h\in G$. Condition described in diagram is exactly diagram .
The equivariant 2-category {#Section:equivariant}
==========================
Let $G$ be a group. Denote by $\mathcal{I}$ the unit 2-category endowed with the trivial action of $G$, and assume that ${{\mathcal B}}$ is a 2-category with an action of $G$.
\[def-equiv\] The *equivariant 2-category* is ${{\mathcal B}}^G= {\textbf{2Cat}}^G(\mathcal{I},{{\mathcal B}})$. 0-cells, 1-cells and 2-cells in ${{\mathcal B}}^G$ will be called *equivariant* 0-cells, 1-cells and 2-cells, respectively.
Assume ${{\mathcal B}}$ and $ \widetilde{{\mathcal B}}$ are $G$-biequivalent. Then the 2-categories ${{\mathcal B}}^G$, $\widetilde{{\mathcal B}}^G$ are biequivalent.
Straightforward.
\[forget-2funct\] There exists a forgetfull 2-functor $\Phi:{{\mathcal B}}^G\to {{\mathcal B}}$.
If $({{\mathcal H}}, \Pi,\gamma)$ is an equivariant 0-cell in ${{\mathcal B}}^G$ , then $\Phi({{\mathcal H}}, \Pi,\gamma)={{\mathcal H}}(\star)$. If $(\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G})$ is an equivariant 1-cell, then $\Phi(\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G})=\theta$. On 2-cells the functor $\Phi$ is the identity.
Unpacking definition of equivariantization {#section:unpacking}
------------------------------------------
We shall explicitly describe the 2-category $ {{\mathcal B}}^G $. This would allows us to show concrete examples and obtain some results in Section \[Section-center\].
We shall assume that there is a unital action of $G$ on the 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$ such that all pseudofunctors $F_g$ are 2-functors. This is possible using Corollary \[action with 2-functors\]. The 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}^G$ has 0-cells triples $(A, \{U_g\}_{g\in G}, \{\Pi_{g, h}\}_{g, h\in G})$, where
- $A$ is a 0-cell in ${{\mathcal B}}$;
- $U_g$ are invertible 1-cells in ${{\mathcal B}}(A, F_g(A))$;
- $\Pi_{g,h}:(\chi^0_{g,h})_A\circ F_g(U_h)\circ U_g\to U_{gh} $ are isomorphisms 2-cells in the category ${{\mathcal B}}(A,F_{gh}(A))$ such that
$$U_1=I_A, \; \Pi_{g,1}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}= \Pi_{1,g},$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a-pi-eq}\begin{split}
&\Pi_{f,gh}\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{(\chi^0_{f,gh})_A}\circ F_f(\Pi_{g,h})\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_f} \big) \big((\omega_{f,g,h})_A\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_fF_g(U_h)F_f(U_g)U_f} \big)= \\ &= \Pi_{fg,h}\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{(\chi^0_{fg,h})_AF_{fg}(U_h)}\circ \Pi_{f,g}\big)\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{(\chi^0_{fg,h})_A}\circ (\chi_{f,g})_{U_h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_f(U_g)U_f}\big)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for all $g,h,f\in G$. For short, the collection $(A, \{U_g\}_{g\in G}, \{\Pi_{g, h}\}_{g, h\in G})$ will be denoted simply as $(A, U, \Pi)$.
Given two equivariant 0-cells $(A, U, \Pi)$, $(\widetilde A, \widetilde U, \widetilde\Pi)$, an *equivariant 1-cell* is a pair $(\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G})\in {{\mathcal B}}^G((A, U, \Pi),(\widetilde A, \widetilde U, \widetilde\Pi))$ where
- $\theta:{{\mathcal B}}(A, \widetilde A)$ is a 1-cell,
- and for any $g\in G$, $\theta_g:F_g(\theta)\circ U_g \Rightarrow \widetilde U_g\circ \theta$, are invertible 2-cells such that $\theta_1={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_\theta,$ and such that for any $g,f\in G$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{equiva-1cell}
\begin{split}
\big(\widetilde \Pi_{g,f}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\theta}\big) \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{(\chi^0_{g,f})_AF_g(\widetilde U_f)} \circ\theta_g\big)\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{(\chi^0_{g,f})_A} \circ F_g(\theta_f)\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g} \big)=\\
=\theta_{gf} \big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gf}(\theta)}\circ\Pi_{g,f}\big)\big( (\chi_{g,f})_\theta\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(U_f)U_g}\big).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
If $(\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G}), (\sigma, \{\sigma_g\}_{g\in G}):(A, U, \mu)\to(\widetilde A, \widetilde U, \widetilde\mu)$ are equivariant 1-cells, an *equivariant 2-cell* $\alpha: (\theta, \{\theta_g\}_{g\in G})\to (\sigma, \{\sigma_g\}_{g\in G})$ is a 2-cell $\alpha:\theta\to \sigma$ such that for all $g\in G$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equiva-2cell}
({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U_{g}}\circ \alpha) \theta_g=
\sigma_g (F_g(\alpha)\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}).\end{aligned}$$
Suppose that $(A, U, \mu)$, $(\widetilde A, \widetilde U, \widetilde\mu)$, $(A', U', \mu')$ are equivariant 0-cells, and $$(\theta, \theta_g):(A', U', \mu')\to(\widetilde A, \widetilde U, \widetilde\mu),
(\sigma, \sigma_g):(A, U, \mu)\to (A', U', \mu')$$ are equivariant 1-cells, then the composition $(\theta, \theta_g)\circ (\sigma, \sigma_g): (A, U, \mu)\to (\widetilde A, \widetilde U, \widetilde\mu)$ is defined as $(\theta, \theta_g)\circ (\sigma, \sigma_g)=(\theta \circ \sigma, (\theta \circ \sigma)_g)$, where for any $g\in G$ $$\label{comp-equiva-1cell}
(\theta \circ \sigma)_g=(\theta_g\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\sigma})({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(\theta)}\circ \sigma_g).$$
Group actions from graded tensor categories {#Section:examples-from-cat}
===========================================
Starting with a $G$-graded tensor category $\oplus_{g\in G} {{\mathcal C}}_g$, we shall construct a $G$-action on the 2-category of ${{\mathcal C}}_1$-representations.
Group actions on tensor categories {#subsect:groupact}
----------------------------------
Let $G$ be a finite group and ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a finite tensor category. An action of $G$ on ${{\mathcal C}}$ consists of the following data:
- tensor autoequivalences $(g_*, \xi^g):{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ for any $g\in G$,
- a natural isomorphism $\zeta:{\mbox{\rm Id\,}}_{{\mathcal C}}\to (1)_*$,
- and monoidal natural isomorphisms $\nu_{g,h}:g_*\circ h_*\to (gh)_*$,
such that for all $X \in {{\mathcal C}}$, $g,h,f\in G$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{group-act-tc1}
(\nu_{gh,f})_X (\nu_{g,h})_{f_*(X)}=(\nu_{g,hf})_X g_*((\nu_{h,f})_X ),
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{group-act-tc2}
(\nu_{g,1})_X g_*(\zeta_X)={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_X= (\nu_{1,g})_X \zeta_{g_*(X)}.\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we shall assumed that $(1)_*={\mbox{\rm Id\,}}_{{\mathcal C}}$, $\zeta={\mbox{\rm id\,}}$ and $\mu_{g,1}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}=\nu_{1,g}$ for all $g\in G$.
If a finite group $G$ acts on a finite tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$, there is associated a new finite tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}^G$ called the *equivariantization* of ${{\mathcal C}}$ by $G$. An object in ${{\mathcal C}}^G$ is a pair $(X, s)$, where $X\in {{\mathcal C}}$ is an object together with isomorphisms $s_g:g_*(X)\to X$ satisfying $$\label{group-act-tc3}
s_1={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_X,\quad
s_{gh}\circ (\nu_{g,h})_X=s_g\circ g_*(s_h),$$ for all $g, h \in G$. A $G$-*equivariant morphism* $f: (V, s) \to (W, t)$ between $G$-equivariant objects $(V, s)$ and $(W, t)$, is a morphism $f: V \to W$ in ${{\mathcal C}}$ such that $f\circ s_g = t_g\circ g_*(f)$ for all $g \in G$. The category ${{\mathcal C}}^G$ has a monoidal product as follows. If $(V,s), (W,t)\in {{\mathcal C}}^G$, then $(V,s){{\otimes}}(W,t)=(V{{\otimes}}W, r)$, where for any $g\in G$ $$r_g=(s_g{{\otimes}}t_g) (\xi^g_{V,W})^{-1}.$$
For more details we refer the reader to [@BN], [@BuNa], [@ENO2].
There is also associated the graded tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}[G]$, with underlying abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}[G]= \oplus_{g\in G} {{\mathcal C}}_g$, where ${{\mathcal C}}_g={{\mathcal C}}$ for any $g\in G$. If $X\in {{\mathcal C}}$ is an object, the object in ${{\mathcal C}}_g$ is denoted by $[X,g]$. The tensor product is $$[X,g] {{\otimes}}[Y,h]= [X{{\otimes}}g_*(Y), gh], \quad X, Y\in {{\mathcal C}}, g,h\in G.$$ The reader is refered to [@Ta] for the complete monoidal structure of this tensor category.
Representations of tensor categories {#Section:represent}
------------------------------------
A left ${{\mathcal C}}$-*module category* over a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a finite ${{\Bbbk}}$-linear abelian category ${{\mathcal M}}$ equipped with
- a ${{\Bbbk}}$-bilinear bi-exact bifunctor ${{\overline{\otimes}}}: {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal M}}\to {{\mathcal M}}$;
- natural associativity and unit isomorphisms $m_{X,Y,M}: (X\otimes Y){{\overline{\otimes}}}M \to X {{\overline{\otimes}}}(Y{{\overline{\otimes}}}M)$, $\ell_M: { \mathbf{1}}{{\overline{\otimes}}}M\to M$, such that $$\label{left-modulecat1} m_{X, Y, Z{{\overline{\otimes}}}M}\; m_{X\otimes Y, Z,
M}= ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{X}{{\overline{\otimes}}}m_{Y,Z, M})\; m_{X, Y\otimes Z, M}(a_{X,
Y, Z}{{\overline{\otimes}}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{M}),$$ $$\label{left-modulecat2} ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{X}{{\overline{\otimes}}}l_M)m_{X,{\bf
1} ,M}= {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{X {{\overline{\otimes}}}M}.$$
A *module functor* between module categories ${{\mathcal M}}$ and ${{\mathcal N}}$ over a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a pair $(F,c)$, where
1. $F:{{\mathcal M}}\to
{{\mathcal N}}$ is a left exact functor;
2. natural isomorphism: $c_{X,M}: F(X{{\overline{\otimes}}}M)\to
X{{\overline{\otimes}}}F(M)$, $X\in {{\mathcal C}}$, $M\in {{\mathcal M}}$, such that for any $X, Y\in
{{\mathcal C}}$, $M\in {{\mathcal M}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{modfunctor1}
({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_X {{\overline{\otimes}}}c_{Y,M})c_{X,Y{{\overline{\otimes}}}M}F(m_{X,Y,M}) &=
m_{X,Y,F(M)}\, c_{X\otimes Y,M}
\\\label{modfunctor2}
\ell_{F(M)} \,c_{{ \mathbf{1}},M} &=F(\ell_{M}).\end{aligned}$$
Let ${{\mathcal M}}$ and ${{\mathcal N}}$ be ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories. We denote by ${\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({{\mathcal M}}, {{\mathcal N}})$ the category whose objects are module functors $(F, c)$ from ${{\mathcal M}}$ to ${{\mathcal N}}$. A morphism between $(F,c)$ and $(G,d)\in{\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({{\mathcal M}},
{{\mathcal N}})$ is a natural transformation $\alpha: F \to G$ such that for any $X\in {{\mathcal C}}$, $M\in {{\mathcal M}}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{modfunctor3} d_{X,M}\alpha_{X{{\overline{\otimes}}}M} =
({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{X}{{\overline{\otimes}}}\alpha_{M})c_{X,M}.\end{gathered}$$ We shall also say that $\alpha: F \to G$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-*module transformation*.
Let $(F, \xi,\phi):{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$ be a tensor functor and let $({{\mathcal M}},
{{\overline{\otimes}}}, m)$ be a $ {{\mathcal C}}$-module category. We shall denote by ${{\mathcal M}}^F$ the ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category with the same underlying abelian category ${{\mathcal M}}$ and action, associativity and unit morphisms defined, respectively, by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{twisted-modc}
X{{\overline{\otimes}}}^F M=F(X){{\overline{\otimes}}}M,\\ m_{X,Y,M}^F=m_{F(X),F(Y),M} (\xi^{-1}_{X,Y}{{\overline{\otimes}}}\,
{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_M), \quad l^F_M= l_M (\phi{{\overline{\otimes}}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_M),\notag\end{gathered}$$ for all $X, Y\in {{\mathcal C}}$, $M\in {{\mathcal M}}$. Right ${{\mathcal C}}$-module and ${{\mathcal C}}$-bimodule categories are defined in a similar way. For the complete definition see [@Gr].
A ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category ${{\mathcal M}}$ is *exact* [@eo] if, for any projective object $P\in {{\mathcal C}}$, the object $P{{\overline{\otimes}}}M$ is projective in ${{\mathcal M}}$ for all $M\in{{\mathcal M}}$. If ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module then ${{\mathcal M}}^{{\rm{op}}}$ is the right ${{\mathcal C}}$-module over the opposite Abelian category with action $$\label{opposit-modcat} {{\mathcal M}}^{{\rm{op}}}\times {{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal M}}^{{\rm{op}}}, (M, X)\mapsto X^*{{\overline{\otimes}}}M,$$ associativity isomorphisms $m^{{\rm{op}}}_{M,X,Y}=m_{Y^*, X^*, M}$ for all $X, Y\in {{\mathcal C}}, M\in {{\mathcal M}}$. Analogously, if ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a right ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category, then ${{\mathcal M}}^{{\rm{op}}}$ is a left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category. If ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-bimodule category, we denote $ \overline{{{\mathcal M}}}$ the opposite Abelian category, with left and right ${{\mathcal C}}$-module structure given as in .
2-categories of representations of tensor categories
----------------------------------------------------
Suppouse that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a tensor category. The 2-category ${{}_{{{\mathcal C}}}\rm{Mod}}$ has as 0-cells, left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories, if ${{\mathcal M}}, {{\mathcal N}}$ are ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories, then the category ${{}_{{{\mathcal C}}}\rm{Mod}}({{\mathcal M}}, {{\mathcal N}})={\operatorname{Fun}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal M}}, {{\mathcal N}}).$ Analogously we define the 2-category ${\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}$ of right ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories.
If ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a finite tensor category, the 2-category ${{}_{{{\mathcal C}}}\rm{Mod}}_e$ of exact left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories is defined in a similar way as ${{}_{{{\mathcal C}}}\rm{Mod}}$, with 0-cells being exact left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories. It is known that ${{}_{{{\mathcal C}}}\rm{Mod}}_e$ is 2-equivalent to ${}_{{\mathcal D}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}_e$ if and only if ${{\mathcal C}}$ is Morita equivalent to ${{\mathcal D}}$. See for example [@FMM Thm. 3.4].
$G$-Graded tensor categories {#graded-tc}
----------------------------
Let $G$ be a finite group. A (faithful) $G$-grading on a finite tensor category ${{\mathcal D}}$ is a decomposition ${{\mathcal D}}=\oplus_{g\in G} {{\mathcal C}}_g$, where ${{\mathcal C}}_g$ are full abelian subcategories of ${{\mathcal D}}$ such that
- ${{\mathcal C}}_g\neq 0$;
- ${{\otimes}}:{{\mathcal C}}_g\times {{\mathcal C}}_h\to {{\mathcal C}}_{gh}$ for all $g, h\in G.$
In this case ${{\mathcal C}}={{\mathcal C}}_1$ is a tensor subcategory of ${{\mathcal D}}$ and each ${{\mathcal C}}_g$ is an exact ${{\mathcal C}}$-bimodule category. We shall assume that ${{\mathcal C}}_g\neq 0$ for any $g\in G$. The tensor category ${{\mathcal D}}$ is called a $G$-*graded extension* of ${{\mathcal C}}$. This class of extensions of tensor categories were studied and classified in [@ENO3].
If ${{\mathcal M}}$ is a left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category, $X\in {{\mathcal C}}_g$, $M\in {{\mathcal M}}$, the functor $G_{X,M}: \overline{{{\mathcal C}}_g}\to {{\mathcal M}}$ defined by $$G_{X,M}(Y)=({}^*Y{{\otimes}}X){{\overline{\otimes}}}M,$$ for any $Y\in {{\mathcal C}}_g$, is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor. Moreover, the functor $$\Phi:{{\mathcal C}}_g\boxtimes_{{{\mathcal C}}} {{\mathcal M}}\to {\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}(\overline{{{\mathcal C}}_g}, {{\mathcal M}}), \quad \Phi(X\boxtimes M)=G_{X,M},$$ is an equivalence of ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories.This is a particular case of [@Gr Thm. 3.20].
The relative center of a bimodule category
------------------------------------------
The next definition appeared in [@GNN].
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a tensor category and ${{\mathcal M}}$ a ${{\mathcal C}}$-bimodule category. The *relative center* of ${{\mathcal M}}$ is the category ${{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal M}})$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$-bimodule functors from ${{\mathcal C}}$ to ${{\mathcal M}}$.
Explicitly, objects of ${{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal M}})$ are pairs $(M,\gamma)$, where $M$ is an objects of ${{\mathcal M}}$ and $$\gamma=\{\gamma_X:X\overline{\otimes} M\xrightarrow{\sim}M\overline{\otimes}X\}_{X\in {{\mathcal C}}}$$ is a natural family of isomorphisms such that $$\label{bien}
\gamma_X\circ \alpha^{-1}_{X,M,Y}\circ \gamma_Y=\alpha^{-1}_{M,X,Y}\circ \gamma_{X\otimes Y}\circ \alpha^{-1}_{X,Y,M},$$
where $\alpha_{X,M,Y}:(X\overline{\otimes} M)\overline{\otimes} Y \xrightarrow{\sim}X\overline{\otimes} (M\overline{\otimes} Y)$ are the associativity constraints in ${{\mathcal M}}$.
Let ${{\mathcal D}}=\oplus_{g\in G}{{\mathcal C}}_g$ be a $G$-graded tensor category, with ${{\mathcal C}}={{\mathcal C}}_1.$ The inclusion functor ${{\mathcal C}}\hookrightarrow {{\mathcal D}}$ induces the forgetful pseudofunctor ${{\mathcal H}}: {}_{{\mathcal D}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}\to {}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$.
\[cent-forget-relative-center\] There is a monoidal equivalence ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})\backsimeq {{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal D}}).$
Let us define the functor ${{\mathcal F}}:{{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal D}})\to {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}}),$ as follows. For any $(V,\gamma)\in {{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal D}})$ set ${{\mathcal F}}(V,\gamma)=(W^V,\tau).$ Here, for each ${{\mathcal M}}\in {}_{{\mathcal D}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$, $W^V_{{\mathcal M}}:{{\mathcal M}}\to {{\mathcal M}}$ is the ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor given by $$W^V_{{\mathcal M}}(M)=V\overline{\otimes} M.$$ The isomorphisms endowing the functor $W^V_{{\mathcal M}}$ structure of ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor are $$c_{X,M}:W^V_{{\mathcal M}}(X\overline{\otimes}M)\to X\overline{\otimes}W^V_{{\mathcal M}}(M),$$ given by the following composition: $$W^V_{{\mathcal M}}(X\overline{\otimes}M)=V\overline{\otimes}(X\overline{\otimes} M)\xrightarrow{m^{-1}_{V,X,M}} (V\otimes X)\overline{\otimes}M\xrightarrow{\gamma^{-1}_X\overline{\otimes}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_M}(X\otimes V)\overline{\otimes}M$$ $$\xrightarrow{m_{X,V,M}} X\overline{\otimes}(V\overline{\otimes}M)=X\overline{\otimes}W^V_{{\mathcal M}}(M),$$ for any $X\in{{\mathcal C}}, M\in {{\mathcal M}}$. It follows that $(W^V_{{\mathcal M}},c)$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor.
Now, we shall explain the definition of $\tau$. Take ${{\mathcal M}},{{\mathcal N}}\in {}_{{{\mathcal D}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$, and $(G,d):{{\mathcal M}}\to {{\mathcal N}}$ a ${{\mathcal D}}$-module functor. Define $$\tau_{(G,d)}: W^V_{{\mathcal N}}\circ G\to G\circ W^V_{{\mathcal M}},$$ $$(\tau_{(G,d)})_M: V\overline{\otimes}G(M)\to G(V\overline{\otimes} M), (\tau_{(G,d)})_M=d^{-1}_{V,M},$$ for any $M\in{{\mathcal M}}$. Then, $\tau_{(G,d)}$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module natural isomorphism.
Now, we shall define the functor ${{\mathcal F}}$ on morphisms. Let $(V,\gamma)$, $(V',\gamma')$ be objects in ${{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal D}})$ and $f:(V,\gamma)\to (V',\gamma')$ be an arrow in ${{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal D}})$. Define ${{\mathcal F}}(f):(W^V,\tau)\to (W^{V'},\tau'),$ as follows. For any ${{\mathcal D}}$-module ${{\mathcal M}}$, define the ${{\mathcal C}}$-module natural transformation $${{\mathcal F}}(f)_{{\mathcal M}}: W^V_{{\mathcal M}}\to W^{V'}_{{\mathcal M}}, \quad ({{\mathcal F}}(f)_{{\mathcal M}})_M=f\overline{\otimes}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_M,$$ for any $M\in{{\mathcal M}}$.
Now, we shall define a functor ${{\mathcal G}}:{{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})\to {{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal D}}),$ that will be the inverse of ${{\mathcal F}}$. Any object $X\in {{\mathcal C}}$ induces a ${{\mathcal D}}$-module functor $J_X:{{\mathcal D}}\to{{\mathcal D}}$, $J_X(V)=V\otimes X$.
Let $(W,\tau)$ be an object in ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$. For any ${{\mathcal D}}$-module category ${{\mathcal M}}$, $W_{{\mathcal M}}:{{\mathcal M}}\to {{\mathcal M}}$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor. We shall denote it by $W_{{\mathcal M}}=(W_{{\mathcal M}}, c^{{\mathcal M}})$. In particular, $W_{{\mathcal D}}({ \mathbf{1}})\in {{\mathcal D}}$. We have natural ${{\mathcal C}}$-module isomorphisms $(\tau_{{{\mathcal D}},{{\mathcal D}}})_{J_X}:W_{{\mathcal D}}\circ J_X\xrightarrow{\backsimeq} J_X\circ W_{{\mathcal D}}.$ In particular, we have isomorphisms $$((\tau_{{{\mathcal D}},{{\mathcal D}}})_{J_X})_{ \mathbf{1}}:W_{{\mathcal D}}(X)\xrightarrow{\backsimeq} W_{{\mathcal D}}({ \mathbf{1}})\otimes X.$$ Using that $W_{{\mathcal D}}$ has a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module structure, there is a natural isomorphism $$c^{{\mathcal D}}_{X,{ \mathbf{1}}}:X\otimes W_{{\mathcal D}}({ \mathbf{1}})\to W_{{\mathcal D}}(X).$$ Let $\gamma$ be the natural isomorphism defined as $$\gamma_X: X{{\otimes}}W_{{\mathcal D}}({ \mathbf{1}})\to W_{{\mathcal D}}({ \mathbf{1}}){{\otimes}}X, \quad\gamma_X=((\tau_{{{\mathcal D}},{{\mathcal D}}})_{J_X})_{ \mathbf{1}}\circ c_{X,{ \mathbf{1}}}.$$ The natural transformation $\gamma$ satisfies \[bien\] since $(\tau_{{{\mathcal D}},{{\mathcal D}}})_{J_X}$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module natural transformation. Then $(W_{{\mathcal D}}({ \mathbf{1}}),\gamma)\in {{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal D}}).$ Whence, we define ${{\mathcal G}}(W,\tau)=(W_{{\mathcal D}}({ \mathbf{1}}),\gamma)$.
Let $f:(W,\tau)\to (W',\tau')$ be a morphism in ${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$, then $(f_{{\mathcal D}})_{ \mathbf{1}}$ is a morphism in ${{\mathcal Z}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal D}})$ since $f_{{\mathcal D}}$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module natural transformation. Set ${{\mathcal G}}(f)=(f_{{\mathcal D}})_{ \mathbf{1}}.$ It follows straightforward that ${{\mathcal G}}$ is well-defined and that ${{\mathcal F}}$ and ${{\mathcal G}}$ are inverse of each other.
The center of the 2-category of representations of a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ coincides with the Drinfeld center of ${{\mathcal C}}$.
\[center-modcat\] ${{\mathcal Z}}({}_{{\mathcal C}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}})\backsimeq {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal C}}).$
Take ${{\mathcal D}}={{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal H}}:{}_{{\mathcal C}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}\to {}_{{\mathcal C}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$ the identity pseudofunctor.
Group actions coming from graded tensor categories
--------------------------------------------------
Throughout this section $G$ will denote a finite group. Assume that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a finite tensor category and ${{\mathcal D}}=\oplus_{g\in G} {{\mathcal D}}_g$ is a $G$-graded extension of ${{\mathcal C}}$. Set ${{\mathcal D}}_1={{\mathcal C}}$. We shall further assume that ${{\mathcal D}}$ is a strict monoidal category.
In this section we aim to prove the following result.
\[g-act-graded-tc\] There is an action of $G$ on the 2-category ${}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}^{{\rm{op}}}$. Moreover, there are 2-equivalences $$({}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}^{{\rm{op}}})^G \simeq {}_{{{\mathcal D}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}, \quad ({}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}^{{\rm{op}}}_e)^G \simeq {}_{{{\mathcal D}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}_e .$$
First, let us define an action of $G$ on the 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}={}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}^{{\rm{op}}}$. For any $g\in G$ define the 2-functors $F_g:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$ as follows. For any left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category ${{\mathcal M}}$, set $F_g({{\mathcal M}})={\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({\overline{\mathcal D}}_g,{{\mathcal M}})$. If ${{\mathcal M}}, {{\mathcal N}}$ are left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module categories, and $G:{{\mathcal M}}\to {{\mathcal N}}$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor, then $$F_g(G): {\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({\overline{\mathcal D}}_g,{{\mathcal M}}) \to {\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({\overline{\mathcal D}}_g,{{\mathcal N}}), \quad F_g(G)(H)=G\circ H.$$ Now, we shall define the pseudonatural equivalences $\chi_{g,h}: F_g\circ F_h\to F_{gh}$, for any $g, h\in G$. For any left ${{\mathcal C}}$-module category ${{\mathcal M}}$ $$( \chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal M}}}: {\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({\overline{\mathcal D}}_{gh},{{\mathcal M}}) \to {\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({\overline{\mathcal D}}_g,{\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({\overline{\mathcal D}}_h,{{\mathcal M}}) ),$$ $$( \chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal M}}}(H)(X)(Y)=H(X{{\otimes}}Y),$$ for any $H\in {\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({\overline{\mathcal D}}_{gh},{{\mathcal M}})$, $X\in {{\mathcal C}}_g, Y\in {{\mathcal C}}_h$. It follows that $( \chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal M}}}$ is a well-defined ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor. For any ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor $G:{{\mathcal M}}\to {{\mathcal N}}$ we have that $F_g(F_h(G)\circ ( \chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal M}}}=( \chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal N}}}\circ F_{gh}(G)$, whence, we can define $$( \chi_{g,h})_{G}: F_g(F_h(G)\circ ( \chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal M}}}\to ( \chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal N}}}\circ F_{gh}(G)$$ to be the identities. Since $\chi_{gh,f} \circ (\chi_{g,h} {{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_f }) = \chi_{g,hf}\circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g} {{\otimes}}\chi_{h,f})$, for any $f,g,h\in G$, then we can choose $\omega_{g,h,f}$ to be the identities.
Now, we shall define a biequivalence $\Phi: {{\mathcal B}}^G\to {}_{{{\mathcal D}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$. Assume $({{\mathcal M}}, U, \Pi)$ is an equivariant 0-cell. This means that we have ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functors $$U_g:{\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({\overline{\mathcal D}}_g,{{\mathcal M}})\to {{\mathcal M}},$$ together with ${{\mathcal C}}$-module natural isomorphisms $$\Pi_{g,h}: U_g\circ F_g(U_h)\circ (\chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal M}}} \to U_{gh},$$ satisfying the required axioms. Recall the definition of the functors $G_{X,M}$ given in Section \[graded-tc\].
Let be $g, h\in G$. If $X\in{{\mathcal C}}_g, Y\in {{\mathcal C}}_h$, then, there exists a family of ${{\mathcal C}}$-module natural isomorphisms $$\beta_{X,Y,M}: F_g(U_h)\big((\chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal M}}}(G_{X{{\otimes}}Y,M})\big)\to G_{X, U_h(G_{Y,M})} .$$
If $Z\in{{\mathcal C}}_g$, then $$G_{X, U_h(G_{Y,M})}(Z)=({}^*Z{{\otimes}}X){{\overline{\otimes}}}U_h(G_{Y,M}),$$ $$F_g(U_h)\big((\chi^0_{g,h})_{{{\mathcal M}}}(G_{X{{\otimes}}Y,M})\big)(Z)=U_h(G_{X{{\otimes}}Y,M}(Z{{\otimes}}-)).$$ Note that there are module natural isomorphisms $$G_{X,M}(Z{{\otimes}}-)\simeq {}^*Z{{\overline{\otimes}}}G_{X,M}, \quad X{{\overline{\otimes}}}G_{Y,M}\simeq G_{X{{\otimes}}Y,M}.$$ Combining these two isomorphisms we get that $$G_{X{{\otimes}}Y,M}(Z{{\otimes}}-) \simeq ({}^*Z{{\otimes}}X){{\overline{\otimes}}}G_{Y,M}.$$ Using this isomorphism and the fact that $U_h$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$-module functor, we get that $$U_h(G_{X{{\otimes}}Y,M}(Z{{\otimes}}-))\simeq ({}^*Z{{\otimes}}X){{\overline{\otimes}}}U_h(G_{Y,M}),$$ obtaining the desired isomorphisms. We define $\Phi({{\mathcal M}}, U, \Pi)={{\mathcal M}}$ as Abelian categories. We must endowed the category ${{\mathcal M}}$ with a structure of ${{\mathcal D}}$-module category. If $X\in {{\mathcal C}}_g$, $M\in {{\mathcal M}}$ set $$X{{\overline{\otimes}}}M= U_g( G_{X,M}).$$ We have to define associativity isomorphisms $$m_{X,Y,M}:(X{{\otimes}}Y){{\overline{\otimes}}}M\to X{{\overline{\otimes}}}(Y {{\overline{\otimes}}}M).$$ Suppouse that $X\in {{\mathcal C}}_g, Y\in{{\mathcal C}}_h$, $M\in {{\mathcal M}}$. Then $$(X{{\otimes}}Y){{\overline{\otimes}}}M = U_{gh}( G_{X{{\otimes}}Y,M}), \quad X{{\overline{\otimes}}}(Y {{\overline{\otimes}}}M)=U_g(G_{X, U_h(G_{Y,M})}).$$ Hence, we define $$m_{X,Y,M}= U_g(\beta_{X,Y,M}) (\Pi_{g,h})^{-1}_{G_{X{{\otimes}}Y,M}}.$$ Axiom is equivalent, in this case, to axiom . It is clear that $\Phi$ is a biequivalence and restricted to the category of exact modules $({}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}^{{\rm{op}}}_e)$ gives the second biequivalence.
Braided $G$-crossed tensor categories from $G$ actions on 2-categories {#braided-Gcrossed}
======================================================================
In this section actions of groups on 2-categories are assumed to be strict. This does not lead to any loss of generality, since, in view of Theorem \[coherence-groupact\], all definitions and statements remain valid for non-strict actions after insertion of the suitable isomorphisms.
Strict braided $G$-crossed tensor categories
--------------------------------------------
Braided $G$-crossed fusion categories play the same role in homotopy quantum field theory that braided fusion categories in the topological quantum field theory, see [@T1; @T2; @T3].
Let $G$ be a groups and ${{\mathcal C}}$ a strict monoidal category. A *strict* braided $G$-crossed structure on ${{\mathcal C}}$ consist of the following data:
1. a decomposition ${{\mathcal C}}=\coprod_{g\in G} {{\mathcal C}}_g$ (coproduct of categories) such that
- $\mathbf{1} \in {{\mathcal C}}_e$,
- ${{\mathcal C}}_g\otimes {{\mathcal C}}_h \subset {{\mathcal C}}_{gh}$ for all $g,h\in G$,
2. a $G$-indexed family of strict monoidal functor $g_*:{{\mathcal C}}\to {{\mathcal C}}$, such that
- $g_*({{\mathcal C}}_h)\subset {{\mathcal C}}_{ghg^{-1}}$,$g_*h_*=(gh)_*$,$e_*=\operatorname{Id}_{{\mathcal C}}$,
3. a family of natural isomorphisms
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.6in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.6in}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal C}}_g \ar[rr]^{ g_*\times \operatorname{Id}_{{{\mathcal C}}}}&& {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal C}}_g \ar[d]^{\otimes}\\ \ar[u]^{\operatorname{flip}}
{{\mathcal C}}_{g}\times {{\mathcal C}}\ar[rr]_{\otimes} && {{\mathcal C}}{\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow c}}
}$$
such that
- $g_*(c_{X,Z})=c_{g_*(X),g_*(Z)}$
- $c_{X,Y{{\otimes}}Z}=({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_Y{{\otimes}}c_{X,Z})\circ (c_{X,Y}{{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{Z})$
- $c_{X{{\otimes}}Y,Z}=(c_{X,h_*(Z)}{{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{Y}) \circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_X{{\otimes}}c_{Y,Z})$
for all $X\in {{\mathcal C}}$, $Y\in {{\mathcal C}}_g, Z\in {{\mathcal C}}_h,$ $g,h\in G$.
Even when the definition of strict braided $G$-crossed monoidal category is too restrictive, every *weak* braided $G$-crossed category is equivalent to a *strict* braided $G$-crossed category, see [@Ga2].
Center of a $G$-action
----------------------
Let $G$ be a group acting strictly on a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$, where $F_g:{{\mathcal B}}\to {{\mathcal B}}$, denotes the associated 2-functors. We shall introduce a $G$-graded monoidal category equipped with an action of $G$.
### The $G$-graded monoidal category $\mathcal{Z}_G({{\mathcal B}})$ {#definition of Z_G}
Define the strict monoidal category $\mathcal{Z}_G(B)=\coprod_{g\in G}\mathcal{Z}_G(B)_g,$ where $\mathcal{Z}_G(B)_g= \operatorname{Pseu-Nat}(\operatorname{Id}_{{{\mathcal B}}},F_g)$ and the product induced by the tensor product of pseudonatural transformation defined in . In other words, if $X\in \mathcal{Z}_G(B)_g$ and $ Y\in \mathcal{Z}_G(B)_h$, we define $X\otimes Y\in \mathcal{Z}_G(B)_{gh}= \operatorname{Pseu-Nat}(\operatorname{Id}_{{{\mathcal B}}},F_{gh})$ as folows: for any object $A\in {{\mathcal B}}$, $(X\otimes B)_A=X_{F_h(A)}\circ Y_A$ and for any 1-cell $W\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,B)$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.6in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.6in}
\xymatrix{
A \ar@/_3pc/[dd]_{(X\otimes Y)_A} \ar[d]^{Y_A} \ar[rr]^{W} && B \ar[d]^{Y_B} \ar@/^3pc/[dd]^{(X\otimes Y)_B}\\
F_h(A) \ar[rr]^{F_h(W)} \ar[d]^{X_{F_h(A)}} && F_h(B) \ar[d]^{F_h(B)}{\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow Y_W}} \\
F_{gh}(A) \ar[rr]^{X_{F_h(W)}} && F_{gh}(B) {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow X_{F_h(X)}}}
}$$ The unit object is $1_{\operatorname{Id}_{{{\mathcal B}}}}\in \operatorname{Pseu-Nat}(\operatorname{Id}_{{{\mathcal B}}},\operatorname{Id}_{{{\mathcal B}}})$.
### The action of $G$ on $\mathcal{Z}_G({{\mathcal B}})$ {#definition of action on Z_G}
Given $X\in \mathcal{Z}_G(B)_h$ and $g\in G$, we define $g_*(X)\in \mathcal{Z}_G(B)_{ghg^{-1}}$ as follows: for objects $A\in {{\mathcal B}}$, $g_*(X)_A=F_g(X_{F_{g^{-1}}(A) } )$ and for any 1-arrow $W:A\to B$
$$\xymatrixrowsep{0.6in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.6in}
\xymatrix{
A \ \ar[d]_{F_g(X_{F_{g^{-1}}(A) } ) } \ar[rr]^{W} && B \ar[d]^{F_g(X_{F_{g^{-1}}(B) } )} \\
F_{ghg^{-1}}(A) \ar[rr]^{F_{ghg^{-1}}(W)} && F_{ghg^{-1}}(B). {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow F_g(X_{F_{g^{-1}}(W) } )}}
}$$Analogously, the functor $g_*$ is defined for morphism in $\mathcal{Z}_G(B)$.
### The $G$-braiding of $\mathcal{Z}_G({{\mathcal B}})$ {#definition of G-braiding}
Let $X\in \mathcal{Z}_G(B)_g$ and $ Y\in \mathcal{Z}_G(B)_h$. By the definition of pseudo-natural transformation we have $$\xymatrixrowsep{0.6in}
\xymatrixcolsep{0.6in}
\xymatrix{
A \ \ar[d]_{X_A} \ar[rr]^{Y_A} && F_h(A) \ar[d]^{X_{F_h(A)}} \\
F_{g}(A) \ar[rr]^{F_{g}(Y_A)} && F_{gh}(A), {\ar @{} [llu] |{\Downarrow X_{Y_A} }}
}$$but $(X\otimes Y)_A= X_{F_h(A)}\circ Y_A$ and $(g_*(Y)\otimes X)_A= F_g(Y_A)\circ X_A$, then the $X_{Y_A}$ define natural isomorphism $c_{X,Y}:= X_{Y_A}: X\otimes Y\to g_*(Y)\otimes X$.
Let $G$ be a groups with a strcit action on a 2-categoy ${{\mathcal B}}$. Then the monoidal category $\mathcal{Z}_G({{\mathcal B}})$ defined in \[definition of Z\_G\] is a strict braided $G$-crossed monoidal category with action defined in \[definition of action on Z\_G\] and $G$-braiding defined in \[definition of G-braiding\]. Moreover, the braided category $\mathcal{Z}_G({{\mathcal B}})_e$ is exactly the Drinfeld center of ${{\mathcal B}}$.
Since the action of $G$ on ${{\mathcal B}}$ is strict, it follows by definition the equations
- $g_*(c_{X,Z})=c_{g_*(X),g_*(Z)}$
- $c_{X,Y{{\otimes}}Z}=({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_Y{{\otimes}}c_{X,Z})\circ (c_{X,Y}{{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{Z})$
- $c_{X{{\otimes}}Y,Z}=(c_{X,h_*(Z)}{{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{Y}) \circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_X{{\otimes}}c_{Y,Z})$.
Example
-------
Let ${{\mathcal D}}=\oplus_{g\in G}{{\mathcal D}}_g$ be a faithfully $G$-graded fusion category.
Since every ${{\mathcal D}}_g$ is a ${{\mathcal D}}_e$-bimodule category, they define 2-functors $$F_g(-):={{\mathcal D}}_g\boxtimes_{{{\mathcal D}}_e}(-): {{\mathcal D}}_e-\operatorname{Mod}\to {{\mathcal D}}_e-\operatorname{Mod},$$ the tensor products $\otimes:{{\mathcal D}}_g\times {{\mathcal D}}_h\to {{\mathcal D}}_{gh}$ induce pseudo-natural equivalences $\chi_{g,h}: F_g\circ F_h\to F_{gh}$ and the associator of ${{\mathcal D}}$ induce invertible modifications $\omega_{g,h,f}: \chi_{gh,f} \circ (\chi_{g,h} {{\otimes}}{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_f }) \Rightarrow \chi_{g,hf}\circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g} {{\otimes}}\chi_{h,f}),$ that defines an action of $G$ on ${{\mathcal D}}_e-\operatorname{Mod}$. See [@ENO3] for details.
In this case the category $\mathcal{Z}_G({}_{{{\mathcal D}}_e}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}})_g$ is just ${\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal D}}_e-{{\mathcal D}}_e}({{\mathcal D}}_e,{{\mathcal D}}_g)$, the category of ${{\mathcal D}}_e$-bimodule functors and natural transformations from ${{\mathcal D}}_e$ to ${{\mathcal D}}_g$. The category $\mathcal{Z}_G({}_{{{\mathcal D}}_e}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}})_g$ is canonically equivalent to the category $\mathcal{Z}_{{{\mathcal D}}_e}({{\mathcal D}}_g)$ defined in [@GNN Definition 2.1] (use that ${\operatorname{Fun}}_{{{\mathcal D}}_e}({{\mathcal D}}_e,{{\mathcal D}}_g)\to {{\mathcal D}}_g, F\mapsto F(\mathbf{1})$ is a category equivalence). Then the $G$-graded category $\mathcal{Z}_G({}_{{{\mathcal D}}_e}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}})$ is equivalent to the monoidal category $\mathcal{Z}_{{{\mathcal D}}}({{\mathcal D}}_e)$. The braided $G$-crossed category $\mathcal{Z}_G({}_{{{\mathcal D}}_e}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}})$ is equivalent to the $G$-crossed category $\mathcal{Z}_{{{\mathcal D}}}({{\mathcal D}}_e)$ defined in [@GNN].
The center of the equivariant 2-category {#Section-center}
========================================
This section is devoted to prove the following result. Let $G$ be a finite group acting on a 2-category ${{\mathcal B}}$. Recall the forgetful 2-functor $\Phi:{{\mathcal B}}^G\to {{\mathcal B}}$ described in Lemma \[forget-2funct\].
\[center-equi\] The group $G$ acts on ${{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$ by monoidal autoequivalences, and there is a monoidal equivalence $${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal B}}^G)\simeq {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)^G.$$
As a consequence, we have the following result.
[@GNN Thm. 3.5] Let ${{\mathcal D}}=\oplus_{g\in G} {{\mathcal C}}_g$ be a faithfully graded tensor category, with ${{\mathcal C}}={{\mathcal C}}_1$. There is an action of the group $G$ on the relative center ${{\mathcal Z}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({{\mathcal D}})$ and a monoidal equivalence $${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathcal Z}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({{\mathcal D}})^G.$$
Let ${{\mathcal H}}: {}_{{\mathcal D}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}\to {}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}$ be the forgetful pseudofunctor. Then $${{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal D}}) \simeq {{\mathcal Z}}({}_{{{\mathcal D}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}) \simeq {{\mathcal Z}}(\big({}_{{{\mathcal C}}}{\mbox{\rm Mod\,}}^{{\rm{op}}}\big)^G) \simeq {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})^G \simeq {{\mathcal Z}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}({{\mathcal D}})^G$$ The first equivalence follow from Corollary \[center-modcat\], the second one is Theorem \[g-act-graded-tc\], and the last one is Proposition \[cent-forget-relative-center\].
For the rest of this section we shall use the notation introduced in Section \[section:unpacking\]. There is no harm in assuming that the action is *unital* and *strict*, see definitions \[unital-act\], \[strict-act\]. By Proposition \[equivalence-1cells-iso\], we can assume that any invertible 1-cell is an isomorphism. In particular, if $(A,U,\Pi)$ is an equivariant 0-cell, for any $g\in G$, the 1-cell $U_g$ is invertible. Thus, we can choose a 1-cell $U^*_g$ such that $$U_g\circ U^*_g=I_{F_g(A)}, \quad U^*_g\circ U_g=I_A.$$
If $X, Y$ are 1-cells, we shall sometimes denote $X\circ Y=XY$, as a space saving measure.
A group action on ${{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$
----------------------------------------
For any $g\in G$, we shall define tensor autoequivalences $L_g:{{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)\to {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$ such that they define an action of $G$ on $ {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi).$ First, let us explicitly describe objects in ${{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$. An object $(X,\sigma)\in {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$ consists of $$X=\{X_{(A,U,\Pi)}\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,A) \,\text{ a 1-cell}, (A,U,\Pi)\in {\mbox{\rm Obj\,}}({{\mathcal B}}^G)\},$$ $$\sigma=\{\sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)}: X_{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}\circ \theta \Rightarrow \theta\circ X_{(A,U,\Pi)}\, \text{ isomorphisms 2-cells in}\, {{\mathcal B}}^G\},$$ where $(\theta,\theta_g)\in {{\mathcal B}}^G((A,U,\Pi), (\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi))$ is an equivariant 1-cell. The isomorphisms $\sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)}$ satisfy . If $(X,\sigma), (Y,\tau)\in {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$, a morphism $f:(X,\sigma)\to (Y,\tau)$ is a collection of 2-cells in ${{\mathcal B}}(A,A)$ $$f_{(A,U,\Pi)}: X_{(A,U,\Pi)} \Rightarrow Y_{(A,U,\Pi)},$$ such that for any equivariant 1-cell $(\theta,\theta_g)\in {{\mathcal B}}^G((A,U,\Pi), (\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi))$ $$\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\theta}\circ f_{(A,U,\Pi)}\big) \sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)}= \tau_{(\theta,\theta_g)}\big(f_{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)} \circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\theta}\big).$$
\[some-morphisms\] Suppose $g, h\in G$ and $(A,U,\Pi)$ is an equivariant 0-cell. There are isomorphisms 2-cells $$\epsilon_{g,h,(A,U,\Pi)}: U^*_g\circ F_g(U^*_h)\Rightarrow U^*_{gh}$$ such that $$\label{epsilon-pi}\epsilon_{g,h,(A,U,\Pi)}\circ \Pi_{g,h}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{I_A}, \quad \Pi_{g,h}\circ\epsilon_{g,h,(A,U,\Pi)}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{I_{F_{gh}(A)}},$$ $$\label{epsilon-pi2} \epsilon_{gh,f,(A,U,\Pi)} \big( \epsilon_{g,h,(A,U,\Pi)}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(U^*_f)} \big)=\epsilon_{g,hf,(A,U,\Pi)} \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^*_g}\circ F_g(\epsilon_{h,f,(A,U,\Pi)}) \big),$$ for any $g,h,f\in G$.
Take $\epsilon_{g,h,(A,U,\Pi)}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^*_g\circ F_g(U^*_h)}\circ \Pi^{-1}_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^*_{gh}}.$ Equation follow from . For any $g\in G$, let us define the functors $L_g:{{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)\to {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$, $L_g(X,\sigma)=(X^g,\sigma^g)$. Where, for any equivariant 0-cell $(A,U,\Pi)$ $$X^g_{(A,U,\Pi)}=U^*_g\circ F_g(X_{(A,U,\Pi)})\circ U_g.$$
As a saving space measure, if $(A,U,\Pi), (\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)$ are equivariant 0-cells, we are going to denote $X=X_{(A,U,\Pi)}$, $\widetilde X=X_{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}$. Also, we shall denote $\epsilon_{g,h}=\epsilon_{g,h,(A,U,\Pi)}$ and $\widetilde \epsilon_{g,h}=\epsilon_{g,h,(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}$ when no confusion arises.
If $(\theta,\theta_g)\in {{\mathcal B}}^G((A,U,\Pi),(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi))$ is an equivariant 1-cell, then $$\sigma^g_{(\theta,\theta_g)}=\big( 1_{\widetilde U^{*}_g}\circ \theta_g\circ 1_{U^*_gF_g(X)U_g} \big)\big(1_{\widetilde U^*_g}\circ F_g(\sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)}) \circ1_{U_g} \big)\big(1_{\widetilde U_gF_g(\widetilde X)} \circ \theta^{-1}_g\big).$$ If $f:(X,\sigma)\to (Y,\tau)$ is a morphism in ${{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$, then $$L_g(f)_{(A,U,\Pi)}={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^*_g}\circ F_g(f_{(A,U,\Pi)})\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}.$$ The proof of the next result follows straightforwardly.
The functors $L_g:{{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)\to {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$ are well-defined monoidal functors.
Now, for any $g,h\in G$, we shall define monoidal natural isomorphisms $\nu_{g,h}: L_g\circ L_h\to L_{gh}$ satisfying and . Take $(X,\sigma)\in {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal H}})$, so we must define an arrow $$(\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma)}: L_g\circ L_h(X,\sigma)\to L_{gh}(X,\sigma).$$ For each equivariant 0-cell $(A,U,\Pi)$ we define the map $$\!\big((\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma)} \big)_{(A,U,\Pi)}: U^{*}_gF_g(U^{*}_h)F_{gh}(X_{(A,U,\mu)})F_g(U_{h})U_{g}\to U_{gh}F_{gh}(X_{(A,U,\mu)})U^{*}_{gh},$$ $$\big((\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma)} \big)_{(A,U,\mu)}=\epsilon_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(X_{(A,U,\mu)})}\circ \Pi_{g,h}.$$
For any $g,h,f\in G$, the following assertions holds.
- $\nu_{g,h}: L_g\circ L_h\to L_{gh}$ are well-defined natural isomorphisms in ${{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$.
- $\nu_{g,h}: L_g\circ L_h\to L_{gh}$ are monoidal natural transformations.
- For any $g,h,f\in G$ and any $(X,\sigma)\in {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$, the following equation holds $$\label{assoc-mon-l}
(\nu_{gh,f})_{(X,\sigma)}(\nu_{g,h})_{L_f(X,\sigma)}=(\nu_{g,hf})_{(X,\sigma)} L_g((\nu_{h,f})_{(X,\sigma)}).$$
(i). We must verify that $(\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma)}$ are morphisms in the category ${{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$, that is, equation $$\label{nu-morhisms-incat}
\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\theta} \circ \big((\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma)} \big)_{(A,U,\mu)}\big) ((\sigma^h)^g)_{(\theta,\theta_g)}=\sigma^{gh}_{(\theta,\theta_g)} \big( \big((\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma)} \big)_{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\theta} \big)$$ is fulfilled for any equivariant 1-cell $(\theta,\theta_g)\in {{\mathcal B}}^G((A,U,\Pi), (\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi))$. The left hand side of equals to $$\begin{aligned}
&= \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_\theta\circ\epsilon_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(X)}\circ \Pi_{g,h} \big)\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g}\circ \theta_g\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{ U^{*}_g F_g(U^{*}_h)F_{gh}(X)F_g(U_h)U_g} \big)\\
&\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g}\circ F_g(\sigma^h_{(\theta,\theta_g)})\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g} \big)\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g}\circ \theta_g\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^{*}_gF_g(U^{*}_h)F_{gh}(X)F_g(U_h)U_g} \big)\\
&= \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_\theta\circ\epsilon_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(X)}\circ \Pi_{g,h} \big)\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}\circ \theta_g\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}\big)
\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g F_g(\widetilde U^{*}_h)}\circ F_g(\theta_h) \circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}\big)\\ & \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g F_g(\widetilde U^{*}_h)}\circ F_{gh}(\sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)})\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(U_h)U_g} \big)\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g F_g(\widetilde U^{*}_h)}\circ F_g(\theta^{-1}_h)\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}\big)\\&\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g}\circ \theta_g\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^{*}_gF_g(U^{*}_h)F_{gh}(X)F_g(U_h)U_g} \big)\\
&=\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}\circ \epsilon_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}\big)\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g F_g(\widetilde U^{*}_h)}\circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(\widetilde U_h)}\circ \theta_g)(F_g(\theta_h)\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g})\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^{*}_gF_g(U^{*}_h)F_{gh}(X)U_{gh}} \big)\\&\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g F_g(\widetilde U^{*}_h)}\circ F_{gh}(\sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)})\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_{gh}} \big)\\
&\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g F_g(\widetilde U^{*}_h)F_{gh}(\widetilde X)}\circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(\theta)}\circ \Pi_{g,h})(F_g(\theta^{-1}_h)\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g})({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(\widetilde U_h)}\circ \theta^{-1}_g) \big)\\
&=\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}\circ \epsilon_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}\big)\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g F_g(\widetilde U^{*}_h)}\circ ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(\widetilde U_h)}\circ \theta_g)(F_g(\theta_h)\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g})\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}\big)\\&\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_g F_g(\widetilde U^{*}_h)}\circ F_{gh}(\sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)})\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_{gh}} \big) \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}\circ \theta^{-1}_{gh} (\widetilde \Pi_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_\theta) \big)\end{aligned}$$
The second equation follows from the definition of $\sigma^h_{(\theta,\theta_g)}$, the fourth equality follows from . The right hand side of equals to $$\begin{aligned}
&=\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_{gh}} \circ \theta_{gh}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^{*}_{gh}F_{gh}(X) U_{gh}} \big)\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_{gh}}\circ F_{gh}(\sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)})\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_{gh}} \big)\\& \big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\widetilde U^{*}_{gh} F_{gh}(\widetilde X)}\circ \theta^{-1}_{gh} \big)\big(\widetilde \epsilon_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(\widetilde X)} \circ \widetilde \Pi_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{\theta}\big)\\
&=\big(\widetilde \epsilon_{g,h}\circ \theta_{gh}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^{*}_{gh}F_{gh}(X)U_{gh} } \big)\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^{*}_gF_g(U^{*}_h)}\circ F_{gh}(\sigma_{(\theta,\theta_g)})\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_{gh}} \big)\\ &\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^{*}_gF_g(U^{*}_h)F_{gh}(\widetilde X)}\circ \theta^{-1}_{gh} ( \widetilde \Pi_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_\theta) \big).\end{aligned}$$ It follows from Equation that both sides are equal.
(ii). Let $(X,\sigma), (Y,\tau)$ be objects in ${{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$. Since the functors $L_g$ are strict, this means that $L_g((X,\sigma){{\otimes}}(Y,\tau))=L_g(X,\sigma){{\otimes}}L_g(Y,\tau)$, we must prove that $$\label{nu-mon1} (\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma){{\otimes}}(Y,\tau)}= (\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma)}{{\otimes}}(\nu_{g,h})_{(X,\sigma)}.$$ Let $(A,U,\Pi)$ be an equivariant 0-cell. The left hand side of evaluated in $(A,U,\Pi)$ equals to $$\epsilon_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(X_{(A,U,\Pi)})}\circ\Pi_{g,h}\circ\epsilon_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(Y_{(A,U,\Pi)})}\circ \Pi_{g,h}.$$ The right hand side of evaluated in $(A,U,\Pi)$ equals to $$\epsilon_{g,h}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(X_{(A,U,\Pi)}\circ Y_{(A,U,\Pi)})}\circ\Pi_{g,h} .$$ It follows from that both sides are equal.
(iii). Let $(A,U,\Pi)$ be an equivariant 0-cell. The left hand side of evaluated in $(A,U,\Pi)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&=\big(\epsilon_{gh,f}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{ghf}(X)}\circ \Pi_{gh,f} \big)\big( \epsilon_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(U^*_fXU_f)}\circ \Pi_{g,h}\big)\\
&=\epsilon_{gh,f} (\epsilon_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(U^*_f)} )\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{ghf}(X)}\circ \Pi_{gh,f} ( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(U_f)}\circ \Pi_{g,h}).\end{aligned}$$ The right hand side of evaluated in $(A,U,\Pi)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&= \big( \epsilon_{g,hf} \circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(X)}\circ \Pi_{g,hf}\big)\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^*_g}\circ F_g(\epsilon_{h,f}) \circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{ghf}(X)}\circ F_g(\Pi_{h,f})\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g} \big)\\
&=\epsilon_{g,hf} ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^*_g}\circ F_g(\epsilon_{h,f}))\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{ghf}(X)} \circ \Pi_{g,hf}(F_g(\Pi_{h,f})\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}).\end{aligned}$$ Now, that both expressions are equal follow by and .
### Proof of Theorem \[center-equi\]
Let us first describe an object in the equivariantization of the category $ {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi).$ An object in $ {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)^G$ is a collection $((X,\sigma),s)$ where $(X,\sigma)\in {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$, and $s_g: L_g(X,\sigma)\to (X,\sigma)$ is a morphism in the category, for any $g\in G$. This means, that $X_{(A,U,\Pi)}\in {{\mathcal B}}(A,A)$ is a 1-cell, for any equivariant 0-cell $(A,U,\Pi)$, and for any equivariant 1-cell $(\tau,\tau_g)\in {{\mathcal B}}^G((A,U,\Pi), (\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi))$ there is an isomorphism $\sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)}: X_{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}\circ \tau\to \tau\circ X_{(A,U,\Pi)}$ such that equation is fulfilled. Also, for any $g\in G$ and any equivariant 0-cell $(A,U,\Pi)$ there are morphisms $$(s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)}: U^*_g F_g(X_{(A,U,\Pi)}) U_g\to V_{(A,U,\Pi)},$$ such that $$\label{equivariant-ob-s0}
\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_\tau\circ (s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)}\big)\sigma^g_{(\tau,\tau^1)}= \sigma_{(\tau,\tau^1)}\big((s_g)_{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_\tau \big),$$ $$\label{equivariant-ob-s}
(s_{gh})_{(A,U,\Pi)} (\nu_{g,h})_{(A,U,\Pi)} = (s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)} L_g((s_h)_{(A,U,\Pi)}),$$ for any equivariant 0-cells $(A,U,\Pi), (\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi) $, any equivariant 1-cell $(\tau,\tau_g)\in {{\mathcal B}}^G((A,U,\Pi), (\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi))$, and any $g, h\in G$. Equation follows from the fact that $s_g: L_g(V,\sigma)\to (V,\sigma)$ is a morphism in the category ${{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)$, and equation follows from .
Define the functor $\Psi:{{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)^G\to {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal B}}^G)$ as follows. Let $((X,\sigma),s)\in{{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)^G $, then $\Phi((X,\sigma),s)=(V,\widetilde \sigma)$. For any equivariant 0-cell $(A,U,\Pi)$, $V_{(A,U,\Pi)}$ must be an equivariant 1-cell in the category ${{\mathcal B}}^G((A,U,\Pi),(A,U,\Pi))$. Define $V_{(A,U,\Pi)}=(X_{(A,U,\Pi)}, \theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_g)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def-thetag}\begin{split}\theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_g: F_g(X_{(A,U,\Pi)})\circ U_g \Rightarrow U_g\circ X_{(A,U,\Pi)},\\
\theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_g={\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}\circ (s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)}.\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ If $(\tau,\tau_g)\in {{\mathcal B}}^G((A,U,\Pi), (\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi))$ is an equivariant 1-cell, then $$\widetilde \sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)}: (X_{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}, \theta^{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}_g)\circ (\tau,\tau_g) \Rightarrow (\tau,\tau_g) \circ (X_{(A,U,\Pi)}, \theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_g),$$ $$\widetilde \sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)}= \sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)}.$$
The following statements hold.
- $V_{(A,U,\Pi)}=(X_{(A,U,\Pi)}, \theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_g)\in {{\mathcal B}}^G$, for any equivariant 0-cell $(A,U,\Pi)$.
- The object $(V,\widetilde \sigma)$ belongs to the category $ {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal B}}^G).$ In particular, the functor $\Psi$ is well-defined.
- The functor $ \Psi:{{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)^G\to {{\mathcal Z}}({{\mathcal B}}^G)$ is an equivalence of categories, and it has a monoidal structure.
(i). We must check that the maps $\theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_g)$ satisfy . In this case, we must prove that for any $g,h\in G$ $$\big(\Pi_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{X_{(A,U,\Pi)}} \big)\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(U_h)}\circ \theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_g\big)\big( F_g(\theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_h)\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}\big)$$ is equal to $$\theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_{gh}\big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(X_{(A,U,\Pi)})} \circ \Pi_{g,h}\big).$$ Using the definition of $\theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_g$, we get that the first expression is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&\big(\Pi_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{X_{(A,U,\Pi)}} \big)\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(U_h)U_g}\circ (s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)}\big) \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(U_h)}\circ F_g((s_h)_{(A,U,\Pi)})\circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}\big)\\
&=\big(\Pi_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{X_{(A,U,\Pi)}} \big) \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(U_h)U_g}\circ (s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)} ({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U^*_g\circ F_g((s_h)_{(A,U,\Pi)})}) \circ {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_g}\big)\\
&=\big(\Pi_{g,h}\circ{\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{X_{(A,U,\Pi)}} \big) \big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_g(U_h)U_g}\circ (s_{gh})_{(A,U,\Pi)} (\nu_{g,h})_{(A,U,\Pi)} \big)\\
&=\big( {\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{U_{gh}}\circ (s_{gh})_{(A,U,\Pi)} \big)\big( \Pi_{g,h}\circ (\nu_{g,h})_{(A,U,\Pi)}\big)= \theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_{gh} \big({\mbox{\rm id\,}}_{F_{gh}(X_{(A,U,\Pi)})} \circ \Pi_{g,h}\big).\end{aligned}$$ The second equality follows from , and the last one follows from .
(ii). Since $\widetilde \sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)}= \sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)}$ for any equivariant 1-cell $(\tau,\tau_g)$, then $\widetilde \sigma$ satisfy . We must verify only that $\widetilde \sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)}$ is an equivariant 2-cell, that is is satisfied. To simplify the notation, let us denote $\theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_{g}=\theta_g, \theta^{(\widetilde A,\widetilde U,\widetilde\Pi)}=\widetilde\theta_g. $ In this particular case, using the composition of equivariant 1-cells given by , we have to prove that $$\label{sigma-morph-incat} \big(1_{\widetilde U_g}\circ \sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)} \big)\big(\widetilde \theta_{g}\circ 1_\tau \big)\big( 1_{F_g(\widetilde X)} \circ \tau_g \big)=\big( \tau_g \circ 1_X \big)\big( 1_{F_g(\tau)}\circ \theta_{g}\big)\big( F_g(\sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)})\circ 1_{U_g}\big).$$ The left hand side of equation is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&=\big( 1_{\widetilde U_g}\circ \sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)} \big)\big( 1_{\widetilde U_g}\circ (s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)}\big)\big(1_{F_g(\widetilde X)}\circ \tau_g \big)\\
&=\big( 1_{\widetilde U_g}\circ (1_\tau\circ (s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)}) \sigma^g_{(\tau,\tau_g)} \big)\big(1_{F_g(\widetilde X)}\circ \tau_g \big)\\
&=\big( 1_{\widetilde U_g}\circ (s_g)_{(A,U,\Pi)} \big) \big( \tau_g\circ 1_{U^*_gF_g(X)U_g} \big)\big( F_g(\sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)})\circ 1_{U_g} \big)\\
&=\big( \tau_g \circ 1_X \big)\big( 1_{F_g(\tau)}\circ \theta_{g}\big)\big( F_g(\sigma_{(\tau,\tau_g)})\circ 1_{U_g}\big).\end{aligned}$$ The first equality follows by using the definition of $\theta^{(A,U,\Pi)}_{g}$ given in , the second equality follows from , and the third one follows from the definition of $\sigma^g_{(\tau,\tau_g)}$.
(iii). The fact that $\Psi$ is an equivalence follows easily. A direct computation shows that $$\Psi\big( ((X,\sigma),s){{\otimes}}((Y,\tau),t) \big)= \Psi((X,\sigma),s) {{\otimes}}\Psi((Y,\tau),t),$$ for any pair of objects $((X,\sigma),s), ((Y,\tau),t) \in {{\mathcal Z}}(\Phi)^G$.
[AEGPk]{}
and [S. Natale]{}, *Exact sequences of tensor categories*, Int. Math. Res. Not. **2011** (24) (2011) 5644–5705.
and [S. Natale]{}, *Fusion rules of equivariantizations of fusion categories*, J. Math. Phys. 54, 013511 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4774293.
, [D. Nikshych]{} and [V. Ostrik]{}, *Weakly group-theoretical and solvable fusion categories*, Adv. Math **226**, 15 (2011), 176–205.
, [D. Nikshych]{} and [V. Ostrik]{}, *Fusion categories and homotopy theory*, Quantum Topol. **1**, No. 3, (2010) 209–273.
and [V. Ostrik]{}, *Finite tensor categories*, Mosc. Math. J. **4** (2004), no. 3, 627–654.
and [A. Valentino]{}, *Bicategories for boundary conditions and for surface defects in 3-d TFT*, Commun. Math. Phys. 321, No. 2, (2013) 543–575.
, *Coherence for monoidal $G$-categories and braided $G$-crossed categories*, Preprint arxiv: 1604.01679.
, [D. Naidu]{} and [D. Nikshych]{}, *Centers of graded fusion categories*, Algebra Number Theory 3, No. 8 (2009), 959–990 .
and [R. Street]{}, *Coherence for tricategories*, Mem. Am. Math. Soc. 117 (1995).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Greenough</span>. *Monoidal 2-structure of Bimodule Categories*. J. Algebra **324** (2010) 1818–1859.
N. Gurski. , volume 201 of [*Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Hesse, C. Schweigert</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Valentino</span>, *Frobenius algebras and homotopy fixed points of group actions on bicategories*, preprint arXiv:1607.05148.
and [R. Street]{}, *Review of the elements of 2-categories*, in: Category Seminar (Proc. Sem.), Sydney, 1972/1973, in: Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 420, Springer (1974) 75–103
and [V. Miemietz,]{} *Cell 2-representations of finitary 2-categories*, Compos. Math. **147**, No. 5, (2011) 1519–1545.
and [V. Miemietz,]{} *Transitive 2-representations of finitary 2-categories*, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), no. 11, 7623–7644.
and [V. Miemietz,]{} *Isotypic faithful 2-representations of J-simple fiat 2-categories,* Math. Z. 282 (2016), no.1-2, 411–434.
and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">S. Natale</span>, [Module categories over equivariantized tensor categories]{}, accepted in Moscow Math. J., preprint arxiv: 1405.7896.
and [M. Szymik]{}, *Drinfeld centers for bicategories*, Doc. Math., J. DMV 20, (2015) 707–735 .
and [C. Schweigert]{}, *Bicategories in field theories - an invitation* preprint Hamburger Beiträge zur Mathematik Nr. 425, (2001).
, *Fibrations and Yoneda’s Lemma in a 2-category*, in: Category Seminar (Proc. Sem.), Sydney, 1972/1973, in: Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 420, Springer (1974) 104–133.
, *Fibrations in bicategories.* Cahiers Topologie Geom. Differentielle, 21 (2) (1980) 111–160.
, *2-Kac-Moody algebras*, Preprint arXiv:0812.5023.
, *Invariants and semi-direct products for finite group actions on tensor categories*, J. Math. Soc. Japan **53** (2001), 429–456.
V. Turaev. , volume 10 of [*EMS Tracts in Mathematics*]{}. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2010. Appendix 5 by Michael M[ü]{}ger and Appendices 6 and 7 by Alexis Virelizier.
V. Turaev and A. Virelizier. On 3-dimensional homotopy quantum field theory, [I]{}. , 23(9):1250094, 28, 2012.
V. Turaev and A. Virelizier. On 3-dimensional homotopy quantum field theory [II]{}: [T]{}he surgery approach. , 25(4):1450027, 66, 2014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using a moving space curve formalism, geometrical as well as gauge equivalence between a (2+1) dimensional spin equation (M-I equation) and the (2+1) dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) originally discovered by Calogero, discussed then by Zakharov and recently rederived by Strachan, have been estabilished. A compatible set of three linear equations are obtained and integrals of motion are discussed. Through stereographic projection, the M-I equation has been bilinearized and different types of solutions such as line and curved solitons, breaking solitons, induced dromions, and domain wall type solutions are presented. Breaking soliton solutions of (2+1) dimensional NLSE have also been reported. Generalizations of the above spin equation are discussed.'
address: |
$^{a}$ Physical Technical Institute, National Academy of Sciences, Alma-Ata-480 082, Kazakstan\
$^{b}$ Center for Nonlinear Problems, PO Box 30, 480035 Alma-Ata-35, Kazakstan\
$^{c}$ Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics, Department of Physics, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli 620 024, India
author:
- 'R. Myrzakulov$^{{a,b}*}$, S. Vijayalakshmi$^{c}$, R.N. Syzdykova$^{b}$ and M. Lakshmanan$^{c{\dag}}$'
title: 'On the simplest (2+1) dimensional integrable spin systems and their equivalent nonlinear Schrödinger equations'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The two dimensional sigma-models with nontrivial topological structures are known to play a useful role in modern field theory. This set of models constitute a laboratory for studying two dimensional analogues of elementary particles within the framework of classical field theory\[1\]. In this context, important case studies concern with the existence of localized coherent structures (dromions, lumps, etc.) and other types of soliton-like solutions of some classical nonlinear field models such as, for example, the Ishimori and the other (2+1) dimensional spin systems\[1-3\].
Generally speaking, in (2+1) dimensions we have a number of remarkable properties, which may not exist in (1+1) dimensionsal counterparts. For example,
$1^{\circ}$. These equations possess the so called localized coherent structures (such as dromions, lumps and so on), which may undergo both elastic and inelastic scattering depending upon the initial conditions.
$2^{\circ}$.The corresponding spectral parameter (eigenvalue) of the associated linear problem (the Lax representation) can be dependent on the $t$ (time) and $y$ (space) variables and satisfy even nonlinear equations (see, for instance, \[3-4\]). As a consequence, the original soliton equation can have breaking solutions\[4-6\]. Besides, in this case, for finding solutions one even needs to use non-isospectral Inverse Scattering Transform(IST)\[5\].
$3^{\circ}$. Each integrable (1+1) dimensional equation may admit several integrable (and nonintegrable) extensions\[2,3\] in (2+1) dimensions. For example, the KdV equation has integrable extensions such as KP, NNV and breaking soliton equations\[6\].
$4^{\circ}$. Regarding the subject of the present paper, many of the (2+1) dimensional spin equations possess the topological invariant-with the so called topological charge
$$Q={1 \over {4\pi }} \int dx dy \vec S \cdot \vec S_x \wedge \vec S_y,
\eqno(1)$$ and their solutions are classified by the integer values of $Q_N$, $ N=0,\pm 1,
\pm 2,$... Here, $\vec S = (S_1, S_2, S_3) $ and $\mid \vec S \mid^2=S_1^2+
S_2^2+S_3^2=1$ and $\vec S_x = \left( {\partial \vec S\over {\partial x}}\right)$, $\vec S_y = \left( {\partial \vec S\over {\partial y}}\right)$. This property can be realised, for example, in the (2+1) dimensional analogues of the well known (1+1) dimensional Heisenberg ferromagnet model (or the (1+1) dimensional isotropic Landau - Lifshitz equation (LLE))\[7-9\]
$$\vec S_{t} = \vec S \wedge \vec S_{xx}. \eqno(2)$$
The Heisenberg ferromagnetic spin equation (2) possesses many useful (2+1) dimensional extensions: Some of them are as follows.
a\) The Ishimori equation\[10\]
$$\vec S_{t} = \vec S \wedge ( \vec S_{xx} +\epsilon^2 \vec S_{yy})
+ u_{x} \vec S_{y} + u_{y} \vec S_{x}, \eqno(3a)$$
$$u_{xx} -\epsilon^2 u_{yy} = -2\epsilon^2 \vec S \cdot (\vec S_{x}
\wedge \vec S_{y}). \eqno(3b)$$
b\) The M - I equation\[5\]
$$\vec S_{t} = (\vec S \wedge \vec S_{y} + u \vec S )_{x}, \eqno(4a)$$
$$u_{x} = - \vec S \cdot (\vec S_{x} \wedge \vec S_{y}). \eqno(4b)$$
c\) The (2+1) dimensional isotropic LLE\[11\]
$$\vec S_{t} = \vec S \wedge (\vec S_{xx} + \vec S_{yy}). \eqno(5)$$ Here $u$ is a scalar function and $\epsilon^2=\pm 1$. It turns out that eqs. (3) and (4) are integrable, while Eq. (5) is apparently nonintegrable. All the three Eqs. (3) - (5) describe the nonlinear dynamics of the classical spin systems in the plane and in the (1+1) dimensional case reduce to one and the same Eq. (2). Properties of Eqs. (3) are relatively well studied (see, for example, \[3,10\]). In this paper we wish to concentrate on studying the M-I equation(4). In particular, we wish to identify the geometrically equivalent (2+1) dimensional NLSE for (4) and study the nature of the nonlinear excitations admitted by the spin system.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.II we briefly review some necessary informations about (4) relevant to this paper. The geometrical and gauge equivalent counterpart of Eq. (4) is constructed in Sec.III and Sec.IV, respectively. Integrals of motion are discussed in Sec.V. In Sec.VI the Hirota bilinear form of Eq. (4) is derived. The solitons (line and curved), domain walls and dromion-like solutions as well as their breaking analogues are obtained in Sec.VII and breaking solitons and dromions for its equivalent counterpart are obtained in Sec.VIII. In Sec.IX we comment on the possible further extensions and we conclude in Sec.X.
THE M-I EQUATION
=================
The Lax representation of Eq. (4) can be shown to take the form\[5\]
$$\phi_{1x} = U_{1}\phi_1, \eqno(6a)$$
$$\phi_{1t} = V_{1} \phi_1 + \lambda \phi_{1y}, \eqno(6b)$$ with
$$U_{1} = \frac{i\lambda}{2} S , \eqno(7a)$$
$$V_{1} = \frac{\lambda }{4} ([S,S_{y}] + 2iuS). \eqno(7b)$$ Here
$$S=\pmatrix{
S_3 & rS^-\cr
rS^+ & -S_3}, \eqno(8)$$ $S^{\pm} = S_{1} \pm iS_{2}$ and $\lambda $ is the eigenvalue parameter, which satisfies the following nonlinear equation
$$\lambda_{t}=\lambda \lambda_{y}. \eqno(9)$$ Hence, using the compatibility of Eqs. (6a) and (6b), we get
$$iS_t=\left( [S,S_y]+2iuS\right)_x , \eqno(10a)$$
$$u_x=-{1\over 2i} tr(S S_x S_y), \eqno(10b)$$ where tr denotes the trace of the matrix. This system is obviously the matrix form of Eq. (4).
Thus, for solving equation(4), we must use the non-isospectral extension of IST \[5\]. As a consequence, Eq. (4) admits besides the usual solutions, corresponding to constant solution of Eq. (9), breaking analogues related to the $t$ and $y$ dependence of $\lambda $. Note that Eq. (9) itself is the compatibility condition of the following system of the linear equations,
$$f_x={i\lambda \over 2}f, \eqno(11a)$$
$$f_t=\lambda f_y. \eqno(11b)$$
Another useful form of Eq. (4), can be obtained by using the complex (stereographic) variable $\omega (x,y,t)$ defined through the relations
$$S^{+} = S_{1}+iS_{2}=\frac {2\omega}{1+\mid \omega \mid^{2}},
\,\,\,\,\, S_{3}=\frac{1-\mid \omega \mid^{2}}{1+\mid \omega \mid^{2}}.
\eqno(12)$$ In this case, Eq. (4) takes the form
$$i(\omega_{t} - u\omega_{x}) + \omega_{xy} -
\frac{2\omega^* \omega_{x}\omega_{y}}{1 + \mid\omega\mid^{2}}
= 0, \eqno(13a)$$
$$u_{x} + \frac{2i(\omega_{x}\omega^{*}_{y} - \omega^{*}_{x}\omega_{y})}
{(1 + \mid \omega \mid^{2})^{2}} = 0. \eqno(13b)$$ We will use this form also frequently in our following analysis.
L - EQUIVALENT COUNTERPART
==========================
It is well known that in (1+1) dimensions there exists geometrical equivalence between spin systems and nonlinear Schrödinger type equations\[7,12\], which in ref.\[5\] was called the Lakshmanan eqivalence or shortly the L-equivalence (see also \[12-14\]). In refs.\[5,13-15\] a (2+1) dimensional generalization of the L-equivalence was presented. In this section we find the L-equivalent counterpart of Eq. (4). For this purpose, we will extend the geometrical method applicable to (1+1) dimensional systems suitably to the (2+1) dimensional case. We now associate a moving space curve parametrised by the arclength $x$, and endowed with an additional coordinate $y$, with the spin system\[12,16\]. Then the Serret-Frenet equation associated with the curve has the form
$$\vec e_{ix} = \vec D \wedge \vec e_i, \eqno (14)$$ where
$$\vec D = \tau \vec e_1 + \kappa \vec e_3 \eqno(15)$$ and $ \vec e_i$’s, $i = 1,2,3,$ form the orthogonal trihedral.
Mapping the spin variable on the unit tangent vector
$$\vec S(x,y,t) = \vec e_1 , \eqno(16)$$ the curvature and the torsion are given by
$$\kappa (x,y,t) = ( \vec S_x^2)^{1\over2}, \eqno(17a)$$
$$\tau(x,y,t) = \kappa ^{-2} \vec S \cdot (\vec S_{x} \wedge \vec S_{xx}).
\eqno(17b)$$ Due to the orthonormality nature of the trihedral, $\vec e_{it}. \vec e_i = 0$, $\vec e_{iy}. \vec e_i = 0$, $i,j = 1,2,3$ and using the compatibility condition $ \vec e_{ixy} = \vec e_{iyx}$, we find the equation for the $y$-part
$$\vec e_{iy} = \vec {\gamma} \wedge \vec e_i, \eqno(18)$$ where $\vec {\gamma} =(\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \gamma_3) $ and
$$\gamma_1 = u+\partial_x^{-1} \tau_y , \eqno(19a)$$
$$\gamma _2 = {u_x \over \kappa }, \eqno(19b)$$
$$\gamma_3= \partial_x^{-1}\left( \kappa _y-{\tau u_x \over \kappa}
\right ). \eqno(19c)$$
Alternatively the trihedral $\vec e_i(x,y,t)$, $i=1,2,3$ could be thought of as defining a suitable surface in $E^{3}$, (so that Eqs. (14) and (18) represent the Gauss - Weingarten equations in orthogonal coordinates and that the compatibility condition $\vec e_{ixy}=\vec e_{iyx}$ gives rise to the Codazzi -Mainardi equations), which is then set in motion. Now, from Eq. (4) and using Eqs. (14) and (18), we can easily find the time evolution of the trihedral as
$$\vec e_{it} = \vec {\Omega} \wedge \vec e_i, \eqno(20)$$ with
$$\vec \Omega = (\omega_1, \omega_2, \omega_3)
= \left( {\kappa_{xy} \over \kappa }-\tau \partial_x^{-1} \tau_y, -\kappa_y,
-\kappa \partial_x^{-1} \tau_y \right). \eqno(21)$$ Ultimately, the compatibility condition $\vec e_{ixt} =\vec e_{itx}$, which is also consistent with the relation $\vec e_{iyt} =\vec e_{ity}$, $i=1,2,3$ yields the following evolution equations for the curvature and torsion,
$$\kappa_t= -(\kappa \tau)_y-\kappa_x \partial_x^{-1} \tau_y ,\eqno(22a)$$
$$\tau_t= \left[ {\kappa_{xy}\over {\kappa}}- \tau \partial_x^{-1} \tau_y
\right]_x + \kappa \kappa_y . \eqno(22b)$$ On making the complex transformation\[7\]
$$\psi (x,y,t) ={\kappa(x,y,t)\over 2} \exp \left [-i\int_ {-\infty }^{x}
\tau(x',y, t) dx'\right ], \eqno(23)$$ the set of equations (22) reduces to the following (2+1) dimensional NLSE
$$i\psi_t = \psi_{xy}+ r^2V \psi, \eqno(24a)$$
$$V_x = 2\partial_y{\mid \psi \mid }^2. \eqno(24b)$$ Here, $r^2 = +1$, that is, we have the attractive type NLSE (The case $r^2
= -1$ corresponds to the repulsive case). Eq. (24) belongs to the class of equations discovered by Calogero\[17\] and then discussed by Zakharov\[18\] and recently rederived by Strachan (for $r^2 = +1$)\[19\]. Its Painlevé property and some exact solutions were also obtained \[20\]. $N$-soliton solutions of Eq. (24) for both the cases ($r^2=\pm 1$) can be found in ref.\[21\]. Thus, we have proved that Eq. (24) is equivalent to Eq. (4) in the geometrical sense.
LINEARIZATION
-------------
Introducing now the complex variable corresponding to an orthogonal rotation
$$z_l={e_{2l}+ie_{3l}\over {1-e_{1l}}},\,\,\,\,e_{1l}^2+e_{2l}^2+e_{3l}^2=1,\,\,
\,\,\,l=1,2,3$$ the spatial and temporal evolution of the trihedral (eqs. 14, 18 and 20) can be rewritten as a set of the following three Riccati equations:
$$z_{lx}=-i\tau z_l+{\kappa \over 2}\left[ 1+z_l^2\right],\eqno(25a)$$
$$z_{ly}=-i\gamma_1 z_l+{1\over 2}\left[ \gamma_3+i\gamma_2\right] z_l^2+
{1\over 2}\left[ \gamma_3-i\gamma_2\right],\eqno(25b)$$
$$z_{lt}=-i\omega_1 z_l+{1\over 2}\left[ \omega_3+i\omega_2\right] z_l^2+
{1\over 2}\left[ \omega_3-i\omega_2\right].\eqno(25c)$$ It is easy to check that Eq. (25a) is equivalent to the Serret-Frenet equations (14), (25b) is equivalent to the $y$-variation of the trihedral Eq. (18), while the temporal evolution (25c) is equivalent to (20).
Further introducing the transformation
$$z_l={v_2\over{v_1}},\eqno(26)$$ Eq. (25) can be written as a system of three coupled two component first order equations,
$$\pmatrix {
v_{1x} \cr
v_{2x}
} = \pmatrix{
{i\tau \over 2} & {-\kappa \over 2} \cr
{\kappa \over 2} & {-i\tau \over 2}
}
\pmatrix{
v_1 \cr
v_2
}, \eqno(27a)$$
$$\pmatrix {
v_{1y} \cr
v_{2y}
} = \pmatrix{
{i\gamma_1\over 2} & {{-1\over 2}(\gamma_3+i\gamma_2)} \cr
{{1\over 2}(\gamma_3-i\gamma_2)} & {-i\gamma_1\over 2}
}
\pmatrix{
v_1 \cr
v_2
}, \eqno(27b)$$
$$\pmatrix {
v_{1t} \cr
v_{2t}
} = \pmatrix{
{i\omega_1\over 2} & {{-1\over 2}(\omega_3+i\omega_2)} \cr
{{1\over 2}(\omega_3-i\omega_2)} & {-i\omega_1\over 2}
}
\pmatrix{
v_1 \cr
v_2
}. \eqno(27c)$$ Once again one can check that the compatibility of the three sets of equations (27) gives rise to the evolution equation (22).
GAUGE EQUIVALENT COUNTERPART
============================
Next, it is also of interest to note that Eqs. (4) and (12) are gauge equivalent to each other in the sense of Zakharov and Takhtajan\[22\]. To obtain the gauge equivalent counterpart of Eq. (4), in the usual way we consider the following gauge transformation
$$\phi_1 = g^{-1} \phi_2 , \eqno(28)$$ where $g(x,y,t)$ and $\phi_2(x,y,t,\lambda )$ are arbitrary $(2\times 2)$ matrix functions of the type defined on a compact manifold $S^2 = SU(2)/U(1)$. Substituting Eq. (28) into Eq. (6), after some algebra we get the following system of linear equations for $\phi_2$,
$$\phi_{2x}= U_2 \phi_2 , \eqno(29a)$$
$$\phi_{2t} = V_2 \phi_2 + \lambda\phi_{2y} \eqno(29b)$$ with
$$U_2= {i\lambda\over2} \sigma_3+G,\,\,\,\,G= \pmatrix{
0 & \phi \cr
-r^2\phi^* & 0
} ,\,\,\,\,r^2=+1,\eqno(30a)$$
$$V_2= -i\sigma_3 \left({VI\over2}+G_y\right),\,\,\,\, I=diag(1,1), \eqno(30b)$$
$$V= 2 \partial_x^{-1} \partial_y\left(\mid \psi\mid^2\right). \eqno(30c)$$ The compatibility condition of Eq. (29) along with (9) becomes (24), that is, Eq. (4) and Eq. (24) are gauge equivalent to each other. The above transformation is in fact reversible and we can similarly prove that Eq. (24) is gauge equivalent to Eq. (4). It is also of interest to note that the set of linear Eqs. (27) can be recast in the form (29) after suitable transformations.
Next, we present some important formulae which are just consequences of the geometrical/gauge equivalence of Eqs. (4) and (24). We have
$$tr(S_x^2) = 8 \mid \psi \mid ^2= 2 \vec S_x^2. \eqno(31a)$$ In a similar manner we find that
$$-2i \vec S \cdot (\vec S_x \wedge \vec S_{xx})=tr(SS_xS_{xx})= 4(\psi^* \psi
_x-\psi \psi^*_x ). \eqno(31b)$$ These relations are obviously equivalent to Eq. (23). One notes that these are of the same form as in the case of (1+1) dimensional Heisenberg spin chain \[7,8\].
INTEGRALS OF MOTION
===================
The spin Eq. (4) allows an infinite number of integrals of motion as a consequence of integrability. These integrals can be consructed using for example the Lax representation(6). However some of the integrals can be constructed using that L-equivalence property. Now from (22a), it follows that
$$(\kappa^{2})_{t} = [-\kappa^{2}\partial^{-1}_{x}\tau_{y}]_{x} +
[-k^{2}\tau]_{y}.\eqno(32a)$$ Hence we get the first integral
$$K_{1} =\int \kappa^{2} dxdy .\eqno(32b)$$ Similarly (22b) leads to
$$K_{2} = \int \kappa^2\tau dxdy .\eqno(33)$$ In terms of the spin vector the corresponding two conservation laws are
$$\left( \vec S^2_x\right) _{t}+ \partial _x{\left[\vec S_x^2
\partial _x^{-1}\left( \vec S\cdot \vec S_x\wedge \vec S _{xx}\over {\vec S_x^2}
\right)_y\right]} + \partial_y \left[ \vec S \cdot \vec S_x\wedge
\vec S_{xx}\right]=0,\eqno(34)$$
$$\left[ \vec {S}\cdot \vec S_x \wedge \vec S_{xx} \right]_t +
\partial _x \left[ {(\vec S_x^2)_x (\vec S_x^2)_y \over {4\vec S_x^2}} + \vec S
\cdot \vec S_x \wedge \vec S_{xx} \partial
_x^{-1} \left( {\vec {S}\cdot \vec S_x \wedge \vec S_{xx}\over {\vec S_x^2}}
\right)_y\right]$$ $$+ \partial_y \left\{ {(\vec S_x^2)^2_x\over {4\vec S_x^2}} + {{ \left( \vec
{S}\cdot \vec S_x \wedge \vec S_{xx} \right)^2} \over {\vec S^2_x}} -
{\left( \vec S_x^2 \right)_{xx}\over 2}-{\vec S_x^4 \over 4}\right\} = 0 .
\eqno (35)$$ Note that these integrals have the same forms as in the (1+1) dimensional case. More interesting integrals of purely (2+1) dimensional nature can be obtained from the condition
$$\vec e_{jxy} = \vec e_{jyx}.\eqno(36)$$ Making use of the various relations in Sec.III and after some algebra we have
$$(-\kappa \gamma_2)_t = (-\gamma_{1t})_x + (\tau_t)_y,\eqno(37)$$
$$(-\tau \gamma_2)_t = (\gamma_{3t})_x + (-\kappa_t)_y. \eqno(38)$$ These equations give two integrals
$$K_3 = \int (-\kappa \gamma_2) dxdy, \eqno(39)$$ and
$$K_4 = \int (-\tau \gamma_2) dxdy . \eqno(40)$$
In terms of the spin vector $\vec S $ these integrals of motion take the forms
$$K_1 = \int (\vec S_x^2 )dxdy, \eqno(41)$$
$$K_2 = \int \vec S \cdot \vec S_{x} \wedge \vec S_{xx}
dxdy, \eqno(42)$$
$$K_3 = \int \vec S \cdot (\vec S_{x} \wedge \vec S_{y} )dxdy \eqno(43)$$ and
$$K_4 = \int \frac {[\vec S \cdot (\vec S_{x}\wedge \vec S_{y})]
[\vec S \cdot (\vec S_{x} \wedge \vec S_{xx})]}
{(\vec S_x^2){\frac{3}{2}}}dxdy .\eqno(44)$$ Note that $K_3$ is the topological charge given by Eq. (1) to within a constant. One can proceed to find the other integrals of motion using the eigenvalue problem(29).
HIROTA BILINEAR FORM
====================
In order to solve the Cauchy initial value problem of Eq. (4), it will be of interest to investigate the system in the framework of the inverse spectral transform method, for example, by the d-bar dressing method\[2,3\]. However, for our present purpose we concentrate on exact analytic solutions of Eq. (4). In doing so, it is convenient to rewrite Eq. (4) or its equivalent stereographic form (13) in the Hirota bilinear form. On writing
$$\omega={g\over f}, \eqno(45)$$ Eq. (4) or Eq. (13) becomes
$$(iD_t-D_xD_y) (f^*\circ g)=0, \eqno(46a)$$
$$(iD_t-D_xD_y) (f^*\circ f-g^*\circ g)=0, \eqno(46b)$$
$$D_x(f^*\circ f+g^*\circ g)=0,\eqno(46c)$$ while the potential $u$ takes the form
$$u(x,y,t)=-{iD_y(f^*\circ f+g^*\circ g)\over {f^*\circ f+g^*\circ g}},
\eqno(46d)$$ where $g$ and $f$ are complex valued functions. Here $D_{x}$ is the Hirota bilinear operator, defined by
$$D^{k}_{x} D^{m}_{y} D^{n}_{t} (f \circ g) = (\partial_x-\partial_
{x\prime })^k(\partial_y-\partial_{y\prime })^m (\partial_t-\partial_{t\prime })^n
f(x,y,t)g(x,y,t) \|_{x=x\prime, y=y\prime, t=t\prime} \eqno(47)$$ Using the above definition of the $D$-operator, we get from (31d) that
$$u_x = - 2i\left[ D_y (f \circ g) D_x(f^*\circ g^*)- c.c \right].\eqno(48a)$$ In terms of $g$ and $f$, the spin field takes the form
$$S^{+} = \frac{2f^{*}g}{\mid f\mid ^{2} + \mid g \mid ^{2}},\,\,\,\,\,
S_{3}=\frac{\mid f\mid^{2}-\mid g\mid^{2}}{\mid f\mid^{2}+\mid g\mid^{2}}.
\eqno(48b)$$ Eq. (46) represents the starting point to obtain interesting classes of solutions for the spin system (4).The construction of the solutions is standard. One expands the functions $g$ and $f$ as a series
$$g = \epsilon g_{1} + \epsilon^{3} g_{3} + \epsilon^{5}g_{5} +
\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot, \eqno(49a)$$
$$f=1+\epsilon^2 f_2+\epsilon^4 f_4+\epsilon^6 f_6+ ..... . \eqno(49b)$$
Substituting these expansions into (46 a,b,c) and equating the coefficients of $\epsilon $, one obtains the following system of equations from (46a):
$$\epsilon^1: ig_{1t}+g_{1xy}=0 ,\eqno(50a)$$
$$\epsilon^3: \left[ i\partial_t+\partial_x \partial_y\right] g_3=\left[iD_t
-D_xD_y\right] (f^*_2.g_1),\eqno(50b)$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$ $$\epsilon^{2n+1}: \left[ i\partial_t+\partial_x \partial_y\right] g_{2n+1}
=\sum_{k+m=n} \left[ iD_t-D_xD_y\right] (f^*_{2k}.g_{2m+1}),\eqno(50c)$$ and from (46b):
$$\epsilon^2: i\partial_t(f_2^*-f_2)-\partial_x \partial_y(f_2^*+f_2)=
\left[iD_t-D_xD_y\right] (g_1^*.g_1),\eqno(51a)$$
$$\epsilon^4: i\partial_t(f_4^*-f_4)-\partial_x \partial_y (f_4^*+f_4)=
\left[iD_t-D_xD_y\right] (g_1^*.g_3+g_3^*.g_1-f_2^*.f_2),\eqno(51b)$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$
$$\epsilon^{2n}: i\partial_t(f_{2n}^*-f_{2n})-\partial_x \partial_y (f_{2n}^*
+f_{2n})=(iD_t-D_xD_y)\left( \sum_{n_1+n_2=n-1}g_{2n_1+1}^*.g_{2n_2+1}\right)$$
$$-(iD_t-D_xD_y)\left(\sum_{m_1+m_2=n}f_{2m_1}^*.f_{2m_2}\right).\eqno(51c)$$ Further from (46c), we have the following:
$$\epsilon^2: \partial_x (f_2^*-f_2)=-D_x(g_1^*.g_1),\eqno(52a)$$
$$\epsilon^4: \partial_x (f_4^*-f_4)=-D_x(g_1^*.g_3+g_3^*.g_1+f_2^*.f_2),
\eqno(52b)$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$ $$\cdot \cdot$$
$$\epsilon^{2n}: \partial_x (f_{2n}^*-f_{2n})= -
D_x\left[ \sum_{n_1+n_2=n-1}(g_{2n_1+1}^*.g_{2n_(2+1)}+
\sum_{n_1+n_2=n}f_{2n_1}^*.f_{2n_2})\right].\eqno(52c)$$ Solving recursively the above equations, we obtain many interesting classes of solutions to Eq. (4).
SOLUTIONS OF THE SPIN SYSTEM
============================
Using the results of the previous section, we are in a position to construct many exact solutions such as solitons, domain walls, breaking solitons and induced dromions of Eq. (4). To obtain such solutions, we can use Eqs. (46) as the starting point.
The 1-line soliton and curved soliton solutions
-----------------------------------------------
On solving Eq. (50a), we obtain
$$g_1 = \sum_{j=1}^N \exp {\chi_j},\,\,\,\,\chi_j = a_jx + b_j(y,t) + c_j,
\eqno(53a)$$ where $b_j(y,t)$ is an arbitrary function of (y,t) satisfying the relation
$$b_j(y,t) = b_j(\rho) = b_j(y+ia_jt),\eqno(53b)$$ and $a_j$ and $c_j$ are complex constants. In order to construct the one soliton solution, we take the case of $N = 1$ in (53a) and substitute it in Eq. (51a). We obtain
$$f_2=\exp {(\chi_1+\chi_1^*+\psi)}.\eqno(54a)$$ Using Eqs. (51a) and (52a), it is found that
$$\exp {\psi} = -{a_1^2 \over {(a_1+a_1^*)^2}}. \eqno(54b)$$ If we use the above forms of $g_1$ and $f_2$ in Eqs. (50b), (51b) and (52b), we can see that $g_j=0$ for $j\ge 3$ and $f_j=0$ for $j\ge 4$. By substituting the values of $g_1$ and $f_2$ in Eqs. (48a) and (48b), we obtain the expressions for the 1-soliton solution for the spin components and for the potential for example with the choice $\exp c_1 = {2a_{1R}\over {a_1^*}}$ as
$$S^+(x,y,t)={2a_{1R} \over {a_{1R}^2+a_{1I}^2}} \exp {i\chi_{1I}}\left[ ia_{1I}
-a_{1R}tanh \chi_{1R}\right] sech \chi_{1R}, \eqno(55a)$$
$$S_3(x,y,t)=1-{2 a_{1R}^2 \over {a_{1R}^2+a_{1I}^2}} sech^2{\chi_{1R}},
\eqno(55b)$$ and the potential as
$$u(x,y,t)={2a_{1R}\over {a_{1R}^2+a_{1I}^2}} \left(a_{1I}b_{1R}'-a_{1R}
b_{1I}'\right) sech^2{\chi_{1R}}.\eqno(55c)$$ It follows from Eqs. (55) that one can identify two types of solitons:
### Line solitons:
If we choose the function $b_1(y,t)$ in Eq. (53b) as $$b_1(y,t) = b_1y+ib_1a_1t,\eqno(56a)$$ then $$\chi_1 = a_1x+b_1y+ia_1b_1t+c_1\eqno(56b)$$ where $b_1$ is now a complex constant, and Eqs. (55) correspond to the line solitons. In this case the spin vector $\vec S\rightarrow (0,0,1)$ for fixed $t$ as $x$, $y
\rightarrow \pm \infty $, except along the line $$\chi_{1R} = a_{1R}x+b_{1R}y-(a_{1R}b_{1I}+a_{1I}b_{1R})t+c_{1R}=0,\eqno(57)$$ where it is still bounded.
### Curved solitons:
However for arbitrary form of $b_1(\rho ) = b_1(y+ia_1t)$ in Eq. (53b) and for fixed $(y,t)$, it follows from (55) that $\vec S\rightarrow (0,0,1)$ as $x,y \rightarrow \pm \infty$ and the wavefront itself is defined by the equation
$$\chi_{1R} = a_{1R}x + b_{1R}(\rho ) + c_{1R} = 0.\eqno(58)$$ We may call such solitons (which do not decay along the curve(58) ) as curved solitons\[23\].
The 2-soliton and N-soliton solutions
-------------------------------------
To generate a 2 line or curved soliton solution (2-SS), we take $N=2$ in (53a) and hence $g_1$ takes the form
$$g_1=\exp{\chi_1}+\exp{\chi_2}.\eqno(59)$$ Substituting (59) in (50)-(52), after some calculation we obtain
$$f_2=N_{11}\exp {(\chi_1+\chi_1^*)}+N_{12}\exp {(\chi_1+\chi_2^*)}+N_{21}
\exp {(\chi_1^*+\chi_2)}+$$ $$N_{22}\exp {(\chi_2+\chi_2^*)},\eqno(60a)$$
$$g_3=L_{12}N_{11}N_{12} \exp {(\chi_1+\chi_1^*+\chi_2)}+L_{12}N_{22}N_{21}
\exp {(\chi_1+\chi_2+\chi_2^*)},\eqno(60b)$$
$$f_4=L_{12}L_{12}^*N_{11}N_{12}N_{21}N_{22} \exp {(\chi_1+\chi_1^*+\chi_2+
\chi_2^*)},\eqno(60c)$$ where
$$N_{rs}=-{a_r^2\over {(a_r+a_s^*)^2}},\,\,\,\,L_{rs}=-{(a_r-a_s)^2\over
{a_s^2}},\eqno(60d)$$ and $g_j=0$ for $j\ge 5$ and $f_j=0$ for $j\ge 6$. Inserting (60) into (48b) we get
$$S^{+}(x,y,t) =2{(1+f^*_2+f^*_4)(g_1+g_3)\over {\mid 1+f_2+f_4\mid^2+\mid
g_1+g_3\mid ^2}},\eqno(61a)$$
$$S_{3}(x,y,t)={{\mid 1+f_2+f_4\mid^2-\mid g_1+g_3\mid ^2} \over {\mid 1+
f_2+f_4\mid^2+\mid g_1+g_3\mid ^2}}, \eqno(61b)$$ and similarly the expression for the potential can also be obtained from (48a) or (46d).
Finally by taking $g_1$ as
$$g_1=\sum_{j=1}^N\exp{\chi_j}$$ and extending the above procedure, one can obtain the N-SS also.
The domain wall type solution
-----------------------------
The soliton solutions of (55) and (61) correspond to the boundary condition
$$\vec S(x,y,t) = (0. 0, 1),\,\, as\,\,\, x,\,\,y \rightarrow \pm \infty .
\eqno(62)$$ Another class of physically interesting solutions are the domain wall type solutions, which have the asymptotic form
$$\vec S(x,y,t) = (0,0,\pm 1), as\,\,\, x,\,\,y \rightarrow \pm \infty \eqno(63)$$ In order to obtain domain wall solutions in the present model, we make the choice
$$\omega(x,y,t) = g(x,y,t), \,\,\,\,\, f(x,y,t) = 1 . \eqno(64)$$ Then, Eq. (46) reduces to
$$ig_{t} + g_{xy} = 0, \eqno(65a)$$
$$g^{*}_{x} g_{y} + g^{*}_{y} g_{x} = 0, \eqno(65b)$$
$$g^{*}_{x}g - g^{*}g_{x} = 0, \eqno(65c)$$ which is consistent with Eq. (13). Alternately, we can use another substitution
$$\omega (x,y,t) = \frac{1}{f(x,y,t)}, \,\,\,\,g(x,y,t) = 1 \eqno(66)$$ Here also it follows from (46) that
$$if^{*}_t - f^{*}_{xy} = 0 \eqno(67a)$$
$$f^{*}_{x}f_{y} + f_{x}f^{*}_{y} = 0 \eqno(67b)$$
$$f^{*}_{x}f - f^*f_{x} = 0. \eqno(67c)$$ Comparing Eqs. (65) and (67), we see that if $\omega (x,y,t)$ is a solution of Eq. (13), so also
$$\omega ^{\prime }(x,y,t) =\pm {1\over {\omega (x,y,t)}} \eqno(68)$$ are solutions of Eq. (13). This is an obvious consequence of the fact that Eq. (13) is invariant under inversion.
Now, we find the simplest non-trivial solutions for example of Eq. (65). Let us take the ansatz
$$g=\exp {(ax+iby-abt)} \eqno (69)$$ where $a$, $b$ are real constants. The components of the spin vector $\vec S$ are given by
$$S^+(x,y,t)={\exp {iby}\over {cosh [a(x-bt-x_0)]}},\eqno(70a)$$
$$S_3(x,y,t)=-tanh [a(x-bt-x_0)].\eqno(70b)$$ We can also have a more general solution of the form
$$g=\exp {[ax+im(y,t)]},\eqno(71)$$ where $a$ is a real constant and $m(y,t)$ is an arbitrary function of $y$ and $t$. From Eq. (65a), it follows that
$$m=m(\rho )=m(y+iat), \rho=y+iat. \eqno(72)$$ Expressions for the spin components are then given by
$$S^+(x,y,t)={\exp [iRe (m(\rho ))]\over {cosh [ax-Im (m(\rho ))]}},\eqno(73a)$$
$$S_3(x,y,t)=-tanh [ax+Re (m(\rho ))],\eqno(73b)$$ and the potential is
$$u(x,y,t)=-2m^{\prime }_R \{ 1+\exp {[-2(ax-m_I)]}\}^{-1},\eqno(74)$$ where the $\prime $ denotes the differentiation with respect to the real part of the argument. Naturally even more general solutions can be obtained by taking more general forms for $g(x,y,t)$ than (69) or (71).
The breaking soliton solution
-----------------------------
.
We have already noted in Sec.II that for the present system (4), we have a non-isospectral problem, as the spectral parameter $\lambda $ satisfies Eq. (9). The above presented solutions all correspond to the constant solution of Eq. (9), namely $\lambda =\lambda_1=$ constant. One may consider other interesting solutions of Eq. (9). For example, one can have a special solution
$$\lambda=\lambda_1= \delta(y,t)+i \xi (y,t)={y+k+i\eta \over {q-t}},\eqno(75)$$ where $q$, $k$ and $\eta$ are real constants. Corresponding to this case, we may call the resulting solutions of Eqs. (4) and (24) as breaking solitons\[4\]. Using the Hirota method, one can also construct the breaking 1-SS of Eq. (4) associated with (75). For this purpose, we take $g_1$ in the form
$$g=g_1= \exp{\chi },\,\,\,\, \chi = ax+m+c =\chi_R+i\chi_I ,\eqno(76)$$ where $a=a(y,t)$, $m=m(y,t)$ and $c=c(t)$ are functions to be determined. Substituting (76) into the first of Eq. (53), we get
$$ia_t+aa_y=0,\,\,\,\,im_t+am_y=0,\,\,\,iA_t+Aa_y=0, \eqno(77)$$ where $A=\exp(c)$. Particular solutions of Eqs. (77) have the forms
$$a=-i\lambda = {\eta -i(y+k) \over {q-t}},\,\,\,\, m=m{\left( y+k+i\eta
\over {{q-t}} \right) },\,\,\,\, A={A_0\over {q-t}} , \eqno(78)$$ where $\eta $, $k$, $q$ and $A_0$ are some constants. From Eqs. (50)-(52), we obtain
$$f_2 =B \exp {2\chi_R},\,\,\,\, B={(y+k+i\eta )^2 \over
{4{\eta }^2}} .\eqno(79)$$
Now, we can write the breaking 1-SS of Eq. (4) (using equations (48b), (76)-(79)),
$$S^+(x,y,t) = {\exp{[i\chi_{1I}+\ln{2\eta \over {y+k+i\eta }}]} sech [\chi_{1R}+\ln
{y+k+i\eta \over {2\eta }}] \over {1+{\eta^2\over {(y+k)^2+\eta^2}} sech [\chi_{1R}
+\ln {y+k+i\eta \over {2\eta }}] sech [\chi_{1R}+\ln {y+k-i\eta\over {2\eta }}]}}
,\eqno(80a)$$
$$S_3(x,y,t)= {1-{\eta^2 \over {(y+k)^2+\eta^2}} sech [\chi_{1R}+\ln {y+k+i\eta
\over {2\eta }}] sech [\chi_{1R}+\ln {y+k-i\eta \over {2\eta }}]\over {1+
{\eta^2 \over {(y+k)^2+\eta^2}} sech [\chi_{1R}+\ln {y+k+i\eta
\over {2\eta }}] sech [\chi_{1R}+\ln {y+k-i\eta \over {2\eta }}]}}
, \eqno(80b)$$ where $ \chi_1= \chi$ as defined in Eq. (76). We see that the solution (80) corresponds to an algebraically decaying solution for large $x$, $y$.
Localized coherent structures (dromions)
----------------------------------------
Next, we present the dromion type localized solutions of Eq. (4), the so-called induced localized structures/or induced dromions\[23\] for the potential $u(x,y,t)$. This is possible by utilising the freedom in the choice of the arbitrary functions $b_{1R}$ and $b_{1I}$ of $b_1$ in Eq. (55c) and (53b). For example, if we make the ansatz
$$b_{1I}(\rho_R)= k b_{1R}(\rho_R)= tanh(\rho_R), \eqno (81)$$
$$u=2 \eta (\xi -\eta k) sech^2{\rho_R}sech[\eta x+ tanh{\rho_R}-
\eta x_0], \eqno (82)$$ where $\rho _R=y-a_{1I}t$ and $k$ is a constant. Similarly, the expressions for the spin can be obtained from Eqs. (55 a,b). The solution (82) for $u(x,y,t)$ decays exponentially in all the directions, eventhough the spin $\vec S $ itself is not fully localized. Analogously we can construct another type of “induced dromion" solution with the choice
$$b_{1I}= k b_{1R} = \int {d \rho_R \over {(\rho_R+\rho_0)^2+1}}+b_0 ,
\eqno (83)$$ where $\rho_0$ and $b_0$ are constants, so that
$$u(x,y,t)={2\eta (\xi - k y)\over {(\rho_R+\rho_0)^2+1}} sech^2 \left [\eta x+
\int {d \rho_R \over {(\rho_R+\rho_0)^2+1}}- \eta x_0\right].\eqno (84)$$ Proceeding in this way we can construct even more general solutions and multidromions for the potential.
SOLUTIONS OF (2+1) DIMENSIONAL NLSE
===================================
In this section, we wish to consider briefly the corresponding solutions of the equivalent generalized NLSE Eq. (24). Already this equation has received some attention in the literature. The following types of solutions are available\[23,24\]:\
a) Line solitons,\
b) Induced dromions.\
Now, we can construct the N-breaking soliton solutions of Eq. (24) as well. As an example, let us obtain the 1-breaking soliton solution of Eq. (24). The Hirota bilinear form of Eq. (24) can be obtained by using the transformation.
$$\psi={h\over \phi}\eqno(85)$$ as \[20,24\]
$$[iD_t+D_xD_y](h \circ \phi) = 0, \eqno(86a)$$
$$D_x^2(\phi\circ \phi)=2hh^*. \eqno(86b)$$ We look for the 1-breaking soliton solution in the following form:
$$h=\exp {\chi }, \eqno(87a)$$
$$\phi=1+\phi_2, \eqno(87b)$$ where$\chi =b(y,t)x+n(y,t)+c(t) $. Substituting (87) into (86), we get
$$ib_t+bb_y=0 , \eqno(88a)$$
$$in_t+bn_y=0 , \eqno(88b)$$
$$iB_t+Bb_y=0 , \eqno(88c)$$ and
$$\phi_2={1 \over {(b+b^*)^2}}\exp {\chi +\chi^*}=\exp {2(b_Rx+n_R
+\chi _0)}, \eqno (89)$$ where $\exp {2\chi_0}={1 \over {4b_R^2}}$, $B=\exp{c(t)}$ and $b_R=b_R(t)=Re(b)$. Now, the formula (85) provides us the 1-breaking soliton solution of Eq. (24),
$$\psi (x,y,t)={b_R(t)\exp {i\left[ b_I(y,t)x+n_I(y,t)+c_0\right] } \over
cosh \left[ b_Rx+n_R(y,t)+\chi_0\right] }, \eqno(90)$$ where $b(y,t)=b_R+ib_I$, $n(y,t)=n_R+in_I$ and $B(t)$ are the solutions of Eqs. (88). Just as in the case of Eq. (77), if we take the following particular solutions of the system of Eqs. (88);
$$b=-i\lambda ={\eta-i(y+k) \over {q-t}}, n={y+k+i\eta \over {q-t}},
B={B_0\over (q-t)},\eqno(91)$$ then the 1-breaking soliton solution of Eq. (24) takes the form
$$\psi (x,y,t)=-{\eta \over {q-t}}\exp{i\left[- {y+k\over {q-t}}x+n_I(y,t)
+c_0\right] }sech Z,\eqno(92)$$ where $Z={\eta \over {q-t}}x+n_R(y,t)+\chi_0$ and $c_0$, $\chi_0$ are constants.
Similarly, we obtain the breaking N-SS of (24). In this case we can take the ansatz
$$g_{1} = \sum_{j = 1}^{N} \exp {\chi_{j}} \eqno(93)$$ with $\chi_{j} = b_{j}(y,t) x + n_{j}(y,t) + c_{j}(t)$. Inserting (93) into (92), one is lead to
$$ib_{jt}+b_jb_{jy}=0, \eqno(94a)$$
$$in_{jt}+b_jn_{jy}=0, \eqno(94b)$$
$$iB_{jt}+B_jb_{jy}=0, \eqno(94c)$$ Proceeding as before, one can obtain breaking N-soliton solution.
SIMPLEST INTEGRABLE EXTENSIONS
==============================
As mentioned above in ref.\[5\] (see also \[25,26\]) a new class of (2+1) dimensional integrable spin equations was proposed. In particular, Eq. (4) is a particular reduction of the following so called M-III equation (according to the notations of ref.\[5\])
$$\vec S_{t} = (\vec S \wedge \vec S_{y} + u \vec S)_{x} +
2l (cl + d)\vec S_{y} - 4cV\vec S_{x} + \vec S\wedge A\vec S,\eqno(95a)$$
$$u_{x} = -\vec S\cdot (\vec S_{x} \wedge \vec S_{y}), \eqno(95b)$$
$$V_{x} = \frac {1}{4(2lc+ d)^{2}} (\vec S^{2}_{x})_{y}, \eqno(95c)$$ where $l$, $c$ and $d$ are constants and $A$ is the anisotropy tensor. This equation possesses some integrable reductions. For example, one obtains\
a) the isotropic M - I equation (4), when c = 0, A = 0;\
b) the isotropic M - II equation, when d = 0, A = 0;\
c) the isotropic M - III equation, when $c \neq 0 \neq d,\,\,\, A = 0$;\
d) the anisotropic M - I equation, when c = 0\
and so on. All these equations are integrable in the sense that each one of such reduction has a Lax representation\[5\]. As an example, let us present the associated linear problem for the isotropic M - III equation\[5\],
$$\psi_{1x} = U_{1}\psi_1 , \eqno(96a)$$
$$\psi_{1t} = V_{1}\psi_1 + (2c\lambda^{2} + 2d\lambda)\psi_{1y}, \eqno(96b)$$ with
$$U_{1} = [ic(\lambda^{2} - l^{2}) + id(\lambda - l)] S +
\frac{c(\lambda - l)}{2cl + d} S S_{x}, \eqno(97a)$$
$$V_{1} = [2c(\lambda^{2} - l^{2}) + 2d(\lambda - l)]B + \lambda^{2}F_{2}
+ \lambda F_{1} + F_{0}, \eqno(97b)$$ where
$$F_{2} = - 4ic^{2}VS,$$
$$F_{1} = - 4icdVS - \frac{4c^{2}V}{2cl + d} V SS_{x} -
\frac{ic}{2cl+d} S\{(SS_{x})_{y} - [SS_{x},B] \}, \eqno(98)$$
$$F_{0} = - lF_{1} - l^{2}F_{2}.$$ Here
$$B = \frac{1}{4}([S,S_{y}] + 2iuS), S=\vec S\cdot \vec \sigma$$ From these equations one can deduce the corresponding Lax representations of the isotropic M -I and M - II equations by choosing c = 0 and d = 0, respectively. We note that Eq. (95) for the isotropic M-III equation reduction case is gauge\[27\] and L-equivalent\[14\] to the following equation
$$i\phi_{t} = \phi_{xy} - 4ic(V\phi)_{x} + 2 d^{2} V\phi, \eqno(99a)$$
$$V_{x} = (\mid \phi \mid^{2})_{y}. \eqno(99b)$$ This equation has two integrable cases: a) if c=0, Eq. (99) reduces to Eq. (24); b) if d=0, we get the Strachan equation\[19\]. The Lax representations corresponding to (99) is obtained as follows.
$$\psi_{2x} = U_{2}\psi_{2}, \eqno(100a)$$
$$\psi_{2t} = V_{2}\psi_{2} +(2c\lambda^{2} + 2d\lambda)\psi_{2y}, \eqno(100b)$$ with
$$U_{2}=i[(c\lambda^{2} + d \lambda)\sigma_{3}+(2c\lambda +d)Q],\eqno(101a)$$
$$V_{2} = \lambda^{2} B_{2} + \lambda B_{1} + B_{0}. \eqno(101b)$$ Here
$$B_{2} = -4ic^{2}V\sigma_{3},$$
$$B_{1} = -4idcV\sigma_{3} + 2c\sigma_{3}Q_{y} - 8ic^{2}VQ, \eqno(102)$$
$$B_{0} = \frac{d}{2c}B_{1} - \frac{d^{2}}{4c^{2}}B_{2},$$
$$Q=\pmatrix{
0 & {\phi} \cr
-{\phi^*} & 0
}.$$
CONCLUSIONS
===========
In this paper we have obtained many interesting classes of exact solutions of Eq. (4) and its equivalent counterpart Eq. (24), after estabilishing their L- equivalence and gauge equivalence. The equivalence concept was also extended to more general cases in Sec.IX. Another interesting class of solutions are the periodic solutions which for Eq. (4) are given by
$$S_1(x,y,t)={CD-AB\over {AD-BC}}, S_2(x,y,t)=-i{CD+AB\over {AD-BC}},$$
$$S_3(x,y,t)={AD+BC\over {AD-BC}}, \eqno(103)$$ where
$$A=\theta (z-{r\over 2} -{\delta \over 2}, \tau),\,\,\
B=\theta (z+{r\over 2} -{\delta \over 2}, \tau),$$
$$C=\theta (z-{r\over 2} +{\delta \over 2}, \tau),\,\,\
D=\theta (z+{r\over 2} +{\delta \over 2}, \tau). \eqno(104)$$ Here, $\theta (z, \tau )$ is the Riemann $\theta $ functions and $r$, $\delta $ are some constants. More detailed investigation of the periodic solution(103) will be considered elsewhere.
Also we would like to note that the extended version of the L-equivalence method which we used in section III works out for many other (2+1) dimensional spin equations as well, for instance, to the Ishimori equation\[14\]. In the later case, the unit vectors $\vec e_{k}$, $k=1,2,3,$ satisfy the Eqs. (14) and (18), while the vector $\vec e_{1} \equiv \vec S $ satisfies the Ishimori equation
$$\vec e_{1t} = \vec e_{1} \wedge (\vec e_{1xx} + \epsilon^{2}\vec e_{1yy})
+ u_{x}\vec e_{1y} + u_{y}\vec e_{1x}, \eqno(105a)$$
$$u_{xx} - \epsilon^{2}u_{yy} =
-2\epsilon^{2}\vec e_{1} \cdot (\vec e_{1x} \wedge \vec e_{1y}). \eqno(105b)$$ Proceeding as in sec.III, we can obtain an evolution equation for the curvature $\kappa $ and torsion $\tau $ in the form
$$\kappa_t=\omega_{3x}+\tau \omega_2,\eqno(106a)$$
$$\tau_t=\omega_{1x}-\kappa \omega_2,\eqno(106b)$$ where $$\omega_1={\tau \omega_3-\omega_{2x}\over {\kappa }},\,\,\,\,\omega_2=u_x
\gamma_2-\kappa_x-\epsilon^2\gamma_{3y}+\gamma_1\gamma_2,$$
$$\omega_3=-\kappa \tau+\kappa u_y+u_x\gamma_3+\epsilon^2\gamma_{2y}-\gamma_1
\gamma_3,\,\,\,\,\gamma_2={(u_{xx}-\epsilon^2u_{yy})\over {2\epsilon^2\kappa}}$$ and the values of $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_3$ can be obtained from the relations (19a) and (19c) respectively. Then the complex transformation
$$\phi = a \exp{ib}, \eqno(107)$$ where
$$a = {1\over 2} [\kappa^2 + \gamma_2^2+\gamma_3^2-2\kappa \gamma_2]^{1\over 2},
\eqno(108a)$$
$$b=\partial _x^{-1}(\tau -{u_y\over 2}+{\gamma_2\gamma_{3x}-\gamma_3\gamma_{2x}
-\kappa \gamma_{3x}\over {\kappa^2+\gamma_2^2+\gamma_3^2-2\kappa \gamma_2}})
\eqno(108b)$$ satisfies the Davey-Stewartson equation for $\epsilon^2=-1$,
$$i\phi_{t} = \phi_{yy} - \phi_{xx} +2\phi u, \eqno(109a)$$
$$u_{yy} + u_{xx} =(\mid \phi \mid)^2_{xx}-(\mid \phi \mid)^2_{yy},\eqno(109b)$$ where $u$ is a function of $x$, $y$ and $t$. Here $\kappa $ and $\tau $ have the forms(17). Thus the geometrical equivalence between (105) and (109) can be estabilished using the generalized transformation (107).
To summarize, in this paper, we have shown the equivalence of the (2+1) dimensional spin equation (4) and the generalized (2+1) dimensional NLSE (24). Besides we have found interesting classes of exact solutions for Eq. (4) and NLSE(24). However, many questions remain open and deserve further investigation. These include the existence of, for example of localized coherent structures (other than the induced dromion-like solution presented here), the determination of the Hamiltonian structure and the finding of possible physical applications of the solutions obtained above. Another interesting problem is the classification of solitons by the values of the topological charge. These questions are being pursued further.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work of M.L. forms part of a Department of Science and Technology, Government of India sponsored research project. R.M. wishes to thank Bharathidasan University for hospitality during his visits to Tiruchirapalli. S.V. acknowledges the receipt of a Junior Research Fellowship from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India. We would like to thank Prof. J. Zagrodzinski for useful discussion which lead us to find the explicit forms of the periodical solution(92). electronic mail: [email protected] electronic mail: [email protected] B. Piette and W.J. Zakrzewski, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals [**5**]{}, 2495 (1995) M. J. Ablowitz and P. A. Clarkson, [*Solitons, Nonlinear Evolution Equations and Inverse Scattering*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) B. G. Konopelchenko, [*Solitons in Multidimensions*]{} (Singapore: World Scientific, 1993) O. I. Bogoyavlensky, [*Breaking Solitons*]{} (Moscow: Nauka, 1991) R. Myrzakulov, On some integrable and nonintegrable soliton equations of magnets I-IV (HEPI, Alma-Ata, 1987) M. Lakshmanan and R. Radha, Pramana [**48**]{}, 163 (1997) M. Lakshmanan, Phys. Lett. [**61A**]{}, 53 (1977) M. Lakshmanan, Th. W. Ruijgrok and C. J. Thompson, Physica [**84A**]{}, 577 (1976) L. A. Takhtajan, Phys. Lett. [**64A**]{}, 235 (1977) Y. Ishimori, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**72**]{}, 33 (1984) M. Daniel, K. Porsezian and M. Lakshmanan, J. Math. Phys. [**35**]{}, 6498 (1994);\
M. Lakshmanan and M. Daniel, Physica, [**107A**]{}, 533 (1981) M. Lakshmanan, J. Math. Phys. [**20**]{}, 1667 (1979) R. Myrzakulov and M. Lakshmanan, (HEPI Preprint, Alma-Ata) (1996) R. Myrzakulov and A.K.Danlybaeva. The L-equivalent counterpart of the M-III equation. Preprint CNLP. Alma-Ata.1994. R. Myrzakulov and R.N.Syzdykova. On the L-equivalence between the Ishimori equation and the Davey-Stewartson equation. Preprint CNLP. Alma-Ata 1994. R. Myrzakulov, S. Vijayalakshmi, G. N. Nugmanova and M. Lakshmanan, Phys. Lett. [**233A**]{}, 391 (1997) F. Calogero, Lett. Nuovo Cimento [**14**]{}, 43 (1975) V. E. Zakharov, in Solitons, Bullough R K and Caudrey P J (Eds.) (Berlin: Springer, 1980) I. A. B. Strachan, J. Math. Phys. [**34**]{}, 243 (1993) R. Radha and M. Lakshmanan, Inv. Prob. [**10**]{}, L29 (1994) R. Myrzakulov, K. N. Bliev and A. B. Borzykh, Reports NAS RK [**5**]{}, 17 (1996) V. E. Zakharov and L. A. Takhtajan, Theor. Math. Phys. [**38**]{}, 17 (1979) R. Radha and M. Lakshmanan, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**30**]{}, 3229 (1997) I.A.B. Strachan, Inv. Prob. [**8**]{}, L21 (1992) R. Myrzakulov and G. N. Nugmanova, Izvestya NAN RK. Ser. fiz.-mat. [**6**]{}, 32 (1992) R. Myrzakulov, N. K. Bliev and G. N. Nugmanova, Reports NAS RK [**3**]{}, 9 (1992) G. N. Nugmanova, The Myrzakulov equations: the gauge equivalent counterparts and soliton solutions, Ph. D. dissertation (Kazak State University, Alma-Ata) (1992)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Although the existence of asymmetrical profile of \[OIII\]$\lambda$5007 has been discovered for ages, its filiation and physics are poorly understood. Two new spectra of IZWI taken on Nov 16, 2001 and on Dec 3, 2002 were compared with the spectra taken by BG92. Following results are obtained. 1)The certain variations of broad \[OIII\] during about 10 years separating the observations are identified. The inferred length scale of broad \[OIII\] emitting region ranges from 0.3pc to 3pc. By assuming a Keplerian motion in emitting region, the material emitting broad \[OIII\] is likely to be located at transient emission line region, between BLR and NLR. 2)We find a positive relation between the FeII emission and flux of H$\beta$(or continuum). On the other hand, the parameter RFe decreases with ionizing continuum marginally. 3)We detect a low ionized NLR in IZWI, because of the low flux ratios $\rm{[OIII]_{n}/H\beta_{n}}$($\sim1.7$).'
address:
- 'Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal University, NO.19, Xinjiekouwai St, Beijing, China'
- 'National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 20A Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China'
- 'Department of Astronomy, Beijing Normal University, NO.19, Xinjiekouwai St, Beijing, China'
author:
- 'J. Wang'
- 'J. Y. Wei'
- 'X. T. He'
title: 'Variability of Broad and Blueshifted Component of \[OIII\]$\lambda$5007 in IZWI'
---
galaxies: active ,galaxies: individual: IZWI ,line shape and width 98.54Gm ,32.7Jz
Introduction
============
The asymmetry of \[OIII\]$\lambda$5007 profile possessing an extended wing at blueward and a sharp red falloff was mentioned by Heckman et al.(1981) and by many subsequent researches(e.g. Busko & Steiner 1988, Grupe et al. 1999, Holt et al. 2003, Tadhunter et al. 2001). On the basis of investigations on large sample, recent studies claimed that a large fraction of AGNs are of \[OIII\] broad components. Véron-Cetty et al.(2001) reported that, in general, a relative narrow Gaussian profile(FWHM$\sim \rm{200-500\ km\ s^{-1}}$) with a blueshifted, broad Gaussian component(FWHM$\sim \rm{500-1800\ km\ s^{-1}}$) is necessary to reproduce the each \[OIII\] profile in a number of objects(24). In addition, a peak + blue wing structure was observed in numerous objects by Zamanov et al.(2002). The authors claimed that the \[OIII\] profiles have a narrow, unshifted \[OIII\] line with a strong blue wing. Recently, Wang et al.(2004) identified a prominent blueshifted, broad \[OIII\] component in Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 galaxy(NLS1) SDSSJ022119.84+005628.4.
So far, although the peak+blue wing structure of \[OIII\] has been detected in many cases, the properties of the broad \[OIII\] component have been rarely investigated and poorly understood. To our knowledge, only Sergeev et al.(1997) analyzed the variations of \[OIII\] $\lambda$5007 blue wing in NGC5548. The transfer function of the blue wing is narrow-peaked near 450 days with no response up to 350 days lag. One interesting question is where is the broad component of \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ from and how large is the length scale of the line emitting region. The answers are extremely benefit to further geometrical and dynamical research of emission line region in AGN.
As usual, the study of spectral variations is a powerful technology in probing the physics of AGN. Variability can help us to set constraints on the sizes of different regions of AGNs and can give information about the processes governing the variations. The object, IZWI, is the prototype of NLS1 and was discovered by Zwicky(1971). In this paper we present two new spectra of IZWI taken in 2001 and 2002. The variations of the \[OIII\] broad component are examined by comparing them with the spectrum taken by Boroson & Green(1992, hereafter BG92). They examined the emission line properties of a sample of 87 low redshift ($z<0.5$) PG quasars. The spectra with relatively high S/N ratio were obtained on a number of nights in 1990 and 1991. A resolution of 6.5-7[Å]{} was measured from the comparison spectra. The resolution at this level is adequate for identifying the evident asymmetry of the \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ line.
The paper is organized as follows. The observations and date reduction technique are described in §2. Section 3 contains the results of spectral comparison and underlying implications.
\[Intro\]
Observation and data reduction
==============================
The two spectra were taken on November 16, 2001 and December 3, 2002. The observations were carried out with the NAOC 2.16m telescope at the observatory of Xinglong and the OMR spectrograph, using a Tektronix $1024\times1024$ CCD as detector. Two different 600$\rm{l\ mm^{-1}}$ gratings, blazed at 5500[Å]{} and 5000[Å]{}, were used in observation taken in 2001 and in 2002 respectively. Both grating give a dispersion of about 100$\AA\ \rm{mm^{-1}}$. The slit was oriented in the north-south direction for both observations and we attempted to observe as close to the meridian as possible. Both observations were made through a 2" slit which produced a resolution of $\sim$ 6Å as measured from the night sky lines. This set-up caused that the spectral resolution is identical with that of BG92 at greatest degree. In the observation taken in 2001, two exposures were performed. The exposure time of each frame was 2000s. The two frames were combined prior to extraction in order to enhance the S/N ratio and eliminate the contamination of cosmic-ray easily. Only one frame with exposure time 3000s was obtained in the observation taken in 2002.
The unprocessed frames were reduced by standard CCD procedure using IRAF package. The CCD reductions include bias subtraction, flatfield correction and cosmic-ray removal. The wavelength calibration was carried out using helium-neon-argon lamps taken at the beginning and end of each exposure. The resulting wavelength accuracy is better than 1Å. Two or three KPNO standard stars(Massey et al. 1988) were observed per night for carrying out the flux calibration. Each of extracted spectra was transformed to rest frame in terms of the redshift determined by fitting the narrow peak of the H$\beta$ line to a Gaussian.
FeII subtraction and measurements
---------------------------------
It is clear from the inspection of the spectra that the FeII emission is a complicating factor in measuring line parameters. In order to reliably model the line profiles it is necessary to appropriately model the FeII complex. The contamination of the FeII complex is well subtracted by the FeII template which is the FeII emission in IZWI and is described by BG92. Briefly, the template is a two-dimensional function of FWHM and of intensity of the FeII blends. The detailed procedure making the FeII template can be found in BG92. The best subtraction of the FeII blends is derived by searching in the parameter space and requires a slick continuum at blue of H$\beta$ and between 5100[Å]{} and 5500[Å]{}. From each spectrum the best-fit FeII spectrum is subtracted. These FeII spectra and the resulting FeII-subtracted spectra are shown in Figure 1. The spectra displayed from top to bottom panel were observed by BG92, in Nov 16, 2001(hereafter denoted as WWHI for abbreviation) and Dec 03, 2002(WWHII, for short), respectively. In each panel, the observed spectrum is displayed by the upper curve. Note that these curves are offset upward arbitrarily for visibility. The FeII flux is measured between the rest wavelength 4434Å and 4684Å. The upper and lower limits of the flux of the FeII complex are obtained by carefully iterative experiments with a series of values of the FeII flux. Outside of the limits, the FeII-subtracted continuum is absolutely unacceptable.
Profile modelling and decomposition of other lines
---------------------------------------------------
The FeII-subtracted spectrum are used to measure the non-FeII line properties. The first step in the modelling of the spectra is to remove the continuum from each FeII-subtracted spectrum. The continuum is modelled by fitting a power law to the regions which seemed to be uncontaminated by emission lines. In the next step, the line profiles are modelled by multiple Gaussian fitting in the present work(e.g. Xu et al. 2003). The modelling is carried out by the SPECFIT(Kriss 1994) task in IRAF package. The fitting is persisted until the minimum of $\chi^2$, the measurement of goodness of the fitting, is achieved. In each spectrum, the profiles are modelled as follows. The each of forbidden lines \[OIII\]$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 is synthesized from a narrow component and a broad, blueshifted component(see Oke & Lauer 1979, Véron-Cetty et al. 2004). The atomic physical relationships, $F_{5007}/F_{4959}\doteq3$(Storey & Zeippen 2000) and $\lambda_{4959}/\lambda_{5007}=0.9904$, are used for reducing the number of free parameters and for improving the reliability of fitting in the modelling of both narrow and broad components. The narrow component of \[OIII\] is referred as $\rm{[OIII]_{n}}$, and the broad component as $\rm{[OIII]_{b}}$ The H$\beta$ profile is reproduced by a set of three components: a narrow peak, a classical broad component with FWHM$\sim 1000\ \rm{km\ s^{-1}}$ and a very broad base (FWHM$\sim 4000\ \rm{km\ s^{-1}}$, see Sulentic et al. 2000b; Véron-Cetty et al. 2001; Marziani et al. 2003), because of the strong blue wing of the H$\beta$ profile. The width of the narrow H$\beta$ is forced to be identical with the width of narrow \[OIII\]. The narrow H$\beta$ is referred as $\rm{H\beta_{n}}$. The contribution, including the classical broad component and very broad component, is referred as $\rm{H\beta_{b}}$. Figure 2 illustrates the modelling of the three observed spectra. The label of the spectrum in each panel from top to bottom is the same as that in Figure 1. The observed profiles are represented by light solid lines, and the modelled profiles, by heavy solid lines. In each panel, the narrow core and broad base of each line are shown by a short dashed line and a long dashed line, respectively. The residuals between the observed and the total fitted spectrum is displayed in the lower sub-panel underneath each spectrum.
Results and discussion
======================
The three observations are compared with each other to investigate the variability of the profile of broad component of \[OIII\]. The two recent observations span only about one year, and the observation in BG92 was performed round about ten years ago. Table 1 summarizes the line properties of the principal emission lines at all epochs. In the following analysis and discussions in this paper, a constant flux of narrow core of \[OIII\] is assumed. Column 1 lists the indices of the observations. The indices are same as the indices in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The flux ratios $\rm{H\beta_{n}/[OIII]_{n}}$ are listed in column 2, and the ratios $\rm{H\beta_{b}/[OIII]_{n}}$ in column 3. Column 4 lists the normalized flux of broad \[OIII\] component. The velocity shifts of Gaussian peaks of broad \[OIII\] with respect to that of \[OIII\] narrow components are listed in column 5. A negative velocity corresponds to a blueshifted broad component relative to narrow component. The column 6 lists the flux ratio of FeII emission to narrow \[OIII\], along with the upper and lower limits. The last column lists the calculated parameter RFe. RFe is defined as the flux ratio of the FeII complex to H$\beta$. We note that no attempt has been made to correct for the contamination of the flux of narrow component of H$\beta$, because the flux of narrow H$\beta$ is expected to be constant. This definition avoids the additional errors caused by the decomposition. In addition, the WWHI and WWHII averaged parameters denoted as the index WWH are calculated. The mean values of the interesting parameters are reported in the last row of Table 1, except RFe, the ratio $\rm{H\beta_{b}/[OIII]_{n}}$ and $\rm{FeII/[OIII]_{n}}$. Note that the FWHM are excluded from Table 1, because we focus attention on flux variability of the broad \[OIII\] component.
Variability of broad \[OIII\]
-----------------------------
By comparing the results of BG92 and WWH, we find remarkable variations of profile of broad \[OIII\] during the period of ten years separating the observations. The normalized flux in broad \[OIII\] decreased from $1.90\pm0.22$ to $1.00\pm0.28$. In addition to the flux variability, the outflow(blueshift) $\Delta\upsilon_{r}([\rm{OIII}])$ increased from $-701.3\pm44.2\ \rm{km\ s^{-1}}$ to $-959.7\pm104.6\ \rm{km\ s^{-1}}$. The change of velocity, WWH with respect to BG92, was -285.4 $\rm{km\ s^{-1}}$ which is evidently larger than the errorbar estimated by the multi-component modelling.
In Figure 3 we also show the residual profiles for all epochs as an additional test of line variability. The residual profiles are derived by removing the contributions of continuum, H$\beta$ and narrow component of \[OIII\]. The residuals are also normalized by a constant flux of narrow \[OIII\]. The vertical lines from bottom to top denote the centers of the modelled broad \[OIII\] components.
The authenticity of the variations is verified by following two pieces of evidence. In the first instance, the normalized flux in broad \[OIII\] remained constant in the recent two epochs. Once again, the coincident is elucidated by the superposition of the two residual spectra in Figure 3. According to this coincident, we are confident that the detected variations can not be caused by the observational fluctuations. Secondly, the flux ratios $\rm{H\beta_{n}/[OIII]_{n}}$ are constant approximately in the all epochs, which agrees with the prediction of generally accepted unified model of AGN. Therefore, we infer that the identified profile variations can not be explained by the errors caused by the profile modelling.
According to the variations of broad \[OIII\] during about 10 years separating the observations, we conclude that the physical length scale of broad \[OIII\] emitting does not exceed 10 light years, corresponding to $\sim$ 3pc. On the other hand, the broad \[OIII\] is emitted from a lager region than the BLR($>1$ lyr), because it has not varied during the 1 year separating the observations. Thus, the broad \[OIII\] emitting region is definitely situated at outside the BLR.
The radius of the broad \[OIII\] emitting region can only be obtained by indirect, model dependent arguments. Assuming that the gravitational force of the central black hole dominates the kinematics of the emitting region of broad \[OIII\], the broader profiles, with respect to the narrow profiles, indicate that the material emitting broad \[OIII\] should be located in NLR inner regions. The distance from central engine to the line region emitting broad \[OIII\] can be expressed as
$$R(\mbox{lt-days}) = 6.7\times10^{-6}\left(\frac{V_{\rm{FWHM}}}{10^{3}\ \rm{km\ s^{-1}}}\right)^{-2}
\left(\frac{M_{\rm{BH}}}{M_{\odot}}\right)\cdot$$
where $V_{\rm{FWHM}}$ is the FWHM of the emission profile of line emitting gas. The inferred black hole mass of IZWI is $\log(M/M_{\odot})=7.26\pm0.11$. The value was estimated based upon single epoch optical spectroscopy(Vestergaard 2002). Adopting the averaged FWHM of the broad \[OIII\] component $\sim 1500\ \rm{km\ s^{-1}}$, the estimated distance is approximately about 100 lt-days.
The inferred distance means that the broad \[OIII\] in IZWI is most likely to be emitted in a transient emission line region(TLR) whose distance from central source is of order 100 lt-days. In fact, it is a long time to realize that there appears to be some interconnection between the classical BLR and NLR(Osterbrock & Mathews 1986, Sulentic et al. 2000a). Following this concept, a few authors investigated the properties of the TLR. For instance, by examining the profile of high order Blamer series and \[OIII\], the TLR, with a scale size of order 1pc and an intermediate FWHM($\sim1000\ \rm{km\ s^{-1}}$), was reported in X-ray selected AGN REJ1034+396(Mason et al. 1996). In the same object, by reproducing the observed spectra in terms of photoionization calculations, Puchnarewicz et al.(1995) argued that the density of TLR($\sim10^{7.5}\ \rm{cm^{-3}}$) is much lower than that of BLR and higher than that of NLR.
Up to now, in addition to the viral motions in gravitational potential of galaxy bugle(e.g. Nelson & Whittle 1996), two other kinds of mechanism, radial flow from nucleus(for example, Crenshaw & Kraemer et al. 2000) and radio jet expansion(e.g. Bicknell et al. 1998, Axon et al. 1998; Nelson et al. 2000), are suggested to explain the observed NLR. Both models can also give a reasonable origin of the asymmetry of \[OIII\]. For the first case, the observed peak+blue wing structure can be interpreted as the emission from a radial outflowing component with a speed of a few hundreds $\rm{km\ s^{-1}}$ associated with a disk component described by circular rotation(e.g. Kasier et al.(2000) in NGC4151; Veilleux et al.(2001) in NGC2992). On the other hand, on the basis of the jet expansion assumption, Nelson et al.(2000) modelled a set of long slit 2-dimensional spectra. This model reproduces the observed \[OIII\] profile in IZW1, if the far aside jet is obscured by galactic gas and the redshifted gas associated with near side jet lobe is optically thick(see Fig.7 in Nelson et al.(2000)). Cecil et al.(2002) used this scenario to analyze the deep spectra of NGC1068 taken at high spatial resolution.
Variation of FeII emission
--------------------------
In addition to the variations of the broad \[OIII\], the variability of the optical FeII emission is identified by examining Table 1(see column 6). We find a positive relation between the FeII emission and flux of H$\beta_{\rm{b}}$. According to the results of a great deal of AGN monitoring studies, generally, the H$\beta$ flux closely relates to the continuum luminosity(e.g. Peterson et al. 2002, Kaspi et al. 2000, Kollatschny et al. 2000). Therefore, it is expected that the emission of FeII increases with incident ionizing continuum in IZWI. On the contrary, a marginally negative relation between RFe and H$\beta$(or continuum) flux is found in IZWI. This means that in IZWI the variations of the optical FeII blends are weaker in comparison to H$\beta$ line.
Low ionized NLR in IZWI
-----------------------
The line ratios of the NLR in NLS1s are always interesting parameters. The study of the NLR in NLS1 is not straightforward, however. Deblending the optical permitted lines in NLS1 is difficult because no transition between the narrow and broad components is observed. There is always large uncertainties in determining the fraction of H$\beta$ that is emitted by the NLR. In our analysis, both BG92 and WWH spectra indicate that the ratio $[\rm{OIII}]_{\rm{n}}$/H$\beta_{\rm{n}}$ is approximate 1.7. Such low value implies that the ionization stage of NLR in IZWI is much lower than the generally adopted value($[\rm{OIII}]_{\rm{n}}$/H$\beta_{\rm{n}}\sim5-10$).
Is that an universal phenomenon in NLS1? As a matter of fact, Véron-Cetty et al.(2004) found a very low ionized NLR in IZWI from line system N3 in which most of oxygen might be in the form of non-ionization, both because of the weakness and absence of \[OIII\]$\lambda$5007, \[SII\]$\lambda\lambda$6716,6731 as well as \[OII\]$\lambda$7324 and because of the strength of \[CaII\]$\lambda\lambda$7291,7324 lines. Furthermore, the low ionization stage in NLS1s was supported by the studies of Rodriguez-Ardila et al.(2000). They found that, on average in NLS1s, 50% of flux of total H$\beta$ is due to emission from NLR and that the ratio $[\rm{OIII}]_{\rm{n}}$/H$\beta_{\rm{n}}$ varies from 1 to 5. The model analysis carried out by Contini et al(2003) demonstrated that such fraction of the observed H$\beta$ line flux presents in the NLR flux in NLS1 galaxy Ark564. Additionally, Wang et al.(2004) gave a ratio \[OIII\]/H$\beta_{\rm{n}}\sim$1.62 in SDSSJ022119.84+005628.4 which is a recently identified NLS1 from Sloan Digital Sky Survey. All these results imply that normal broad line Seyfert 1s and NLS1s perhaps differ in ionization level of NLR. The NLS1s perhaps tend to commonly have a lower ionized NLR. Although we do not know whether it is a truth, a vast of effort, of course, will be made until the final result is achieved.
Conclusions
===========
Two new spectra of NLS1 galaxy IZW1 were recently taken by us and were compared with the spectrum taken by BG92. The comparison allows us to make following conclusions:
1. The variations of broad \[OIII\] are identified during the ten years separating the observations. The variations indicate that in IZWI the length scale of emitting of broad \[OIII\] does not exceed 3pc and is larger than 0.3pc. Assuming a Keplerian motion in emission region, the material emitting broad \[OIII\] is possibly located in TLR, between BLR and NLR.
2. A positive relation between the FeII emission and H$\beta$(or continuum) flux is identified in the object IZWI. Whereases, the parameter RFe marginally decreases with ionizing continuum.
3. In IZWI, the inferred flux ratio of narrow component of \[OIII\] to narrow component of H$\beta$ is $\sim 1.7$ rather than the generally adopted value($\sim5-10$). Such low value suggests that there is a low ionized NLR in IZWI.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors thank Profs. Todd. A. Boroson and Richard. F. Green for providing the BG92’s spectra and FeII template. We are also grateful to Dr. Y. F. Mao, D. W. Xu & C. N. Hao for helpful discussions and suggestions. The special thanks go to the staff at Xinglong observatory for their instrumental and observing help. This work was supported by NSFC under grant 19973014.
[00]{}
Axon, D. J., Marconi, A., Capetti, A., Macchetto, F. D., Schreier, E., & Robinson, A., 1998, ApJ, 496, 75 Bicknell, G., Dopita, M. A., Tsvetanov, Z. I., & Sutherland, R. S., 1998, ApJ, 495, 680 Boroson, T. A., & Green, R. F, 1992, ApJS, 80, 109 Busko, I. C., & Steiner, J. E., MNRAS, 232, 525 Cecil, G., Dopita, M., Groves, B., Wilson, A., Ferruit, P., Pécontal, E., & Binette, L., 2002, ApJ, 2002, 568, 627 Condon, J. J., Hutchings, J. B., & Gower, A. C., 1985, AJ, 90, 1642 Crenshaw, D. m., & Kraemer, S. B., 2000, ApJ, 532, L101 Heckman, T. M., Miley, G. K., van Breugel, W. J. M., & Butcher, H. R., 1981, ApJ, 247, 403 Holt, J., Tadhunter, C. N., & Morganti, R., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 227 Grupe, D., Beuermann, K., Mannheim, K., & Thomas, H. -C., 1999, A&A, 350, 805 Kaspi, S., Smith, P. S., Netzer, H., Maoz, D., Jannuzi, B. T., & Giveon, U., 2000, ApJ, 533, 631 Kaiser, M. E., Bradley, L. D., Hutchings, J. B., et al. 2000, ApJ, 528, 260 Kollatschny, W., Bischoff, K., & Dietrich, M., 2000, A&A, 361, 901 Kriss, G., 1999, ADASS, 3, 437 Marziani, P., Sulentic, J. W., Zamanov, R., & Calvani, M., 2003, Mem. S.A. It. Vol. 74, 490 Mason, K. O., Puchnarewicz, E. M., & Jones, L. R., MNRAS, 283, 26 Massey, P., Strobel, K., Barnes, J. V., & Anderson, E., 1988, ApJ, 328, 315 Nelson, C. H., Weistrop, D., Hutchings, J. B., Crenshaw, D. M., Gull, T. R., Kaiser, S. B., & Lindler, D., 2000, ApJ, 531, 257 Nelson, C. H., & Whittle, M., 1996, ApJ, 217, 415 Oke, J. B., & Lauer, T. R., 1979, ApJ, 230, 360 Osterbrock, D. E., & Mathews, W. G., ARA&A, 24, 171 Peterson, B. M., et al., 2002, ApJ, 581, 197 Puchnarewicz, E. M., Mason, K. O., Siemiginowska, A., & Pounds, K. A., 1995, MNRAS, 276, 20 Rodriguez-Ardila, A., Binette, L., Pastoriza, M. G., & Donzelli, C. J., 2000, ApJ, 538, 581 Sergeev, S. G., Pronik, V. I., Malkov, Y. F., & Chuvaev, K. K., 1997, A&A, 320, 405 Storey, P. J., & Zeippen, G. J., 2000, MNRAS, 312, 813 Sulentic, J. W., Marziani, P., & Dultzin-Hacyan, D., 2000a, ARAA, 38, 521 Sulentic, J. W., Marziani, P., Zwitter, T., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., & Calvani, M., 2000b, ApJ, 545, 15 Tadhunter, C., Wills, K., Morganti, R., Oosterloo, T., & Dickson, R., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 227 Veilleux, S., Shopbell, P. L., & Miller, S. T., 2001, AJ, 121, 198 Véron-Cetty, M. -P., Joly, M., & Véron, P., 2004, A&A, 417, 515 Véron-Cetty, M, -P., Véron, P., & Goncalves, A. C., 2001, A&A, 327, 730 Vestergaard, M., 2002, ApJ, 571, 733 Xu, D. W., Komossa, S., Wei, J, Y., Qian, Y., & Zheng, X. Z., ApJ, 2003, 590, 73 Wang, J., Wei, J. Y., & He, X. T., 2004, ChJAA, 5, 415 Zamanov, R., Marziani, P., Sulentic, J. W., Calvani, M., Dultzin-Hacyan, D., Bachev, R., 2002, ApJ, 576, 9 Zwicky, F., 1971, Catalogue of selected compact galaxies and of post-eruptive galaxies, CIT, Pesadena
{width="10cm"}
{width="10cm"}
![Comparison of residual profiles of broad \[OIII\] components. The positions of center of modelled broad \[OIII\] are shown by lines from bottom to top. ](fig3.eps){width="10cm"}
$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\hline
\hline
\noalign{\smallskip}
\rm{Indices^{a}} & \rm{H}\beta_{\rm{n}}/[OIII]_{\rm{n}}
&\rm{H\beta_{b}/[OIII]_{n}} & \rm{[OIII]_{b}/[OIII]_{n}}
& \rm{\Delta\upsilon_{r}([OIII]})^{\rm{b}} & \rm{FeII/[OIII]_{n}} & \rm{RFe}\\
(1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) & (7) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\rm{BG92} & 0.60\pm0.32 & 5.79\pm0.67 & 1.90\pm0.22 & -701.3\pm44.2 & 12.66^{+1.27}_{-1.27} & 1.98\\
\rm{WWHI} & 0.59\pm0.87 & 4.96\pm1.04 & 1.04\pm0.27 & -919.1\pm95.6 & 10.96^{+0.91}_{-1.83} & 1.98\\
\rm{WWHII}& 0.64\pm0.83 & 3.56\pm0.83 & 0.95\pm0.29 & -1000.2\pm112.8 & 8.96^{+0.74}_{-1.49} & 2.15\\
\rm{WWH} & 0.62\pm0.85 & \dotfill & 1.00\pm0.28 & -959.7\pm104.6 & ........ & \dotfill\\
\noalign{\smallskip}
\noalign{\smallskip}
\hline
\end{array}$$
The indices are identical with that in Figures 1 and 2.
The velocity shifts, in units of $\rm{km\ s^{-1}}$, of peaks of broad components with respect to that of narrow components, where a negative velocity corresponds to a blueshifted, broad component.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a novel mechanism for the origin of non-Gaussian tails in the probability distribution functions (PDFs) of local variables in nonlinear, diffusive, dynamical systems including passive scalars advected by chaotic velocity fields. Intermittent fluctuations on appropriate time scales in the amplitude of the (chaotic) noise can lead to exponential tails. We provide numerical evidence for such behavior in deterministic, discrete-time passive scalar models. Different possibilities for PDFs are also outlined.'
author:
- |
Ravi Bhagavatula and C. Jayaprakash\
Department of Physics\
The Ohio State University\
title: 'Non-Gaussian Distributions in Extended Dynamical Systems'
---
PACS numbers: 02.50Ey,05.40+j,47.27Qb
The explanation of the form of the probability distribution of the fluctuations in local variables in extended, dissipative, dynamical systems poses an interesting challenge. In various turbulence experiments [@cetal; @jw; @gol; @cgh], Probability Distribution Functions (PDFs) of velocity gradients and passive scalars (temperature) are observed to be non-Gaussian; in particular, exponential tails have been seen whereas Gaussian distributions might be expected if one naively invokes the central limit theorem. Theoretically, a variety of explanations including an ingenious phenomenological model based on a nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation [@pss] and methods that rely on obtaining closure and moment balance relations [@sy; @ycck] have been proposed to explain exponential tails in the passive scalar problem. The moment balance approach has been used to provide good fits to experimental data [@ching]. In addition, several eddy diffusive models that yield exponential tails have also been studied [@ker].
In this letter we explore a new mechanism in which the nature of the temporal correlations of the fluctuations that couple to a diffusive field plays a crucial role. We focus on passive scalar models and show that non-Gaussian PDFs including [*exponential*]{} and stretched exponential behaviors can arise when local variables are coupled to fluctuations whose amplitude varies randomly on a time scale comparable to the intrinsic diffusive time scale. In experimental fluid systems, exponential tails could, therefore, arise if the velocity fluctuations exhibit [*intermittent*]{} behavior in their magnitude on relevant time scales.
We consider the diffusion of the temperature field $\theta (\vec r, t)$ advected by a flow characterized by the velocity $\vec V$ in the presence of an externally-imposed mean temperature gradient $\beta$. This is described by the passive scalar equation $$\frac{\partial \theta}{\partial t} = \nu \nabla^2 \theta
- \vec{V} \cdot \vec{\nabla} \theta.$$ The coefficient $\nu$ is the effective thermal diffusivity and the velocity is assumed to be incompressible: $\vec {\nabla} \cdot \vec{V}=0$.
The behavior of (1) in the presence of prescribed random velocity fields can be studied numerically directly in the continuum. However, the case of a velocity field arising from a deterministic chaotic dynamics is computationally prohibitive if one uses Navier-Stokes equations. Instead we consider 2-dimensional coupled map lattice models in discrete time and space which can be viewed as coarse-grained versions of the continuum equation with the lattice spacing of the order of the correlation length of the velocity fluctuations. The scalar $\theta (i)$ is defined on each site $i$ of a $L \times L$ square lattice with a mean gradient $\beta$ along the $y$ direction and periodic boundary conditions in the $x$ direction. The system evolves synchronously in discrete time $n$ according to $$\theta_{n+1}(i)=\theta_{n}(i)+\nu \nabla _L^2 \theta_n(i)
- \vec V_n(i) \cdot \vec {\nabla}_L \theta_n(i)$$ where $\vec \nabla _L$ is a symmetric, lattice gradient. The incompressibility of the two-dimensional velocity field $\vec V_n(i) = (u_n(i),v_n(i))$ is enforced by obtaining it from a stream function $\psi_n(i)$: $u_{n}(i) = \gamma \nabla_y \psi_n(i);
v_{n}(i) = -\gamma \nabla_x \psi_n(i)$. The velocity vanishes at both $y=1$ and $y=L$ boundaries. The parameter $\gamma$ is introduced to adjust the variance $\sigma_v$ of the velocity field since the (discrete time) model is unstable for large values of the variances [@bound].
In our numerical simulations, for all the models we explored, the mean scalar profile is linear. If we expand $\theta$ around the mean profile we obtain both an [*additive*]{} noise term, $\beta v_n(i)$, and a convective ([*multiplicative*]{}) noise term. This separation also occurs in the continuum equation. We find that different regimes of behavior of the scalar PDFs can be characterized empirically by a single parameter $B$ that measures the relative strengths of convective and additive noise terms: $B=\sigma_{\theta}/\beta\xi_{\theta}$, where $\sigma_{\theta}$ is the variance and $\xi_{\theta}$ the characteristic length scale of $\theta$.
We first consider the regime $B < 1$ which occurs for $\sigma_v^2\tau_c/\nu < 1$ where $\tau_c$ is the correlation time of the velocity field. Different models are defined by the dynamics of $V_n(i)$. [*When the velocity field has Gaussian amplitude fluctuations on a time scale $\tau_a$ comparable to the diffusive time scale $\tau_d = 1/\nu$ we obtain PDFs with exponential tails for $\theta$*]{}.
Model A: The easiest way to obtain amplitude fluctuations is to use a [*stochastic*]{} model and choose the stream function to be a product of two noise terms $\eta_n(i)\eta'_n(i)$ where $\eta'_n(i)$ is a white noise and $\eta_n(i)$ a Gaussian noise with a correlation time $\tau_a$, both having delta-function spatial correlations. The stream function and the velocity display two correlation times: (i) the mixing time $\tau_c$ governed by $\eta'_n(i)$ chosen to be one timestep and (ii) the time scale $\tau_a$ on which the amplitude varies. This model exhibits exponential tails in the PDF of $\theta(i)$ when $\tau_a \approx \tau_d$ (See Fig.1). On the other hand when $\tau_a << \tau_d$ the distributions are Gaussian.
Model B: We next provide numerical evidence to show that exponential tails also occur when the stream function is derived from a [*deterministic*]{} chaotic model provided it leads to amplitude fluctuations on the appropriate time scale. We investigate the following model: define the stream function in terms of an auxiliary variable $\phi_n(i)$ by $\psi_n(i) = \nabla _L^2 \phi_{2n}(i)$; let $\phi_n(i)$ be updated according to $\phi_{m+1}(i)=\frac{1}{5} \sum_k F(\phi_m(k))$, where the sum includes the site $i$ and its nearest neighbours. The function $F$ is chosen to be $F(x)=(1-2a)x+2ax^3$; we consider $a=2$ for which the maximum liapunov exponent is $\approx 0.95$ and the correlation length is measured to be one lattice spacing. The PDFs for $u,v$ display Gaussian tails (See Fig.2a). The PDF for $\theta(i)$ is shown in Fig.2b which clearly shows exponential tails over five decades (similar results persist for a range of values of $a$). The slope of the tails is proportional to $\sqrt {\nu}/(\beta\sigma_v)$ as expected from dimensional considerations. To demonstrate that the velocity field derived from this deterministic model displays intermittent amplitude fluctuations we compute the autocorrelation functions $C_2(n)=<v_nv_0>-<v_0>^2$ and $C_4(n)=<v^2_nv^2_0>-<v^2_0>^2$, where $<..>$ indicates time average. In Fig.3 we show $C_4(n)$ which shows two exponential decays associated with time scales $\tau_c /2 \approx 1$, $\tau_a/2 \approx 4$. The inset shows $C_2(n)$ which is expected to display a decay time $(1/\tau_c + 1/\tau_a)^{-1} \approx 1.6$, consistent with the above interpretation. Note that in Fig.2b $\tau_d$ is comparable to $\tau_a$ and the kurtosis decreases with increasing $\tau_d$.
To elucidate this mechanism we present a mean-field-like toy model with only additive noise since the multiplicative noise term is small for $B < 1$. The model is described by the Langevin equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x} & = & -\nu x + y \eta_1, \\
\dot{y} & = & -\alpha y + \eta_2,\end{aligned}$$ where the variable $x$ couples to a noise with an amplitude $y$ that fluctuates in time. The terms $\eta_i$ are assumed to be white noise with $<\eta_i>=0$ and $<\eta_i(t)\eta_j(t')>
=\sigma_i^2 \delta_{ij}\delta(t-t')$. The crucial time scales are given by $\tau_a=1/\alpha$ and $\tau_d=1/\nu$. It is convenient to introduce scaled variables $x_0=x/\sqrt{D_1D_2}$, and $y_0=y/\sqrt{D_2}$ where $D_1 = \sigma_1^2/2\nu$, $D_2 = \sigma_2^2/2\alpha$. Since $y_0$ is independent of $x_0$ one can obtain a stationary solution for the Fokker-Planck (FP) equation [@risk] of the form $P(x_0,y_0)=Q(x_0|y_0)R(y_0)$, where $R(y_0) = [2\pi]^{-1/2} exp(-y_0^2/2)$. The conditional probability $Q(x_0|y_0)$ satisfies another FP equation, that can be solved iteratively for small $\alpha/\nu$ [@bj]. For large $x_0$ we have obtained the first three terms of $p(x_0)=\int P(x_0,y_0)dy_0$ expanded as a [*formal*]{} power series: $p(x_0)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(\alpha/\nu)^n p_{n}(x_0)$. The functions $p_0,p_1,p_2$ are combinations of modified Bessel functions that have exponential tails for large values of $x_0$ with $p_0(x_0) = [\pi]^{-1} K_0(|x_0|)$, where $K_0$ is the modified Bessel function of order zero. Note that the exponential tail results from a linear FP equation due to a branch cut in the characteristic functions in contrast to Ref.5 in which a nonlinear FP equation is used with simple poles in the characteristic function. In the limit of very large $\alpha/\nu$, $p(x_0)$ becomes Gaussian. We compute the low-order moments and find that the kurtosis is given by ${\bf K} = 3+\frac{6\nu}{\alpha+\nu}$; this interpolates between 9 for small $\alpha/\nu$ and 3 for large $\alpha/\nu$ corresponding to $p_0$ and the Gaussian distribution respectively. In Fig.4 we show the PDF of $x_0$ obtained from numerical simulations for $\alpha=\nu$ for which ${\bf K}=6$ corresponding to that of an exponential distribution.
The form of the PDF depends not only on the parameter $B$ but also on the nature of the velocity correlations. In addition to exponential tails discussed above other non-Gaussian behavior can occur in different models. For example, the introduction of another variable $z$ using $\dot{z}=-\mu z + x \eta_3$ in the toy model (Eq.3,4) leads to a stretched exponential PDF for $z$ with an exponent $2/3$ for appropriate $\alpha,\nu$ and $\mu$. A similar generalization of the (stochastic) model A can be constructed. We emphasize that the PDF of the variable depends on the distribution of the slowly varying amplitude of the noise but not on the distribution of the noise itself.
We now consider the model in which the velocity is obtained from $\psi_n(i) = \eta_n(i)$, where $\eta_n(i)$ is a Gaussian noise correlated over a time $\tau_c$ with a correlation length $\xi_v$. The PDFs of $\theta$ are Gaussian when $B$ is smaller than unity even for $\tau_c \approx \tau_d$. This is true for both the discrete time and the continuum model. However, for $B > \approx 1$ the PDFs are non-Gaussian and we study this case using the continuum model [*i.e.,*]{} Eq.(1). The resultant PDFs are shown in Fig.5 for different parameters. (i) For $B>>1$ the distributions (Fig.5a,5b,5c) clearly do not have exponential tails; however, strikingly, we could fit the PDFs very well with a modified Lorentzian with two parameters ($\kappa, \delta$): $p(x)= C/(1+\kappa x^2)^{1+\delta}$ where $C$ is fixed by normalization. This function is a variant of the form proposed by Sinai and Yakhot[@sy]. (ii) For $B \approx 1$ the scalar PDFs appear to have exponential tails over a narrow range of parameters (this case corresponds to Fig.5d). However, the fit with a modified Lorentzian agrees over a wide range of $B$ values including this narrow range.
Since the convective noise term is not negligible we model the $B > \approx 1$ regime by a single variable with both an additive ($\zeta_1$) and a multiplicative ($\zeta_2$) noise term: $$\dot{x}=-\nu x +\zeta_1 + \zeta_2 x.$$ When $\zeta_i$ are white noise with $<\zeta_i(t)>=0$ and $<\zeta_i(t)\zeta_j(t')> =
2D_i\delta_{ij}\delta(t-t')$, a straightforward solution of the Fokker-Planck equation yields exactly the modified Lorentzian form for the PDF with $\kappa=D_2/D_1$, $\delta=\nu/2D_2$ [@note]. This provides another example of a simple toy problem that mimics the PDFs of passive scalars.
We note that the exponential tail regime for passive scalars in several experiments [@jw; @gol] appears to correspond to the $B < 1$ regime in our model where intermittent velocity fluctuations lead to exponential tails. Experimentally such amplitude variations may be connected with coherent structures such as plumes and turbulent bursts[@sg]. A quite different extended dynamical system in which our mechanism is operative is a Capacitive Josephson Junction Array driven by external dc and ac currents; numerical simulations in chaotic states indicate exponential tails in the PDFs of local junction voltages transverse to the external current[@bej]. This can be ascribed to intermittent current fluctuations caused by random vortex motion. However, establishing the occurrence of such amplitude fluctuations starting from the underlying equations, [*e.g.,* ]{} Navier-Stokes equations with appropriate boundary conditions, remains a challenge.
This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy (Contract No. DE-F-G02-88ER13916A000). We acknowledge computer time on the Cray-YMP provided by The Ohio Supercomputer Center. CJ is grateful to Dr. Yu He for valuable discussions; RB thanks Jayesh for helpful conversations.
[99]{} B. Castaing [*et. al*]{}, [*J. of Fluid Mech.,* ]{} [**204**]{}, 1 (1989).
Jayesh and Z. Warhaft, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**67**]{}, 3503 (1991); [*Physics of Fluids A.*]{} [**4**]{}, 2292 (1992).
J. P. Gollub, J. Clarke, M. Gharib, B. Lane, and O. N. Mesquita, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**67**]{} 3507 (1991).
B. Castaing, Y. Gagne, and E. Hopfinger, [*Physica* ]{}, [**46D**]{}, 177 (1990). See also, M. Sano, X. Wu, and A. Libchaber, [*Phys. Rev. A.*]{}, [**40**]{}, 6421 (1989).
A. Pumir, B. Shraiman, and E. D. Siggia, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**66**]{}, 2985 (1991); M. Holzer and A. Pumir, [*Phys. Rev. A.*]{}, [**47**]{}, 202 (1993).
Ya. G. Sinai and V. Yakhot, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**63**]{}, 1962 (1989).
V. Yakhot, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**63**]{}, 1965 (1989); H. Chen, S. Chen, and R. H. Kraichnan, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**63**]{}, 2657 (1989).
E. S. C. Ching, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**70**]{}, 283 (1993);S. B. Pope and E. S. C. Ching, Preprint.
A. Kerstein, [*J. of Fluid Mech.,* ]{} [**231**]{}, 361 (1991), also see for the direct simulations, O. Metais and M. Lesieur, [*J. of Fluid Mech.,* ]{} [**239**]{}, 157 (1992).
One can set a bound for a given $\nu$ from the linear stability analysis. Also, for $\nu \geq 0.25$ the uniform state is unstable.
H. Risken, [*Fokker-Planck Equation*]{} (Springer Verlag 1989).
R. Bhagavatula and C. Jayaprakash, in preparation.
Note that for a specific choice $D_1=\nu$ the distribution reduces to the PDF derived in Ref.6.
T. H. Solomon and J. P. Gollub, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**64**]{}, 2382 (1990). S. Douady, Y. Couder, and M. E. Brachet, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, [**67**]{}, 983 (1991).
R. Bhagavatula, C. Ebner, and C.Jayaprakash, to be published.
Figure captions
===============
Fig.1: PDF for the normalized fluctuation $X=\delta\theta/\sigma_{\theta}$ for Model A ([*stochastic*]{}) with $ L=48, \nu=0.1,\gamma=0.4,\beta=0.1, \tau_a \approx 10$. The white noise terms are uniformly distributed between -1 and 1. The variances are $\sigma_{\theta} \approx 0.034,\sigma_v \approx 0.21$ and the kurtosis is 4.22.
Fig.2: Data for Model B ([*deterministic*]{}).\
a) PDF for $v$ normalized by $\sigma_v$ has Gaussian tails. b) PDFs for the normalized fluctuation $X$ are shown for two parameters. The dashed line is drawn with the same slope as that of the tail. i) Upper curve (shifted up by two decades) is for $\nu=0.1,\gamma=0.5,\beta=0.1$. The variances are: $\sigma_{\theta} \approx 0.045,\sigma_v \approx 0.2$ and the kurtosis is 4.62. ii) Lower curve is for $\nu=0.05,\gamma=0.25,\beta=0.1$. The variances are $\sigma_{\theta} \approx 0.031,\sigma_{v} \approx 0.1$ and the kurtosis is 4.12. Data are obtained using 5 million points in intervals of 10 time steps at a site in the middle of a 48 x 48 lattice.
Fig.3: Correlation functions of the velocity used in Fig.2. A semilog plot of $C_4(n)$ vs $n$ is shown. The straight lines have slopes $\approx 1.3$ and $\approx 0.24$. The inset shows a semilog plot of $C_2(n)$ vs $n$; the straight line has a slope $0.69$. See text for discussion. (The variance $\sigma_v$ is set to unity.)
Fig.4: PDF for $x_0=x/\sigma_x$ in the toy model of Equations (3) and (4) with $\alpha=\nu$. The noise variables $\eta_1,\eta_2$ are uniformly distributed with $\sigma_1=\sigma_2=1$ and the measured $\sigma_x=0.5$.
Fig.5: PDFs for the passive scalar fluctuations with $B >\approx 1$ using the continuum model Equation (1). The data are obtained with $L=48,\nu=0.1,\beta=0.1$ using the discretizations $\delta t=0.05,\delta l =0.5$ and velocity correlations $\xi_v \approx \delta l$ and $\tau_c=2$. The upper three curves (a,b,c) are shifted up from the lowest curve (d) by 6,4 and 2 decades respectively. The curves a,b,c,d correspond to $\sigma_v=1.4 \gamma$ where $\gamma=(0.4,0.35,0.3,0.2)$ with kurtosis values $(15.6,6.3,4.1,3.5)$. The dashed lines are modified Lorentzian (ML) fits for the data.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'J. Horák'
- 'V. Karas'
date: 'Received 12 August 2005; accepted 30 December 2005'
title: 'Twin-peak quasiperiodic oscillations as an internal resonance'
---
Introduction
============
Twin peaks occur in high-frequency ($\sim50$–$450$ Hz) power spectra of X-ray ($\sim2$–$60$ keV) lightcurves of several black-hole candidates (see van der Klis [@kli06]; McClintock & Remillard [@mcc06] for recent reviews of observational properties and theoretical interpretations). This transient phenomenon seems to be connected with the kilohertz quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in neutron star sources, of which more examples are known (about the tens at present). The nature of black hole high-frequency QPOs remains puzzling despite variety of models proposed in the literature. In neutron-star low-mass X-ray binaries these twin QPOs are known to occur often simultaneously and they can be highly coherent ($Q\gtrsim10^2$; e.g. Barret et al.[@bar05]), slowly wandering in frequencies between different observations, whereas in black-hole candidates the QPO coherency appears to be lower ($Q\sim2$–$10$) and the presence of a pair pops up only when a collection of observations is carefully analyzed.
In Abramowicz & Kluźniak ([@abr01]) and Kluźniak & Abramowicz ([@klu01]) an idea of accretion disc resonance was proposed, which naturally incorporates pairs of frequencies occurring in a ratio of small integer numbers. This scheme predicts the observed frequency ratios in black-hole QPO sources should prefer the $3$:$2$ ratio; it also suggests this could be understood if a non-linear coupling mechanism operates in a black-hole accretion disc, where strong-gravity effects are essential. Indeed, especially in those black-hole candidates where the high-frequency QPOs have been reported, they occur very close to the ratio of small integer numbers, $3$:$2$ in particular (Miller et al. [@mil01]; Strohmayer [@str01]; Homan et al. [@hom05]; Remillard et al. [@rem05]; Maccarone & Schnittman [@mac05]). Nowadays, the original account can be viewed as a naïve model with the internal resonance. Various realizations of this scheme have been examined in terms of accretion disc/torus oscillations (e.g. Abramowicz et al. [@abr03]; Bursa et al. [@bur04]; Kato [@kat04]; Li & Narayan [@li_04]; Schnittman & Rezzolla [@sch05]; Zanotti et al. [@zan05]).
So far the “right” model has not yet been identified. However, it has been recognized that fruitful knowledge about common properties of high-frequency QPOs can be gained by investigating a very general resonance scheme, which likely governs matter near a compact accreting body. To this aim, Abramowicz et al. ([@abr03]) examined the epicyclic resonances in a nearly-geodesic motion in strong gravity. Rebusco ([@reb04]) and Horák ([@hor04]), by employing the method of multiple scales (Nayfeh & Mook [@nay79]), have demonstrated that the $3$:$2$ resonance is indeed the most prominent one near horizon of a central black hole. Only certain frequency combinations are allowed, depending on symmetries which the system exhibits, and only some of the allowed combinations have chance to give rise to a strong resonance.
In the present paper we pursue this approach further and we find tracks that an axially symmetric system with two degrees of freedom, near resonance, should follow in the plane of energy (of the oscillations) versus radius (where the oscillations take place). We show different topologies of the phase space in the way that closely resembles the method of disturbing function, familiar from the studies of the evolution of mean orbital elements in celestial mechanics (Kozai [@koz62]; Lidov [@lid62]). The analogy is very illuminating and it provides a systematic way of distinguishing topologically different states of the system. In particular, one can discriminate regions of phase space where the observed frequency ratio fluctuates around an exact rational number from those regions where this ratio remains always outside the resonance. Our model suggests that even black-hole twin QPOs should vary in frequency and they should not stay at a firmly fixed frequency ratio, albeit the expected variation is very small – certainly less than what has been frequently reported in neutron star binaries and what can be tested with the data available at present.
A conservative system with two degrees of freedom
=================================================
Non-linear terms in the governing equations {#sec:epc-ring}
-------------------------------------------
Let us consider an oscillatory system with two degrees of freedom, which is described by coupled differential equations of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:res_gov_r}
\ddot{\delta\rho} + \omega_r^2\; \delta\rho &=&
f_\rho(\delta\rho,\delta\theta, \dot{\delta\rho},\dot{\delta \theta}),
\label{eq:ms-generalfrh}
\\
\label{eq:res_gov_theta}
\ddot{\delta \theta} + \omega_\theta^2\; \delta \theta &=&
f_\theta(\delta\rho, \delta\theta, \dot{\delta\rho}, \dot{\delta \theta}).
\label{eq:ms-generalfth}\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the right-hand-side functions are nonlinear (their Taylor expansions start with the second order), and that they are invariant under reflection of time. Clearly, these equations include the case of a nearly circular motion under the influence of a perturbing force: $\delta\rho$ and $\delta\theta$ are small perturbations of the position, whereas $\omega_r(r)$ and $\omega_\theta(r)$ have a meaning of the radial and the vertical epicyclic frequencies along the circular orbit $r=r_0$, $\theta=\pi/2$: $$\omega_r^2=\frac{\partial^2{\mathcal{U}}}{\partial r^2},
\quad
\omega_\theta^2=\frac{1}{r_0^2}
\left(\frac{\partial^2{\mathcal{U}}}{\partial\theta^2}\right),
\label{eq:epc-om}$$ where the effective potential is $${\mathcal{U}}(r,\theta)\equiv\Phi(r,\theta)+\frac{\ell^2}{2r^2\sin^2\theta},
\label{eq:epc-defU}$$ $\Phi(r,\theta)$ is the gravitational potential, for which axial symmetry and staticity will be assumed. These assumptions make our system qualitatively different from models requiring non-axisymmetric perturbations.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
As a generic example, let the total gravitational field be given as a superposition of the central potential of a spherical star, $\Phi_\mathrm{s}(r)$, plus an axisymmetric term $\Phi_\mathrm{r}(r,\theta)$, $$\Phi(r,\theta)=\Phi_\mathrm{s}(r)+\Phi_\mathrm{r}(r,\theta).
\label{eq:potential}$$ For the central field we assume the form $$\Phi_\mathrm{s}(r)=-\frac{GM}{\tilde{r}},
\label{eq:epc-starPhi}$$ where we set $\tilde{r}=r$ or $\tilde{r}=r-{R_{\mbox{\tiny{S}}}}$ (to adopt the Newtonian or the pseudo-Newtonian approximations; ${R_{\mbox{\tiny{S}}}}\equiv2GM/c^2$). We assume a circular ring (mass $m$, radius $a$) as a source of the perturbing potential, $$\Phi_\mathrm{r}(r,\theta)=-\frac{2Gm}{\pi}\frac{K(k)}{B^{1/2}},
\label{eq:epc-ringPhi}$$ where $K(k)$ is a complete elliptical integral of the first kind, $B(r,\theta)\,\equiv\,r^2+a^2+2ar\sin\theta$, $k(r,\theta)\,\equiv4\,ar\sin\theta/B(r)$.
At this point a remark is necessary regarding the interpretation of the potential (\[eq:potential\])–(\[eq:epc-ringPhi\]): we conceive it as a toy-model for strong-gravity effects and internal resonances that we seek in the system of a black hole and an accretion disc, but the origin of the perturbing potential $\Phi_\mathrm{r}(r,\theta)$ is not supposed to be the gravitational field of the accretion disc itself. Of course the inner disc is not self-gravitating in black hole binaries and the ring is not introduced here with the aim of representing the accretion flow gravity. What we imagine is that hydrodynamic and magnetic forces are producing qualitative effects, which can be captured by the ring potential in our equations (\[eq:ms-generalfrh\])–(\[eq:ms-generalfth\]). On the other hand, our approach is rather general and it is worth remembering that the same formalism can be successfully applied also in systems where the disc self-gravity plays a non-negligible role.
Also in general relativity, weakly perturbed (i.e.nearly-geodesic) motion of gas elements orbiting around a Schwarzschild black hole can be described by effective potential that contains a spherical term arising from the gravitational field of the central black hole, plus a perturbing term, which we assume axially symmetric. Naturally, the interpretation of the perturbing term is more complicated if one would like to derive its particular form from an exact solution of Einstein’s equations. We do not want to enter into complications of a special model here (but see Letelier [@let03]; Karas et al.[@kar04]; Semerák [@sem04] and references cited therein for a review and examples of spacetimes that contain a black hole and a gravitating ring in general relativity). Also, one may ask whether the adopted approach can comprehend frame-dragging effects of Kerr spacetime while the black hole rotation is considered as perturbation to the spherical field of a static non-rotating black hole; even if a general answer to that question would be affirmative, the Kerr metric has rather special properties concerning the integrability of the geodesic motion and the form of non-sphericity, which quickly decays with radius. Our current opinion is such that the rotation-related effects of Kerr metric cannot be viewed as the origin of the perturbation required for black-hole high-frequency twin QPOs.
The angular momentum of a test particle orbiting the centre on an equatorial circular orbit is $$\ell{\equiv}r^3\left({\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial r}}\right)=
GMr\left[\frac{r^2}{\tilde{r}^2} +
\mu r\frac{(r+a)E(k_0)+(r-a)K(k_0)}{\pi(r^2-a^2)}\right],$$ where $E(k)$ is a complete elliptical integrals of the second kind and the right-hand-side terms are evaluated at the orbit radius, $k_0{\equiv}k(r_0,\pi/2)$, $\mu{\equiv}m/M$. Figure \[fig:ring-l\] captures a typical curve of the angular momentum as a function of radius. The corresponding orbital frequency is $$\Omega^2(r) = \frac{GM}{r^3}\left[\,\frac{r^2}{\tilde{r}^2}+
\mu r\frac{(r+a)E(k_0)+(r-a)K(k_0)}{\pi(r^2-a^2)}\right].
\label{eq:epc-ringOm}$$ Equation (\[eq:epc-om\]) gives the epicyclic frequencies, $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_r^2(r) \!\!&=&\!\!
\frac{GM}{r^3}\left[\,\frac{r^2(3\tilde{r}-2r)}{\tilde{r}^3}+\frac{2\mu}{\pi}\,
\frac{(r-a)^2 K(k_0)-a^2 E(k_0)}{r^2(r-a)^2(r+a)}\right],
\label{eq:epc-ringomr}\\
\omega_\theta^2(r) \!\!&=&\!\!
\frac{GM}{r^3}\left[\,\frac{r^2}{\tilde{r}^2}+\frac{2\mu}{\pi}\,
\frac{E(k_0)}{(r-a)^2(r+a)}\right].
\label{eq:eoc-ringomth}\end{aligned}$$ The epicyclic frequencies as functions of radius are plotted in Figure \[fig:ring-w\] (we will drop the index “0” for the sake of brevity). The difference between the radial epicyclic frequency and the orbital frequency gives the shift of pericentre. The difference of vertical epicyclic and orbital frequencies gives the nodal precession.
Internal resonances can occur in the system (\[eq:res\_gov\_r\])–(\[eq:res\_gov\_theta\]). In order to capture this phenomenon, we carry out a multiple-scales expansion (Nayfeh & Mook [@nay79]) in the form $$\delta\rho(t,\epsilon)=\sum_{n=1}^4\epsilon^n\rho_n(T_\mu),\quad
\delta \theta(t,\epsilon)=\sum_{n=1}^4\epsilon^n\theta_n(T_\mu),
\label{eq:ms-solexp}$$ where $T_\mu=\epsilon^\mu t$ are treated as independent time scales. We will terminate the expansion at the fourth order ($\mu=0,1,2,3$; the number of time scales is the same as the order at which the expansions are truncated).
Time derivatives take a form of expansions $$\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}t}=\sum_{\mu=0}^4\epsilon^\mu{D_{\mu}},
\quad
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}^2}{{\mathrm{d}}t^2}=\sum_{\mu=0}^4\sum_{\nu=0}^4\epsilon^{\mu+\nu}{D_{\mu}}{D_{\nu}},$$ where ${D_{\mu}}\equiv\partial/\partial T_\mu$. The method tackles the governing equations in their general form.
As a specific example we can adopt an explicit form describing the orbital motion, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\ddot{\rho}+\omega_r^2\,\delta\rho\!\!&=&\!\!
(1+\delta\rho)\,\delta\dot{\theta}^2-
\left[\frac{1}{r}{\frac{\partial \mathcal{U}}{\partial r}}-
\omega_r^2\,\delta\rho\right],
\label{eq:epc-nlinrh}\\
\delta\ddot{\theta}+\omega_\theta^2\,\delta\theta\!\!&=&\!\!
-2\,\frac{\delta\dot{\rho}\,\delta\dot{\theta}}{1+\delta\rho}-
\left[\frac{1}{(1+\delta\rho)^2}{\frac{\partial \mathcal{U}}{\partial \theta}}-
\omega_\theta^2\,\delta\theta\right].
\label{eq:epc-nlinth}\end{aligned}$$ Because equations (\[eq:epc-nlinrh\])–(\[eq:epc-nlinth\]) are conservative, the growth of energy in one mode must be balanced by the energy loss in the other mode. Close to resonance radii, where the two epicyclic frequencies are in ratio of small integers, the periodic exchange of energy should occur in a more pronounced rate. Because amplitudes of the oscillations are connected with eccentricity and inclination, the solution alternates between an inclined, almost circular trajectory at certain stages, and an eccentric, almost equatorial case at some other time. We remark that, in a non-linear system, the eigenfrequencies $\omega_r$, $\omega_\theta$ are expected to differ from the observed (i.e.predicted) frequencies, which can be revealed e.g. by Fourier analysis of data time series. Relevance of this fact for QPOs was first recognized by Abramowicz et al. ([@abr03]) and Rebusco ([@reb04]), when they discussed a model for Sco X-1. It was further employed by Horák et al. ([@hor04b]), who suggested that a connection should exist between the high-frequency QPOs and normal-branch oscillations.
We expand the effective potential derivatives and the functions $f_\rho$ and $f_\theta$ into Taylor series, up to the fourth order about a circular orbit. The expansion provides many nonlinear terms containing various derivatives $$u_{ij}\equiv\left(\frac{\partial^{i+j}\mathcal{U}}{\partial r^i\,\partial\theta^j}\right)_{[r_0,\pi/2]}.$$ By imposing constraints on the potential and its derivatives, we identify resonances that are expected in a particular system (and we reject those resonances that cannot be realized). In the next subsection, formulation of these constraints is still kept completely general, valid for the arbitrary form of $\mathcal{U}$. Only later, in subsection \[subsection:constraints\], we come to our original motivation from the orbital motion around a black hole and we employ the symmetry of the potential $\mathcal{U}$. We consider the case of potential symmetric with respect to the equatorial plane. This implies the condition $u_{i(2k+1)}=0$, $k\in\mathcal{N}$, somewhat reducing the number of terms in the expansions.
Amplitudes of the oscillations are characterized by a small parameter: $\delta\rho\sim\epsilon$, $\delta\theta\sim\epsilon$. We impose the solvability constraints and seek a solution in the form (\[eq:ms-solexp\]). To this aim, we first write the explicit form of these constraints in different orders of approximation.
Solvability constraints
-----------------------
In the first order, we obtain equations describing two independent harmonic oscillators, $$\left({D_{0}}^2+\omega_r^2\right)\rho_1=0, \quad
\left({D_{0}}^2+\omega_\theta^2\right)\theta_1=0.
\label{eq:res_1}$$ The solutions can be expressed in the form $$\rho_1={\widehat{A}}_\rho+{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}, \quad \theta_1={\widehat{A}}_\theta+{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta},
\label{eq:res_1sol}$$ where we denote ${\widehat{A}}_x\equiv A_x e^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x T_0}$, ${\widehat{A}}_{-x}=A_x^\ast
e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x T_0}$ with $x=\rho$ or $\theta$. The complex amplitudes $A_x$ generally depend on slower scales, $T_1$, $T_2$ and $T_3$.
An algorithmic nature of the multiple-scales method allows us to determine the form of solvability conditions in a conservative system with two degrees of freedom. The conditions arise by eliminating the terms that are secular in the fastest variable, $T_0$. This constraint is imposed, because otherwise the solutions in the form of series would not converge uniformly. In fact, the reason why the same number of scales is required as the order of approximation in the expansion (\[eq:ms-solexp\]) is that one secular term gets eliminated in each order, and therefore the functions $A_x(T_\mu)$ are determined by the same number of solvability conditions as the number of their variables.
[c@[ ]{}l]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\omega_\theta $:$ \omega_r$ & [Secular terms]{}\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$\
& $-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1$:$2$ & $-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{1001}{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$\
& $-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0200}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2$:$1$ & $-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0002}{\widehat{A}}_\theta^2$\
& $-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0110}{\widehat{A}}_\rho{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
In the second order, the terms proportional to $\epsilon^2$ in the expanded left-hand side of the governing equations (\[eq:res\_gov\_r\])–(\[eq:res\_gov\_theta\]) are $$\left[\ddot{\delta x}+\omega_x^2 x\right]_2=
\left({D_{0}}^2+\omega_x^2\right)
x_2+2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_x-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_{-x}.
\label{eq:res_2lhs}$$ On the right-hand side, the second-order terms result from the expansion of the nonlinearity $f_x(\delta\rho,\delta\theta,\dot{\delta\rho},\dot{\delta\theta})$ with ${D_{0}}\rho_1$ and ${D_{0}}\theta_1$ in place of $\dot{\delta\rho}$ and $\dot{\delta\theta}$, respectively. They can be expressed as linear combinations of quadratic terms constructed from ${\widehat{A}}_{\pm\rho}$ and ${\widehat{A}}_{\pm \theta}$: $$\left[ f_x(\delta\rho, \delta\theta, \dot{\delta\rho}, \dot{\delta \theta})
\right]_2 = \sum_{|\alpha|=2} C_\alpha^{(x)}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^{\alpha_1}{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^{\alpha_2}{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^{\alpha_3}{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^{\alpha_4},
\label{eq:res_2rhs}$$ where $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_4)$ and $|\alpha|=\alpha_1+\ldots+\alpha_4$. The constants $C_\alpha^{(x)}$ are given by angular frequencies of $\omega_x$ and by coefficients of the Taylor expansion of $f_x$. Equating the right-hand sides of eqs.(\[eq:res\_2lhs\])–(\[eq:res\_2rhs\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
\left({D_{0}}^2 + \omega_x^2\right) x_2 &=& - 2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x {D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_x +
2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_{-x}
\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{|\alpha|=2} C_\alpha^{(x)}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^{\alpha_1}{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^{\alpha_2}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^{\alpha_3}{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^{\alpha_4}.
\label{eq:res_2}\end{aligned}$$ The rhs of eq. (\[eq:res\_2\]) contains one secular term independently of the eigenfrequencies $\omega_r$ and $\omega_\theta$. However, additional secular terms may appear in the resonance. For example, when $\omega_r \approx 2 \omega_\theta$, the terms proportional to ${\widehat{A}}^2_\theta$ in the $\rho$-equation ($x\rightarrow\rho$) and ${\widehat{A}}_\rho{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}$ in the $\theta$-equation ($x\rightarrow\theta$) become secular and they should be also included to the solvability conditions. The similar situation happens when $\omega_r\approx\omega_\theta/2$. These are internal resonances, which show a qualitatively different behaviour: the corresponding terms are secular only for special (resonant) combinations of $\omega_r$ and $\omega_\theta$, contrary to the terms that appear always and are referred to as regular secular terms. Possible resonances in the second order of approximation and the corresponding secular terms in eq. (\[eq:res\_2\]) are listed in Table \[tab:res\_2\]. Let us assume, for a moment, that the system is far from any resonance. Then $$\label{eq:res_2sec}
{D_{1}} A_x = 0.$$ The frequencies and amplitudes are constant and the behaviour of the system is almost identical as what one finds in the linear approximation. The only difference is the presence of higher harmonics oscillating with frequencies $2\omega_r$, $2\omega_\theta$ and $|\omega_r\pm\omega_\theta|$. They are given by a particular solution of equation (\[eq:res\_2\]) after eliminating the secular term, $$\label{eq:res_2sol}
x_2 = \sum_{|\alpha|=2} Q_\alpha^{(x)}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^{\alpha_1}{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^{\alpha_2}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^{\alpha_3}{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^{\alpha_4},$$ Under the assumption of time-reflection invariance, constants $Q_\alpha^{(x)}$ are real and their relation to constants $C_\alpha^{(x)}$ becomes obvious by substituting $x_2$ into equation (\[eq:res\_2\]). We find $$Q^{(x)}_{klmn}=\frac{C^{(x)}_{klmn}}{\omega_x^2-\left[(k-l)\omega_r+
(m-n)\omega_\theta\right]^2}\,.$$
[c@[ ]{}l]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\omega_\theta$:$\omega_r$ & [Secular terms]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{1200}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0111}|A_\theta^2|{\widehat{A}}_\rho$\
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{1101}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0012}|A_\theta^2|{\widehat{A}}_\theta$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1$:$3$ & $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{1200}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0111}|A_\theta^2|{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0030}{\widehat{A}}_\theta^3$\
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{1101}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0012}|A_\theta^2|{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0120}
{\widehat{A}}_\rho{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1$:$1$ & $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{1200}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0111}|A_\theta^2|{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{1110}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta$,\
& ${\mathrm{K}}_{0012}|A_\theta|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0210}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^2{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{1002}{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}{\widehat{A}}_\theta^2$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{1101}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0012}|A_\theta^2|{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{2100}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho$,\
& $\Lambda_{0021}|A_\theta|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda{1002}{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}{\widehat{A}}_\theta^2$, $\Lambda_{0210}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^2{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ 3$:$1 $ & $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{1200}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0111}|A_\theta^2|{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{2001}{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta$\
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{1101}|A_\rho|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0012}|A_\theta^2|{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0300}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^3$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
In the third order, the discussion is analogous in many respects. The terms proportional to $\epsilon^3$, which appear on the lhs of the governing equations, are given by $$\left[ \ddot{\delta x} + \omega_x^2 x \right]_3 =
\left({D_{0}}^2 + \omega_x^2\right) x_3 + 2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_x -
2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_{-x}.$$ The terms containing $D_1 x_1$ and $D_1 x_2$ vanish in consequence of the solvability condition (\[eq:res\_2sec\]). The rhs contains now cubic terms of the Taylor expansion. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left({D_{0}}^2 + \omega_x^2\right)x_3&=&-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x {D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_x +
2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_{-x}
\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{|\alpha|=3} C_\alpha^{(x)}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^{\alpha_1}{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^{\alpha_2}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^{\alpha_3}{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^{\alpha_4},
\label{eq:res_3}\end{aligned}$$ where constants $C_\alpha^{(x)}$ are real. The secular terms are summarized in Table \[tab:res\_3\] together with resonances possible in the third order of approximation. Again, far from any resonance we eliminate the terms that are secular independently of $\omega_r$, $\omega_\theta$. The resulting solvability conditions take the form $$\begin{aligned}
{D_{2}} A_\rho = -\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_r}\left[{\mathrm{K}}_{1200}|A_\rho|^2 +
{\mathrm{K}}_{0111}|A_\theta|^2 \right]A_\rho,
\label{eq:res_3sec_r}\\
{D_{2}} A_\theta = -\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_\theta}\left[\Lambda_{1101}|A_\rho|^2 +
\Lambda_{0012}|A_\theta|^2 \right]A_\theta.
\label{eq:res_3sec_m}\end{aligned}$$ A particular solution of eq. (\[eq:res\_3\]) is given by a linear combination of cubic terms constructed from ${\widehat{A}}_{\pm\rho} $ and ${\widehat{A}}_{\pm\theta}$, $$x_3 = \sum_{|\alpha|=3} Q_\alpha^{(3,x)}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^{\alpha_1}{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^{\alpha_2}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^{\alpha_3}{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^{\alpha_4},
\label{eq:res_3sol}$$ where all coefficients $Q_\alpha^{(3,x)}$ are now real.
[c@[ ]{}l]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ \omega_\theta $:$ \omega_r $ & [Secular terms]{}\
&
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$\
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$1$:$4$ & $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0004}{\widehat{A}}_\theta^4$\
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0103}{\widehat{A}}_\rho{\widehat{A}}_\theta^3 $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2$:$3$ & $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0130}{\widehat{A}}_\rho{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^3$\
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0220}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^2{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^2$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3$:$2$ & $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{2002}{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^2 {\widehat{A}}_\theta^2$\
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0310}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^3{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta} $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$4$:$1$ & $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho$, ${\mathrm{K}}_{0301} {\widehat{A}}_\rho^3{\widehat{A}}_\theta$\
& $2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$, $\Lambda_{0400}A_\rho^4 $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
Finally, in the fourth order of the approximation, $$\left[\ddot{\delta x}+\omega_x^2 x \right]_4=
\left({D_{0}}^2+\omega_x^2\right)
x_3+2 {D_{3}}{D_{0}}x_1+2{D_{0}}{D_{2}}x_2.$$ The operator ${D_{0}}{D_{2}}$ acts on $x_2$, given by eq. (\[eq:res\_2sol\]). The resulting form is found by employing the solvability conditions (\[eq:res\_3sec\_r\]) and (\[eq:res\_3sec\_m\]): $$2 {D_{0}} {D_{2}} x_2 = \omega_x^2 \sum_{|\alpha| = 4} J_\alpha^{(x)}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^{\alpha_1}{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^{\alpha_2}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^{\alpha_3}{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^{\alpha_4},
\label{eq:res_3lhs}$$ where $J^{(x)}_\alpha$ are real constants. By expanding the rhs we arrive at the governing equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left[{D_{0}}^2 + \omega_x^2\right]x_4&=&-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x {D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_x+
2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_{-x}
\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{|\alpha|=4} C_\alpha^{(x)}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^{\alpha_1}{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^{\alpha_2}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^{\alpha_3}{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^{\alpha_4},
\label{eq:res_4}\end{aligned}$$ with $C_\alpha^{(x)}$ real constants. Only one secular term independent of $\omega_r$ and $\omega_\theta$ appears on the rhs: $-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_x
{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_x$. The sum contains only terms that become secular near a resonance. These terms and the solvability conditions are listed in Table \[tab:res\_4\].
A notable feature of internal resonances $k$:$l$ is that $k\omega_r$ and $l\omega_\theta$ need not be infinitesimally close to each other, as might be expected from the linear analysis. Consider, for example, an internal resonance $1$:$2$, i.e. $\omega_\theta\approx2\omega_r$. By eliminating the secular terms, we obtain solvability conditions (see Tab. \[tab:res\_2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho + {\mathrm{K}}_{1001}{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}{\widehat{A}}_\theta&=&0,\\
-2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta + \Lambda_{0200}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^2&=&0.\end{aligned}$$ In each of these equations the first term is regular, while the second term is nearly secular (resonant) one. The solvability conditions give us the long-term behaviour of the amplitudes and phases of oscillations. Suppose now that the system departs from the sharp ratio by small (first-order) deviations $\omega_\theta=2\omega_r+\epsilon\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the detuning parameter. The terms proportional to ${\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}{\widehat{A}}_\theta$ and ${\widehat{A}}_\rho^2$ still remain secular with respect to the variable $T_0$. This can be demonstrated from ${\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}{\widehat{A}}_\theta = A_\rho^\ast A_\theta e^{{\mathrm{i}}(\omega_\theta - \omega_r)
T_0} = A_\rho^\ast A_\theta e^{{\mathrm{i}}\sigma T_1} e^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r T_0}$. Similar relation holds for ${\widehat{A}}_\rho^2$.
Solution of the solvability constraints {#subsection:constraints}
---------------------------------------
By comparing the coefficients with same powers of $\epsilon$ on both sides of the Taylor-expanded governing equations (\[eq:ms-generalfrh\])–(\[eq:ms-generalfth\]), we obtain relations for functions $\rho_i(T_j)$ and $\theta_i(T_j)$ that can be solved successively. After rearranging to a “canonical” form, $$\begin{aligned}
\left[{D_{0}}^2+\omega_r^2\right]\rho_n&=&\sum\,{\mathrm{K}}_{ijkl}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^i{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^j\,{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^k{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^l,
\label{eq:epc-formrh}\\
\left[{D_{0}}^2+\omega_\theta^2\right]\theta_n&=&\sum\,\Lambda_{ijkl}
{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^i{\widehat{A}}_{\rho}^j\,{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta}^k{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^l,
\label{eq:epc-formth}\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the order of approximation. In this way we identify constants $K_{ijkl}$ and $\Lambda_{ijkl}$. The studied gravitational potential is symmetric with respect to the equatorial plane, therefore, the series (\[eq:epc-formrh\])–(\[eq:epc-formth\]) cannot contain terms proportional to odd derivatives of the effective potential with respect to $\theta$. Hence, contrary to a general case, only specific resonances occur here: $\omega_\theta$:$\omega_r=1$:$2$, $1$:$1$, $3$:$2$ and $1$:$4$. These are all possible combinations that may occur within the given order of approximation (the first three cases were originally identified by Rebusco [@reb04], although she does not mention the fourth possible combination). A general argument of non-linear analysis suggests that the dominant resonances are those ones which correspond to ratios of small natural numbers, although not every conceivable resonant combination comes up in a given physical system. Indeed, it appears that the $3$:$2$ ratio is the most important case when the high-frequency QPO pairs are debated, however, the true role of this resonance has not yet been understood; see also the discussion in Bursa ([@bur05]) and Lasota ([@las05]). Proceeding further to higher-order terms of the expansions reveals even more resonances, but these are expected to be very weak (recently various kinds of weird combinations have been examined by Török et al. [@tor05]). Hereafter we concentrate on the first three combinations.
### The case of 1:2 resonance {#the-case-of-12-resonance .unnumbered}
The solvability conditions take the form (cp. Tab. \[tab:res\_2\] and Horák [@hor04]) $$\begin{aligned}
{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho &=&-\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_r}{\mathrm{K}}_{0002}{\widehat{A}}_\theta^2,
\label{eq:nepc-solv12rh}\\
{D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta &=&-\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_\theta}\Lambda_{0110}{\widehat{A}}_\rho\,{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta},
\label{eq:nepc-solv12th}.\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients of the resonant terms are given by $${\mathrm{K}}_{0002}=-\omega_\theta^2-\frac{u_{12}}{2r_0},
\quad
\Lambda_{0110}=-2\omega_\theta^2-\frac{u_{12}}{r_0},
\label{eq:nepc-coeff12}$$ satisfying a mutual relation $2{\mathrm{K}}_{0002}=\Lambda_{0110}$.
### The case of 1:1 resonance {#the-case-of-11-resonance .unnumbered}
The solvability conditions for the first order, ${D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho={D_{1}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta=0$, imply that the complex amplitudes ${\widehat{A}}_\rho$ and ${\widehat{A}}_\theta$ depend only on the second scale $T_2$. The $1$:$1$ ($\omega_r\approx\omega_\theta$) resonance is the only epicyclic resonance of the system with reflection symmetry, which occurs in the third order of approximation. The dependence on $T_2$ implies a slower behaviour. The solvability conditions are $$\begin{aligned}
{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho&=&-\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_r}\Big[
{\mathrm{K}}_{1200}\left|A_\rho\right|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho
\nonumber\\
&&+{\mathrm{K}}_{0111}\left|A_\theta\right|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho
+{\mathrm{K}}_{1002}{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}\,{\widehat{A}}_\theta^2 \Big],
\label{eq:nepc-solv11rh}\\
{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta&=&-\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_\theta}\Big[
\Lambda_{1101}\left|A_\rho\right|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta
\nonumber\\
&&+\Lambda_{0012}\left|A_\theta\right|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta
+ \Lambda_{0210}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^2{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta} \Big]
\label{eq:nepc-solv11th}\end{aligned}$$ and the coefficients of the resonant terms are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{K}}_{1200}&=& r_0^2\left(\frac{5\,u_{30}^2}{6\,\omega_\theta}-
{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,2}}}u_{40}\right),
\label{eq:nepc-11K1200}\\
{\mathrm{K}}_{0111}&=& \frac{1}{3}\left(-10\,\omega_\theta^2 +
\frac{2u_{12}^2}{r_0^2\omega_\theta^2} - 3\,u_{22} \right.
\nonumber\\
&& \left. - 6\,r_0u_{30} +
u_{12}\left[\frac{8}{r_0}+\frac{3\,u_{30}}{\omega_\theta^2}\,\right]\right),
\\
{\mathrm{K}}_{1002}&=& \frac{1}{6}\left(-6\,\omega_\theta^2 +
\frac{6\,u_{12}^2}{r_0^2\omega_\theta^2} - 3\,u_{22} - 2\,r_0u_{30} -
\frac{u_{12}\,u_{30}}{\omega_\theta^2}\right),
\\
\Lambda_{0012}&=&-\frac{u_{04}}{2r_0^2}-
\frac{7\,u_{12}}{6\,r_0}+\frac{5\,u_{12}^2}{6\,r_0^2\omega_\theta^2}+
\frac{10}{3}\omega_\theta^2,
\\
\Lambda_{0210}&=&{\mathrm{K}}_{1002},
\\
\Lambda_{1101}&=&{\mathrm{K}}_{0111}.
\label{eq:nepc-11L0111}\end{aligned}$$
### The case of 3:2 resonance {#the-case-of-32-resonance .unnumbered}
The solvability conditions involve both the third and the fourth orders. Hence, the amplitudes $A_\rho$, $A_\theta$ are functions of both time scales $T_3$ and $T_4$. The elimination of regular secular terms in the third order ($3\omega_r\approx2\omega_\theta$; see Tab. \[tab:res\_3\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho&=&-\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_r}\left[
{\mathrm{K}}_{1200}\left|A_\rho\right|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho +
{\mathrm{K}}_{0111}\left|A_\theta\right|^2{\widehat{A}}_\rho\right],
\\
{D_{2}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta&=&-\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_\theta}\left[
\Lambda_{1101}\left|A_\rho\right|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta +
\Lambda_{0012}\left|A_\theta\right|^2{\widehat{A}}_\theta\right].\end{aligned}$$ with the coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{K}}_{1200}&=& r_0^2\left(\frac{15\,u_{30}^2}{8\,\omega_\theta}-
{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,2}}}u_{40}\right),
\\
{\mathrm{K}}_{0111}&=&\frac{1}{4}\left(-15\,\omega_\theta^2 +
\frac{9\,u_{12}}{4\,r_0^2\omega_\theta^2}-4\,u_{22} \right.
\nonumber\\
&& \left. - 18\,r_0 u_{30} +
9\,u_{12}\left[\frac{1}{r_0}+\frac{u_{30}}{\omega_\theta^2}\right]\right),
\\
\Lambda_{0012}&=&-\frac{u_{04}}{2r_0^2} +
\frac{135}{64}\,\frac{u_{12}^2}{r_0^2\omega_\theta^2} -
\frac{153}{16}\,\frac{u_{12}}{r_0} + \frac{135}{16}\,\omega_\theta^2,
\\
\Lambda_{1101}&=&{\mathrm{K}}_{0111}.\end{aligned}$$ The elimination of the resonant terms gives the solvability condition in the fourth order (Tab. \[tab:res\_4\]), $${D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\rho=-\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_r}\,{\mathrm{K}}_{2002}{\widehat{A}}_{-\rho}^2{\widehat{A}}_{\theta}^2,
\quad
{D_{3}}{\widehat{A}}_\theta=-\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2\omega_\theta}\,\Lambda_{0310}{\widehat{A}}_\rho^3{\widehat{A}}_{-\theta},$$ where the resonant coefficients are $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\mathrm{K}}_{2002}=-{{\textstyle \frac{\,15}{\,16}}}\,\omega_\theta^2 + {{\textstyle \frac{\,27}{\,32}}}\,\frac{u_{12}}{r_0}+
{{\textstyle \frac{\,135}{\,64}}}\,\frac{u_{12}^2}{r_0^2\omega_\theta^2} - {{\textstyle \frac{\,243}{\,128}}}\,
\frac{u_{12}^3}{r_0^3\omega_\theta^4}
\nonumber\\
&&-{{\textstyle \frac{\,9}{\,8}}}\,u_{22} + {{\textstyle \frac{\,27}{\,16}}}\,
\frac{u_{12}\,u_{22}}{r_0\omega_\theta^2}
-{{\textstyle \frac{\,27}{\,16}}}\,r_0u_{30} + {{\textstyle \frac{\,81}{\,64}}}
\frac{u_{12}^2\,u_{30}}{r_0\omega_\theta^4}
\nonumber\\
&&
-{{\textstyle \frac{\,9}{\,16}}}\,\frac{r_0u_{22}\,u_{30}}{\omega_\theta^2}-{{\textstyle \frac{\,81}{\,256}}}\,
\frac{r_0^2u_{30^2}}{\omega_\theta^2}
-{{\textstyle \frac{\,81}{\,512}}}\,\frac{r_0u_{12}\,u_{30}^2}{\omega_\theta^4}
\nonumber\\
&&
-{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,4}}}\,r_0u_{30}-
{{\textstyle \frac{\,9}{\,64}}}\,r_0^2u_{40}-{{\textstyle \frac{\,9}{\,128}}}\,\frac{r_0u_{12}\,u_{40}}{\omega_\theta^2},
\\
&&\Lambda_{0310}={{\textstyle \frac{\,2}{\,3}}}{\mathrm{K}}_{2002}.\end{aligned}$$ By introducing the detuning parameter, $$\sigma\equiv3\,\frac{\omega_r}{\omega_\theta}-2=\epsilon^2\tilde{\sigma}_2+\epsilon^3\tilde{\sigma}_3,$$ the solvability conditions adopt the explicit form $$\begin{aligned}
2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{3}}A_\rho\!&=&\!
{\mathrm{K}}_{2002}\left(A_\rho^\star\right)^2 A_\theta^2\,\,e^{{\mathrm{i}}(\tilde{\sigma}_2T_2+\tilde{\sigma}_3T_3)},
\\
2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{3}} A_\theta\!&=&\!
\Lambda_{0310}A_\rho^3 A_\theta^\star\,\,e^{{\mathrm{i}}\left(\tilde{\sigma}_2T_2+\tilde{\sigma}_3T_3\right)},
\\
2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_r{D_{2}}A_\rho\!&=&\!
\left[{\mathrm{K}}_{1200}\left|A_\rho\right|^2 + {\mathrm{K}}_{0111}\left|A_\theta\right|^2\right]A_\rho,
\\
2{\mathrm{i}}\omega_\theta{D_{2}} A_\theta\!&=&\!
\left[\Lambda_{1101}\left|A_\rho\right|^2 + \Lambda_{0012}\left|A_\theta\right|^2\right]A_\theta.\end{aligned}$$
![Comparison between the analytical constraint $\mathcal{E}(a_\rho,a_\theta)={\mbox{const}}$ (an ellipse), derived in multiple-scales approximation, and the corresponding exact (numerical) solution. The curly curve is the numerical solution of the oscillation amplitudes $a_\rho(t)$, $a_\theta(t)$. The agreement between the two curves demonstrates that accuracy of the approximation is satisfactory over the entire time span. See the text for details.[]{data-label="fig:qpo-ellipse"}](4039fig3.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Finally, by substituting a polar form of complex amplitudes, $A_\rho\equiv \frac{1}{2}\tilde{a}_\rho e^{{\mathrm{i}}\phi_\rho}$ and $A_\theta\equiv \frac{1}{2}\tilde{a}_\theta e^{{\mathrm{i}}\phi_\theta}$, we get a set of eight equations governing the long-term behaviour of phases and amplitudes: $$\begin{aligned}
{D_{2}}\tilde{a}_\rho\!\!&=&\!\!0,
\quad
{D_{2}}\tilde{a}_\theta=0,
\label{eq:D2a}\\
{D_{3}}\tilde{a}_\rho\!\!&=&\!\!
\frac{{\mathrm{K}}_{2002}}{16\omega_r}\tilde{a}_\rho^2\tilde{a}_\theta^2 \sin\gamma,
\quad
{D_{3}}\tilde{a}_\theta=
-\frac{\Lambda_{0310}}{16\omega_\theta}\tilde{a}_\rho^3\tilde{a}_\theta \sin\gamma,
\label{eq:D3a}\\
{D_{2}}\phi_\rho\!\!&=&\!\!
-\frac{1}{8\omega_r}\left[{\mathrm{K}}_{1200}\tilde{a}_\rho^2 + {\mathrm{K}}_{0111}\tilde{a}_\theta^2\right],
\nonumber\\
{D_{2}}\phi_\theta\!\!&=&\!\!
-\frac{1}{8\omega_\theta}\left[\Lambda_{1101}\tilde{a}_\rho^2 + \Lambda_{0012}\tilde{a}_\theta^2\right],
\label{eq:D2phi}\\
{D_{3}}\phi_\rho\!\!&=&\!\!
-\frac{{\mathrm{K}}_{2002}}{16\omega_r}\,\tilde{a}_\rho\tilde{a}_\theta^2\cos\gamma,
\quad
{D_{3}}\phi_\theta=
-\frac{\Lambda_{0310}}{16\omega_\theta}\,\tilde{a}_\rho^3\cos\gamma,
\label{eq:D3phi}\end{aligned}$$ where the phase function has been introduced as $\gamma(T_2,T_3)\equiv-\sigma_2T_2-\sigma_3T_3-3\phi_\rho+2\phi_\theta$. The amplitudes $\tilde{a}_\rho$ and $\tilde{a}_\theta$ of the oscillations vary slowly, because they depend only on the third time-scale $T_3$. Phases $\phi_r$ and $\phi_\theta$ of the oscillations evolve on both time scales $T_2$ and $T_3$.
![The functions $F_1\,\equiv\,F(u)$, $F_2\,\equiv\,-F(u)$, and $G(u)$ from eq. (\[eq:nepc-32u\]). The system evolution is limited to the interval ${\langle}u_1,u_2{\rangle}$, where the condition $|F(u)|\geq|G(u)|$ is satisfied.[]{data-label="fig:nepc-fg32"}](4039fig4.eps){width="50.00000%"}
The system evolution near the 3:2 resonance
===========================================
The integrals of motion
-----------------------
The case of $3$:$2$ resonance is particularly relevant for the high-frequency QPOs, both on observational and theoretical grounds (cf.Abramowicz & Kluźniak [@abr01]; Kluźniak et al. [@klu04] for arguments in favour of $3$:$2$ ratio in high-frequency QPOs and for further references). We therefore discuss this case in more detail, however, similar discussion could be presented also for other resonances (Horák [@hor05]). Reintroducing single physical time $t$, the equations for the second and the third order can be combined together. Time derivatives are then given by ${{\mathrm{d}}/{\mathrm{d}}}t=\epsilon^2D_2+\epsilon^3D_3$. Amplitudes and phases of the oscillations are governed by equations $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{a}_r &=&
{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,24}}}\beta \omega_r a_r^2 a_\theta^2\sin\gamma,
\label{eq:nepc-32arh}
\\
\dot{a}_\theta &=&
-{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,16}}}\beta\omega_\theta a_r^3 a_\theta\sin\gamma,
\label{eq:nepc-32ath}
\\
\dot{\gamma} &=&
-\sigma\omega_\theta + \frac{\omega_\theta}{4}\left[\mu_r a_r^2 +
\mu_\theta a_\theta^2 + \frac{a_r}{2}\left( \alpha a_\theta^2 - \beta
a_r^2 \right) \cos \gamma \right],
\label{eq:nepc-32ga}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_\rho=\epsilon\tilde{a}_\rho$, $a_\theta=\epsilon\tilde{a}_\theta$ and $\mu_r$, $\mu_\theta$ and $\beta$ are defined by relations $\Lambda_{0310}={{\textstyle \frac{\,2}{\,3}}}{\mathrm{K}}_{2002}=\beta\omega_\theta^2$, $
{\mathrm{K}}_{1200}-\Lambda_{1101}=\omega_r^2\mu_r$, and ${\mathrm{K}}_{0111}-\Lambda_{0012}=\omega_\theta^2\mu_\theta$. The amplitudes and phases are not mutually independent; the equations (\[eq:nepc-32arh\])–(\[eq:nepc-32ath\]) imply that the quantity $$\mathcal{E}=a_\rho^2 + {{\textstyle \frac{\,9}{\,4}}}a_\theta^2 = {\mbox{const}}\label{eq:qpos-energy}$$ remains conserved during the system evolution. Clearly, $\mathcal{E}$ is proportional to the total energy of the oscillations. The existence of this integral is a general property of a conservative system. Naturally, it is not limited to the particular form of the perturbing potential (\[eq:epc-ringPhi\]), which we consider here, and it holds in Newtonian, pseudo-Newtonian as well as general-relativity versions of the equations of motion (the pseudo-Newtonian case was examined, in detail, by Abramowicz et al. [@abr03], and Horák [@hor04]). One can watch the accuracy to which $\mathcal{E}$ is conserved in order to verify the analytical approach against the exact numerical solution (we show such comparison in Figure \[fig:qpo-ellipse\] for the pseudo-Newtonian case of Abramowicz et al. [@abr03]).
Equations (\[eq:nepc-32arh\])–(\[eq:nepc-32ath\]) can be merged in a single equation by introducing the following parameterization: $$a_\rho^2=\xi^2 \mathcal{E},
\quad
a_\theta^2={{\textstyle \frac{\,4}{\,9}}}\left(1-\xi^2\right)\mathcal{E}.$$ Then the oscillations are described by two equations for $\xi(t)$ and $\gamma(t)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\xi}\!\!&=&\!\!
{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,16}}}\beta\omega_\theta\xi^2\left(1-\xi^2\right)\mathcal{E}^{3/2}\sin\gamma,
\label{eq:nepc-32xi}
\\
\dot{\gamma}\!\!&=&\!\!
-\sigma\omega_\theta +{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,4}}}\omega_\theta\mathcal{E}
\left[\mu_r\xi^2
\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. + {{\textstyle \frac{\,4}{\,9}}}\mu_\theta\left(1-\xi^2\right)
+{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,4}}}\beta\xi\left(3-5\xi^2\right)\mathcal{E}^{1/2}
\cos\gamma\right],
\label{eq:nepc-32gamma}\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy the identity $$\dot{\xi}\,{\mathrm{d}}\gamma-\dot{\gamma}\,{\mathrm{d}}\xi = 0.
\label{eq:df}$$ Substituting for $\dot{\xi}$ and $\dot{\gamma}$ from eqs. (\[eq:nepc-32xi\])–(\[eq:nepc-32gamma\]), eq. (\[eq:df\]) implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} &\equiv & 8\left(1-\xi^2\right)\sigma+\mathcal{E}\left[\mu_r\xi^4-
{{\textstyle \frac{\,4}{\,9}}}\mu_\theta\left(1-\xi^2\right)^2\right]
\nonumber\\
&&+\beta\mathcal{E}^{3/2}\xi^3\left(1-\xi^2\right)\,\cos\,\gamma
\label{eq:nepc-32F}\end{aligned}$$ is a second integral of motion. For a given value of energy $\mathcal{E}$, the system follows $\mathcal{F}={\mbox{const}}$ curves. In the other words, projection of the solution onto $(\gamma,\xi)$-plane satisfies $$\mathcal{F}(\gamma,\xi)={\mbox{const}}.$$ This allows us to construct two-dimensional phase-space sections in which the system evolution takes place.
![The $3$:$2$ inner resonances in the gravitational field of a spherical pseudo-Newtonian star and a ring ($a=9{R_{\mbox{\tiny{S}}}}$, $\mu=0.1$). The regions of different phase-plane topology are identified in $(r,\mathcal{E})$-plane. Three types can be distinguished according to the number of critical points: A – no critical point (the system is far from resonance); B – one critical point; C – two critical points.[]{data-label="fig:nepc-ring32"}](4039fig5.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Stationary points and the phase-plane topology
----------------------------------------------
Stationary points are given by the condition $\dot{\xi}=\dot{\gamma}=0$. According to eq. (\[eq:nepc-32xi\]), $\gamma$-coordinate of these points satisfies $\sin\gamma=0$, and therefore $\gamma=k\pi$ with $k$ being an integer. Substituting $\dot{\gamma}=0$ and $\cos\gamma=\pm1$ in eq. (\[eq:nepc-32gamma\]), we find a cubic equation, $$-4\sigma+\left[\mu_r\xi^2+{{\textstyle \frac{\,4}{\,9}}}\mu_\theta\left(1-\xi^2\right)\right]\mathcal{E}
\pm\beta\xi\left(3-5\xi^2\right)\mathcal{E}^{3/2}=0.
\label{eq:nepc-32steq}$$ The solution determines $\xi$-coordinate of the stationary points. In the case of small oscillations ($\mathcal{E}\ll1$), the solution can be approximated by keeping only terms up to the linear one in $\mathcal{E}$ in eq. (\[eq:nepc-32steq\]). We obtain $$\xi^2 = \frac{9\bar{\sigma}-\mu_\theta}{{{\textstyle \frac{\,9}{\,4}}}\mu_r-\mu_\theta},
\label{eq:nepc-32stsol}$$ where $\bar{\sigma}\equiv\sigma/\mathcal{E}$. The first correction to this solution is of the order of $\mathcal{E}^{1/2}$. Deviations between $\xi$-coordinates of stationary points at odd and even multiples of $\pi$ are of the same order.
The solution (\[eq:nepc-32stsol\]) lies within the allowed range provided that ${{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,4}}}\mu_r\lessgtr\bar{\sigma}\lessgtr{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,9}}}\mu_\theta$ with the denominator $D\equiv{{\textstyle \frac{\,9}{\,4}}}\mu_r-\mu_\theta\lessgtr0$, respectively. This can be expressed in terms of energy $\mathcal{E}$: given the detuning parameter $\sigma$, stationary points appear in the $(\gamma,\xi)$ plane if the energy of oscillations satisfies $$9\,\frac{\sigma}{\mu_\theta}\lessgtr\mathcal{E}\lessgtr4\,\frac{\sigma}{\mu_r}
\quad\mathrm{for}\quad
D\gtrless0.
\label{eq:nepc-32ineq}$$
{width="32.50000%"} {width="32.50000%"} {width="32.50000%"}
The examination of phase-plane topology near critical points leads to the equation $$\left({\frac{\partial \dot{\xi}}{\partial \xi}}-\lambda\right)\left({\frac{\partial \dot{\gamma}}{\partial \gamma}}-\lambda\right)-
{\frac{\partial \dot{\xi}}{\partial \gamma}}\,{\frac{\partial \dot{\gamma}}{\partial \xi}} = 0
\label{eq:nepc-11charp}$$ for eigenvalues $\lambda$ of the system of linearized equations (\[eq:nepc-32xi\]) and (\[eq:nepc-32gamma\]). Evaluating the partial derivatives at the critical point and keeping only the terms of the lowest order in $\mathcal{E}^{3/2}$, we obtain $$\lambda^2 = \pm{{\textstyle \frac{\,1}{\,72}}}\omega_\theta^2\beta\xi^3\left(1-\xi^2\right)D\,\mathcal{E}^{5/2}.$$ Examining the sign of $\lambda^2$ demonstrates that the critical points of central topology alternate with those of saddle topology.
The time dependence
-------------------
The equation for $\xi(t)$ can be derived by combining eqs. (\[eq:nepc-32xi\]) and (\[eq:nepc-32F\]). Eliminating $\cos\gamma$, we arrive at the relation $$\mathcal{K}\dot{u}^2=F^2(u)-G^2(u),
\label{eq:nepc-32u}$$ where we introduced a new variable $u(t)\equiv\xi^2$. The constant $\mathcal{K}$ and functions $F(u)$ and $G(u)$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K}&\equiv&
\frac{1}{\mathcal{E}^{3/2}}\left(\frac{8}{\omega_\theta\beta}\right)^2,
\\
F(u) &\equiv&u^{3/2}(1-u)
\\
G(u) &\equiv&
\frac{1}{\beta\mathcal{E}^{3/2}}\left[\mathcal{F}-8\sigma(1-u)-\mu_r\mathcal{E}u^2
+{{\textstyle \frac{\,4}{\,9}}}\mu_\theta\mathcal{E}(1-u)^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ The motion is allowed only for $\dot{u}^2\geq0$, and so the condition $\pm F(u)=G(u)$ gives us two turning points, $u_1$ and $u_2$, between which the evolutionary path oscillates. The functions $\pm F(u)$ and $G(u)$ are plotted in Figure \[fig:nepc-fg32\].
The period of energy exchange can be found by integrating eq. (\[eq:nepc-32u\]): $$T = \frac{16}{\beta \omega_\theta}\;\mathcal{E}^{-3/2} \int_{u_1}^{u_2} \frac{d u}{\sqrt{F^2(u) - G^2(u)}},$$ where $T$ can be roughly approximated as $$\label{eq:res32_T}
T \sim \frac{16 \pi}{\beta \omega_\theta}\;\mathcal{E}^{-3/2}.$$ Notice that this time-scale is longer than the period of individual oscillations and it says how fast the system swaps itself between the radial and vertical oscillation modes. The simple estimate (\[eq:res32\_T\]) is quite precise in most parts of the phase space, although it becomes inaccurate near stationary points, where the rate of energy exchange slows down.
Finally, we illustrate our results with a simple case, which we already introduced at the beginning of the paper (sect. \[sec:epc-ring\]): the gravitational field generated by a pseudo-Newtonian star and a narrow circular ring. The resonant condition $\omega_\theta/\omega_r=3/2$ is now fulfilled at three different radii, two of them lying between the star and the ring, and the third one outside the ring. The resonances occurring at first two radii are called the inner resonances, whereas the latter is the outer resonance (not to be confused with ‘internal resonance’, which they are all). We restrict ourselves to the inner resonances, for which we find $\sigma$, $\mu_r$, $\mu_\theta$ and $\beta$ as functions of $r$. For a fixed radius, inequalities (\[eq:nepc-32ineq\]) give us the energy range of the oscillations. The result is shown in Figure \[fig:nepc-ring32\], where we identify three different phase-plane topologies in the $(r,\mathcal{E})$-section. These can be distinguished by the number of critical points and the shape of separatrices. The topology change is evident in Figure \[fig:nepc-ring32a\], where two-dimensional plots are constructed for the integral of motion $\mathcal{F}(\xi,\gamma)$.
Frequencies of the resonant oscillations
----------------------------------------
Equations (\[eq:D3a\])–(\[eq:D3phi\]) give the shift of actual (observed) frequencies of oscillations, $\omega^\ast_r$ and $\omega^\ast_\theta$, with respect to the eigenfrequencies $\omega_r$ and $\omega_\theta$: $$\omega^\ast_r = \omega_r + \dot{\phi}_r, \quad
\omega^\ast_\theta = \omega_\theta + \dot{\phi}_\theta.
\label{eq:qpos-corrections}$$ These relations can be combined to find $$2\omega_\theta^\ast-3\omega_r^\ast
= 2\omega_\theta-3\omega_r+2\dot{\phi}_\theta-3\dot{\phi}_r = \dot{\gamma}.
\label{eq:qpos-relation}$$ The observed frequencies are in exact $3$:$2$ ratio if (and only if) the time-derivative of the phase function $\gamma$ vanishes. An immediate implication for the frequencies of stationary oscillations with constant amplitudes is that they stay in exact $3$:$2$ ratio, even if the eigenfrequencies may depart from it. Outside stationary points, it is evident from Fig. \[fig:nepc-ring32a\] that $\dot{\gamma}=0$ represents turning points on libration tracks (those ones, which are encircled by the separatrix curve). Hence, eq. (\[eq:qpos-relation\]) discriminates between librating and circulating trajectories in the $(\gamma,\xi)$-plane. Circulating trajectories span the full range of $-\pi\leq\gamma<\pi$ and they do not contain any turning point; $\dot{\gamma}$ remains nonzero and the twin frequencies never cross the exact $3$:$2$ ratio in the region of circulation. On the other hand, there are two points $\dot{\gamma}=0$ on each librating trajectory. In such state the ratio of observed frequencies slowly fluctuates about $3$:$2$.
Conclusions
===========
We have discussed the resonance scheme for high-frequency QPOs via multiple-scales analysis, assuming an axisymmetric conservative system with two degrees of freedom. This approach provides a useful insight into general properties that are common to different conceivable mechanisms driving the oscillations, although it does not address the question how the observed signal is actually formed and modulated. In our scenario, amplitudes and phases of the oscillations are mutually connected and they follow tracks in the phase space with distinct topologies. The particular form was assumed to couple the oscillation modes via the non-spherical terms in the gravitational field of a ring. We consider this to be a toy-model for rather general behaviour, which should take place in any system governed by equations of type (\[eq:ms-generalfrh\])–(\[eq:ms-generalfth\]).
We assumed the Newtonian (or the pseudo-Newtonian) description of the central gravitational field with a perturbation by an aligned ring as an example. The adopted form is not essential for general conclusions. In fact, equations (\[eq:ms-generalfrh\])–(\[eq:ms-generalfth\]) cover also the nearly-geodesic motion around a Schwarzschild black hole. Compared with the pseudo-Newtonian case, general relativity does not bring qualitatively new features, as long as the system is conservative (additional terms will arise in the expansions, which then translate to slightly different value of the resonance radius and to different duration of time intervals in physical units). A natural question arises whether the gravitational field of a rotating black hole could provide the perturbation required for the internal resonance in a surrounding disc. We considered this possibility, however, it is unlikely that Kerr metric could by itself suffice: in the weak-field limit non-spherical terms seem to be incapable of creating separatrices in the phase-space sections discussed above, whereas in the full (exact, vacuum) Kerr metric the special mathematical properties of the spacetime ensure the integrability of the geodesic motion, and hence prevent the occurrence of internal resonances. Therefore, the problem of a specific mechanism launching and maintaining the oscillations remains unanswered.
Various options for the generalisation of our scheme could be motivated by papers of other authors who proposed specific models including non-gravitational forces (see Pétri [@pet05] for a recent exposition of the problem and for references). As a next step towards an astrophysically realistic scheme, one should take dissipative and non-potential forces into account, as well as non-axisymmetric perturbations. These will allow our system to migrate across contours in the phase-plane and to undergo transitions when crossing separatrices. Such additional terms could also supplement the influence of external forcing and initiate the oscillations of the system. The internal resonance would then define the actual frequencies that are excited; this way the strong gravity unmasks itself.
VK appreciates fruitful discussions with participants of the Aspen Center for Physics workshop ‘Revealing Black Holes’, and both of us thank for the hospitality of NORDITA (Copenhagen). We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Czech Science Foundation (refs. 205/06/P415 and 202/06/0041) and the Grant Agency of the Academy of Sciences (ref. IAA300030510) that have been helping us at different stages of the paper preparation. The Astronomical Institute has been operated under the project AV0Z10030501.
Abramowicz M. A., Karas V., Kluźniak W., Lee H., Rebusco P., 2003, PASJ, 55, 467 Abramowicz M. A., Kluźniak W., 2001, A&A, 374, L19 Barret D., Kluźniak W., Olive J. F., Paltani S., Skinner G. K., 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1288 Bursa M., 2005, in [*Processes in the Vicinity of Black Holes and Neutron Stars*]{}, Vol. 6/7, eds. S. Hledík & Z. Stuchlík (Silesian University, Opava), in press Bursa M., Abramowicz M. A., Karas V., Kluźniak W., 2004, ApJL, 617, L45 Homan J., Miller J. M., Wijnands R., van der Klis M., Belloni T., Steeghs D., Lewin W. H. G., 2005, ApJ, 623, 383 Horák J., 2004, in [*Processes in the Vicinity of Black Holes and Neutron Stars*]{}, Vol. 4/5, eds. S. Hledík & Z. Stuchlík (Silesian University, Opava), p. 91 (astro-ph/0408092) Horák J., 2005, Thesis (Charles University, Prague) Horák J., Abramowicz M. A., Karas V., Kluźniak W., 2004, PASJ, 56, 819 Karas V., Huré J.-M., Semerák O., 2004, CQG, 21, R1 Kato S., 2004, PASJ, 56, 905 Kluźniak W., Abramowicz M. A, 2001, Acta Physica Polonica B, 32, 3605 Kluźniak W., Abramowicz M. A., Kato S., Lee W. H., Stergioulas N., 2004, ApJL, 603, L89 Kozai Y., 1962, AJ, 67, 591 Lasota J.-P., 2005, Astron. Nachr., 326, 867 Letelier P. S., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 68, 104002 Li Li-Xin, Narayan R., 2004, ApJ, 601, 414 Lidov M. L., 1962, Planetary and Space Science, 9, 719 Maccarone T. J., Schnittman J. D., 2005, MNRAS, 357, 12 McClintock J. E, Remillard R. A., 2006, in [*Compact Stellar X-ray Sources*]{}, eds. W. H. G. Lewin & M. van der Klis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), in press (astro-ph/0306213) Miller J. M., Wijnands R., Homan J., Belloni T. et al., 2001, ApJ, 563, 928 Nayfeh A. H., Mook D. T., 1979, [*Nonlinear oscillations*]{} (Wiley-Interscience, New York) Pétri J., 2005, A&A, 439, 443 Rebusco P., 2004, PASJ, 56, 553 Remillard R. A., McClintock J. E., Orosz J. E., Levine A. M., 2005, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0407025) Schnittman J. D., Rezzolla R., 2005, ApJL, submitted (astro-ph/0506702) Semerák O., 2004, CQG, 21, 2203 Strohmayer T. E., 2001, ApJL, 552, L49 Török G., Abramowicz M. A., Kluźniak W., Stuchlík Z., 2005, A&A, 436, 1 van der Klis M., 2006, in [*Compact Stellar X-ray sources*]{}, eds. W. H. G. Lewin and M. van der Klis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge), in press (astro-ph/0410551) Zanotti O., Font J. A., Rezzolla L., Montero P. J., 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1371
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the maximum speed at which a driven superfluid can flow through a narrow constriction with a size on the order of the healing length. Considering dissipation via the thermal nucleation of quantized vortices, we calculate the critical velocity for superfluid $^4$He and ultracold atomtronic circuits, identify fundamental length and velocity scales, and are thus able to present results obtained in widely different temperature and density ranges in a universal framework. For ultra-narrow channels we predict a drastic reduction in the critical velocity as the energy barrier for flow reducing thermally activated phase slip fluctuations is suppressed.'
author:
- Adrian Del Maestro
- Bernd Rosenow
title: Dissipation in mesoscale superfluids
---
**Supplementary material for “Dissipation in mesoscale superfluids”**
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We measure tunneling through a single quantum level in a carbon nanotube quantum dot connected to resistive metal leads. For the electrons tunneling to/from the nanotube, the leads serve as a dissipative environment, which suppresses the tunneling rate. In the regime of sequential tunneling, the height of the single-electron conductance peaks increases as the temperature is lowered, although it scales more weekly than the conventional $\propto T^{-1}$. In the resonant tunneling regime (temperature smaller than the level width), the peak width approaches saturation, while the peak height starts to *decrease*. Overall, the peak height shows a *non-monotonic* temperature dependence. We associate this unusual behavior with the transition from the sequential to the resonant tunneling through a single quantum level in a dissipative environment.'
author:
- 'Yu. Bomze, H. Mebrahtu, I. Borzenets, A. Makarovski, and G. Finkelstein'
title: Resonant Tunneling in a Dissipative Environment
---
The notion of dissipation in quantum systems is important for understanding such foundations of quantum mechanics as quantum measurements and decoherence. Of particular interest is the physics of tunneling in a dissipative environment [@LeggetRevModPhys], which is manifested in electronic transport phenomena as the “environmental Coulomb blockade” [@NI]. In this effect, conductance of a single nanoscale tunneling junction is suppressed at low temperatures and low bias voltage [@ECB_experiement; @note]. In order to observe the suppression, the two leads connecting the junction to the measurement system should have the resistance comparable to the quantum unit of resistance, $h/e^2$. The tunneling electrons couple to the electromagnetic modes in the leads (referred hereafter as “environment”), which reduces the tunneling probability. At small bias $V$ and at low temperature $T$ the differential conductance is suppressed as $G\propto \max(k_B T, eV)^{\alpha}$, where the exponent $\alpha = 2 e^2 R_e/ h$ and $R_e$ is the total resistance of the leads [@NI].
Suppression of tunneling into *single-wall* nanotubes has been attributed to the Luttinger liquid behavior [@singlewalltunnel], while a similar effect in *multi-wall* nanotubes has been discussed in terms of environmental Coulomb blockade due to the resistive nature of the nanotubes [@multiwalltunnel]. Our set-up is different from either one: suppression of tunneling develops in our case not due to the properties of the nanotube, but due to the high resistance of the long metal leads that connect the nanotube to the measurement set-up. The nanotube itself serves either as a tunable tunneling junction between the two leads, or as a quantum dot, depending on the gate voltage. The ability to gate the nanotube allows us to first characterize its environment and then to study the physics of tunneling through a single quantized level in the known dissipative environment. We are particularly interested in the novel regime of resonant tunneling with dissipation. Our results confirm the recent theoretical predictions of Refs. [@Averin_94; @Nazarov_Glazman; @P_G]. Most surprisingly, we find that the conductance peak height exhibits a nonmonotonic dependence on temperature, which to our knowledge is experimentally observed here for the first time.
The nanotubes are grown on a Si/SiO$_2$ substrate by Chemical Vapor Deposition using CO as a feedstock gas [@Zheng2002]. This method usually produces single-wall nanotubes with diameters of about 2 nm. Individual nanotubes are contacted by long and narrow electrodes with a specific resistivity of $\sim 70 \Omega /\square$ and total resistance of several $k\Omega$. We present results measured on a single semiconducting nanotube with the two metal contacts separated by a distance of 400nm. All the measurements are performed in a dilution refrigerator at temperatures in the range of a few Kelvin to tens of mK.
Figure 1 shows zero-bias conductance of the nanotube at representative ranges of positive and negative gate voltage, $V_{\rm gate}$. The metal electrodes form Schottky barriers to the valence band of the semiconducting nanotube, thereby defining a quantum dot. While the heights of the barriers are fixed, they get narrower and more transparent as the positive gate voltage moves the top of the valence band closer to the Fermi energy (schematic in Figure 1). Indeed, at positive $V_{\rm gate}$ corresponding to the wide Schottky barriers, the conductance demonstrates a set of very narrow peaks separated by wide Coulomb blockade valleys of vanishing conductance (Figure 1 b,c). For negative $V_{\rm gate}$ corresponding to the narrow Schottky barriers, the nanotube conductance shows wide single-electron peaks (Figure 1a).
The peaks in Figure 1a form groups of four (“shells”) due to the orbital degeneracy in nanotubes [@4peaks]. For our initial measurements, we choose the conductance valleys at $V_{\rm gate} \approx -3.6$V and $-4.6$V, where a number of shells is completely filled. The large conductance background in these valleys is due to the elastic cotunneling processes [@Averin_Nazarov]. We find that this conductance, measured as a function of the bias voltage $V$, is flat up to at least $\sim 1$ meV at the temperatures of several K (not shown). Indeed, the excited states of the dot, corresponding to moving one electron to a higher shell, are separated by the energies of several meV from the ground state. Also, the ground state of the dot is non-degenerate, so that the Kondo effect [@GPCKreview] is not expected. Therefore, at the two selected $V_{\rm gate}$ we may consider the nanotube as a lumped tunneling junction of a known and constant transparency.
As the temperature is lowered, in both valleys $G(V)$ gets suppressed, forming a narrow dip characteristic of environmental Coulomb blockade (Figure 2a). We replot the data for $V_{\rm gate} = -4.6$V in Figure 2b as $G(T,V)/G(T,0)$ *vs.* $eV/k_B T$. (The logarithmic scale is chosen for the horizontal axis to present the data measured over several orders of magnitude in $V/T$. Also, the power laws with small exponent appear nearly linear on a log plot.) We find that the data measured at low bias and temperature collapse on the same curve, which is consistent with $G \propto \max(k_B T, eV)^{\alpha}$ at low $T$ and $V$. Moreover, the zero bias conductance at low temperatures is described very well as $G(T,0) \propto T^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha \approx 0.22$ in both valleys (Figure 2c). While we cannot measure the resistance of our leads directly, we have characterized the specific resistivity of the metal film and estimated the total resistance from the known lead geometry. The resulting $R_e \sim 3 k \Omega$ is consistent with $\alpha = 2 e^2 R_e/ h \approx 0.22$. This comparison should not be taken too literally, since the exponent is also affected by various shunting capacitances. We plug this exponent to the theoretical expression of Ref. [@Averin_Lukens] to generate the overlaying white line in Figure 2b, which accounts well for the scaling curve at different temperatures.
![\[fig:ZBA\] (Color online) a) Differential conductance $G$ measured *vs.* bias voltage $V$ in the middle of the two wide valleys marked by “X” and “Y” in Figure 1. b) $G(V,T)/G(V=0,T)$ plotted *vs.* $eV/k_B T$ for valley X. Symbols of different colors and shapes correspond to the same set of temperatures as in panel (a). c) $G(V=0,T)$ plotted *vs.* $T$ for the two valleys. We find that $G(V=0,T) \propto T^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha \approx 0.22$. This exponent is used to generate the overlaying white line in panel (b) according to the theoretical expression taken from Ref. [@Averin_Lukens]. The dashed and the dotted lines correspond to the same formula with $\alpha = 0.20$ and $\alpha = 0.24$ respectively. ](fig2){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Once the environment (*i.e.* the leads) of the nanotube is characterized, we turn our attention to the range of large positive gate voltages, where the nanotube forms a well-isolated quantum dot. We focus on two single-electron conductance peaks in Figures 1b and c, centered at $V_{\rm gate} = -8.13$V (the “narrow peak”, [**N**]{}) and $V_{\rm gate} = -7.24$V (the “wide peak”, [**W**]{}). Figures 3a and b show the two peaks measured as a function of the gate voltage at zero bias in a range of temperatures. The dependences of their widths and height on temperature are summarized in Figure 4. Let us concentrate first on peak [**N**]{}. At the highest temperatures, the peak shape is described by the standard expression for sequential tunneling through a single quantum level [@GlazmanMatveev; @Beenakker]. (In practice, the peak shape predicted in Refs. [@GlazmanMatveev; @Beenakker] is very close to the derivative of the Fermi function. In particular, the peak full width at half height is expected to be $\propto T$, which indeed is the case for the three highest temperatures in Figure 4a. At the lowest temperatures, the curve deviates from the linear dependence due to the contribution of the intrinsic (lifetime) broadening of the peak.
The height of peak [**N**]{} increases as the temperature is lowered (Figure 4b). In the sequential tunneling through a single quantum level, the peak height should scale as $G_0 \propto \frac{1}{T} \frac{\Gamma_L \Gamma_R}{\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R}$, where $\Gamma_L$ and $\Gamma_R$ are the tunneling rates from the dot to the left and the right leads, respectively. For regular metallic leads, this results in $G_0 \propto 1/T$. Due to the environmental Coulomb blockade, electron tunneling rates $\Gamma_L, \Gamma_R$ to/from the quantum dot to the resistive leads should be suppressed at low temperatures and the $1/T$ dependence should be modified. A similar situation is encountered for a quantum dot coupled to Luttinger liquid leads, where the tunneling rates are also suppressed [@Auslaender; @Postma]. In this case, it was shown theoretically that at low temperature the sequential tunneling expressions still hold as long as $\Gamma_{L,R} \lesssim T$ [@Furusaki].
![\[fig:peaks\] (Color online) Differential conductance for the peaks (a) [**N**]{} and (b) [**W**]{} vs. $\Delta V_{\rm gate}$, the gate voltage measured from their maxima. (The asymmetric tails of peak [**W**]{} are due to spin degeneracy. The asymmetry may be lifted by magnetic field, Figure 5.) ](fig3){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We expect that due to environmental blockade of tunneling $\Gamma_{L,R} \propto T^{\alpha_{L,R}}$ with $\alpha_{L,R} = 2 e^2 R_{L,R}/h$ [@NI]. Here $R_{L,R}$ are the resistances of the left and right leads, $R_L + R_R = R_e$, so that $\alpha_L + \alpha_R$ should be equal to $\alpha \approx 0.22$ which we extracted from Figure 2. Since the peak height even at the lowest temperatures is significantly less than $e^2/h$, we can assume that the tunneling rates between the dot and the left/right contacts are asymmetric: $\Gamma_L \gg \Gamma_R$. In this case, the expression for peak height reduces to $G_0 \propto \Gamma_R/T \propto T^{\alpha_R-1}$. Experimentally, we find that the height of peak [**N**]{} at temperatures $T >$ 0.3K scales at $G_0 \propto T^{-0.85}$. Therefore, in our case $\alpha_R \approx 0.15$, which is slightly larger than $\alpha / 2 \approx 0.11$. The two leads to the nanotube were not designed to be identical in shape. Indeed, from the geometry of the leads we estimate that they are made of approximately 25 and 15 squares of the metal film. This difference may be partially responsible for $\alpha_R$ being larger than $\alpha / 2$. The value of $\alpha_{L,R}$ is also influenced by capacitances of the leads, which partially short out the lead resistances at the relevant frequency range. While in principle one can extract the exact exponents from the frequency-dependent impedance of the leads, the theory could not be easily applied to our case, because our metal leads have complicated shapes and non-uniform cross sections.
![\[fig:heights\] (Color online) a) The width and b) the maximal height of the peaks [**N**]{} and [**W**]{} measured as a function of temperature. The widths of the peaks are measured in the units of $V_{\rm gate}$. To convert these quantities to the actual energies, one has to multiply them by the gate efficiency factor [@QDreview]. From the shape of the “Coulomb diamonds” in nonlinear conductance (not shown) we extract the gate efficiency factors of 0.10 and 0.11 for peaks [**N**]{} and [**W**]{} respectively. ](fig4){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
For $\alpha_{L,R} <1$, the sequential tunneling picture should eventually break down as the temperature drops below $max(\Gamma_L, \Gamma_R)$. To study this resonant tunneling regime, let us turn our attention to the “wide peak”, [**W**]{} (Figure 3b). Surprisingly, as the width of this peak approaches saturation at the lower temperatures, the height of the peak starts to *decrease* (Figure 4b). We note that the saturation of the peak width cannot be explained by the spurious effects of the external electromagnetic radiation, which could have saturated the effective electron temperature. Indeed, the width of peak [**N**]{} keeps decreasing down to the lowest temperature. Other features do change as well, most importantly the height of peak [**W**]{} and the depth of the zero-bias anomaly in Figure 2.
Recently, the resonant tunneling through a single quantum level with $\Gamma_{L,R} \propto T^{\alpha_{L,R}}$ has been considered theoretically [@Averin_94; @Nazarov_Glazman; @P_G]. Since the height of peak [**W**]{} is always $<0.1 e^2/h$, the two tunneling rates are strongly asymmetric, $\Gamma_L \gg \Gamma_R$, in which case the width of the peak is predicted to saturate at the value of $\Gamma_0 \sim \Gamma_L(T_0)$. Here temperature $T_0$ is defined self-consistently as $k_B T_0 \sim \hbar \Gamma_L(T_0)$ [@Nazarov_Glazman; @P_G]. As the temperature decreases below $T_0$, the peak conductance is predicted to decrease as $G_0 \propto T^{\alpha_L+\alpha_R}$. The exponent $\alpha_L+\alpha_R$ corresponds to a direct tunneling from one lead to the other through the wide resonance level ($\Gamma_0 > T$). Indeed, we find that the height of peak [**W**]{} at lowest temperatures decreases approximately as $\propto T^{0.2}$. This exponent is very close to $\alpha \approx 0.22$ we have extracted from Figure 2. The small difference is likely caused by not following the decrease of the peak over a sufficient range of temperatures.
![\[fig:map\] a) The differential conductance map of peak [**W**]{} measured as a function of the gate voltage and source-drain bias at the base temperature. The X-shaped feature corresponds to the alignment of the resonance level with the chemical potential of the source or the drain. The cross-section of the conductance map along the horizontal line $V=0$ corresponds to the peak shape as measured in Figure 3a. b) Conductance as a function of the source-drain bias measured at the gate voltage corresponding to the center of the peak. In both (a) and (b), the sample is subject to perpendicular magnetic field of 4T applied to split the spin degeneracy. ](fig5){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
To get a better insight into the temperature evolution of conductance in the resonant tunneling regime, we present a two-dimensional map of the wide peak conductance measured as a function of both $V_{\rm gate}$ and $V$ (Figure 5a). Figure 5b shows the vertical cross section of the conductance map measured as a function of the bias voltage $V$ at the center of the peak, $\Delta V_{\rm gate}= 0$ . The most remarkable feature of Figure 5 is the zero-bias suppression, visible both in the map and the cross section. This is the same dissipation-induced feature as observed in Figure 2. It is now superimposed on top of the wide resonance level ($\Gamma_0 \sim 100 \mu V$) [@P_G]. It appears quite natural that as the temperature is raised, the zero-bias suppression will be washed away first, resulting in the increase of the zero-bias conductance. On the other hand, the width of the peak will not be immediately affected until $T$ becomes of the order of $\Gamma_0$. This exactly corresponds to our findings in Figure 3b.
In summary, we study the suppression of conductance through a nanotube connected to resistive leads, which create a dissipative environment for the tunneling electrons. We focus our attention on the transition from the sequential to the resonant tunneling through a single level in the nanotube. For the fist time, we observe a nonmonotonic temperature dependence of the conductance peak height. In the resonant tunneling regime, as the temperature decreases, the width of the conductance peak saturates, but its height starts to *decrease*. In this regime, one should view the transport as a coherent tunneling of electrons between the two leads mediated by the resonant level. In agreement with the existing theory, this process is suppressed stronger than individual tunneling rates between each of the leads and the dot.
Acknowledgements: We appreciate valuable discussions with D. Averin, H. Baranger, M. Gershenson, L. Glazman, I. Gornyi, J. Liu, C. Marcus, K. Matveev and D. Polyakov. The work was supported by NSF DMR-0239748.
[99]{}
A.J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A.T. Dorsey, M.P.A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**67**]{}, 725 (1995).
G.-L. Ingold and Y.V. Nazarov, in Single Charge Tunneling: Coulomb Blockade Phenomena in Nanostructures, ed. by H. Grabert and M.H. Devoret (Plenum Press, 1992), pp. 21-107.
P. Delsing, K.K. Likharev, L.S. Kuzmin, and T.Claeson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1180 (1989); L.J. Geerligs, V.F. Anderegg, C.A. van der Jeugd, J. Romijn, and J.E. Mooij, Europhys. Lett. [**10**]{}, 79 (1989); A.N. Cleland, J.M. Schmidt, and J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1565 (1990); M.H. Devoret, D. Esteve, H. Grabert, G.-L. Ingold, H. Pothier, and C. Urbina, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1824 (1990).
Unlike the “conventional” Coulomb blockade [@QDreview], the environmental Coulomb blockade does not require an isolated nanoscale island and is observed in a single tunneling junction.
M. Bockrath, D.H. Cobden, J. Lu, A.G. Rinzler, R.E. Smalley, T. Balents and P.L. McEuen, Nature [**397**]{}, 598 (1999); Z. Yao, H.W.C. Postma, L. Balents and C. Dekker, Nature [**402**]{}, 273 (1999); H.W.C. Postma, M. de Jonge, Z. Yao and C. Dekker, Physical Review B [**62**]{}, R10653 (2000).
A. Bachtold, M. de Jonge, K. Grove-Rasmussen, P.L. McEuen, M. Buitelaar and C. Schonenberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 166801 (2001); R. Tarkiainen, M. Ahlskog, J. Penttila, L. Roschier, P. Hakonen, M. Paalanen and E. Sonin, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 195412 (2001).
H.T. Imam, V.V. Ponomarenko, D.V. Averin, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 18288 (1994).
Yu.V Nazarov and L.I. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 126804 (2003).
D.G. Polyakov and I.V. Gornyi, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 035421 (2003).
B. Zheng, C.G. Lu, G. Gu, A. Makarovski, G. Finkelstein and J. Liu, Nano Lett. [**2**]{}, 895 (2002).
W.J. Liang, M. Bockrath and H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 126801 (2002); M.R. Buitelaar, A. Bachtold, T. Nussbaumer, M. Iqbal and C. Schonenberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 156801 (2002).
D.V. Averin and Yu.V. Nazarov, in Single Charge Tunneling: Coulomb Blockade Phenomena in Nanostructures, ed. by H. Grabert and M.H. Devoret (Plenum Press, 1992), p. 217.
M. Pustilnik, L.I.Glazman, D.H. Cobden, and L.P. Kouwenhoven, Lecture Notes in Physics 579, p. 3 (2001).
W. Zheng, J.R. Friedman, D.V. Averin, S. Han, and J.E. Lukens, Solid State Commun. [**108**]{}, p. 839 (1998).
L.I. Glazman and K.A. Matveev, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**48**]{}, 403 (1988) \[JETP Lett. [**48**]{}, 445 (1988)\]
C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 1646 (1991).
L.P. Kouwenhoven, C.M. Marcus, P.L. McEuen, S. Tarucha, R.M. Westervelt and N.S. Wingreen, in Mesoscopic Electron Transport, ed. by L.P. Kouwenhoven, G. Schon, and L.L. Sohn (Kluwer, 1997), p. 105.
O.M. Auslaender, A. Yacoby, R. de Picciotto, K.W. Baldwin, L.N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 1764 (2000).
H.W.C. Postma, T. Teepen, Z. Yao, M. Grifoni, and C. Dekker, Science [**293**]{}, 76 (2001).
A. Furusaki, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 7141 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m submillimetre (submm) observations of the fields of 10 dusty, luminous galaxies at $z$ $\sim$ 1.7 - 4.6, detected at 12$\mu$m and/or 22$\mu$m by the WISE all-sky survey, but faint or undetected at 3.4$\mu$m and 4.6$\mu$m; dubbed hot, dust-obscured galaxies (Hot DOGs). The six detected targets all have total infrared luminosities greater than 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$, with one greater than 10$^{14}$L$_{\odot}$. Their spectral energy distributions (SEDs) are very blue from mid-infrared to submm wavelengths and not well fitted by standard AGN SED templates, without adding extra dust extinction to fit the WISE 3.4$\mu$m and 4.6$\mu$m data. The SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m observations confirm that the Hot DOGs have less cold and/or more warm dust emission than standard AGN templates, and limit an underlying extended spiral or ULIRG-type galaxy to contribute less than about 2$\%$ or 55$\%$ of the typical total Hot DOG IR luminosity, respectively. The two most distant and luminous targets have similar observed submm to mid-infrared ratios to the rest, and thus appear to have even hotter SEDs. The number of serendipitous submm galaxies (SMGs) detected in the 1.5-arcmin-radius SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m maps indicates there is a significant over-density of serendipitous sources around Hot DOGs. These submm observations confirm that the WISE-selected ultra-luminous galaxies have very blue mid-infrared to submm SEDs, suggesting that they contain very powerful AGN, and are apparently located in unusual arcmin-scale overdensities of very luminous dusty galaxies.'
author:
- '\'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
date: 'Submitted xx/xx/2014'
title: 'Submillimetre observations of WISE-selected high-redshift, luminous, dusty galaxies'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: active – galaxies: high-redshift – galaxies: formation – infrared: galaxies – submillimetre: galaxies
Introduction
============
Ultra-Luminous Infrared Galaxies (ULIRGs)[^1] were first discovered in the 1980’s by the *Infrared Astronomical Satellite* (*IRAS*) [@houck84; @soifer84]. More than 90% of their luminosity is emitted in the infrared (IR) due to interstellar dust absorbing ultraviolet (UV) and optical emission produced by active galactic nuclei (AGN) and/or starbursts. The dust then re-emits thermally at longer wavelengths, from the near-IR to millimetre (mm) wavebands.
ULIRGs evolve strongly with redshift, becoming more abundant with a surface density of several hundred per square degree at $z$ $\sim$ 1. Out to $z$ $\sim$ 1 the evolution rate of luminous dusty galaxies goes as $\sim$ (1 $+$ $z$)$^{4}$ [@blain99; @floc05]. To $z$ $\ge$ 1 ULIRGs along with Luminous Infrared Galaxies (LIRGs),$^1$ account for 70 $\pm$ 15% of cosmic star formation activity [@floch05; @richards06]. Therefore, at the peak of the cosmic star formation rate, $z$ $\sim$ 2 - 3, ULIRGs contribute a significant amount to the total IR luminosity density [@smail97; @genzel00; @blain02; @cowie02; @chapman05; @floch05; @hopkins08; @reddy08; @magnelli09; @elbaz11; @casey12; @magnelli12; @melbourne12; @lu13]. Studying the most extreme IR galaxies at this epoch, should provide a larger and more complete sample of different types of the most luminous AGN, to help in fully understanding the processes of formation and evolution of massive galaxies.
A popular theory for the origin of ULIRGs is that major mergers between massive, gas-rich galaxies provide tidal torques that transport gas to the centre of the more massive galaxy [@barnes92; @schweizer98; @farrah01; @veilleux02; @hopkins06; @hopkins08]. This influx of gas can induce rapid star formation and/or AGN fuelling [@barnes92; @mihos96; @hopkins08]: starburst activity dominates the luminosity at first, and then the embedded supermassive black hole (SMBH) grows to dominate. Feedback from the SMBH (radiation, winds and/or jets) and supernovae can expel gas and dust, terminating further star formation and for a short time leaving a visible optical quasar (QSO): finally, a passive massive elliptical galaxy is left behind . Observations of other dusty galaxy populations could be evidence of different stages of this merging galaxy theory. For example, submillimetre galaxies (SMGs) appear to be high redshift ULIRGs [@blain02; @tacconi08] and dust-obscured galaxies (DOGs) have comparable star formation rates and IR luminosities to SMGs [@bussmann09; @tyler09; @melbourne12]. There could be an evolutionary connection between ULIRGs, SMGs, DOGs, QSOs and massive elliptical galaxies [@sanders88a; @sanders88b].
Luminous, dusty active galaxies heated by AGN and/or recent starburst activity emit in the IR at wavelengths traced by the *Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer* (WISE) filters at 12$\mu$m (W3) and 22$\mu$m (W4) bands. @eisenhardt12, @wu12 and Bridge et al. (2013, in prep.) have shown that WISE can find different classes of interesting, luminous, high-redshift, dusty galaxies. Based on WISE colours and flux cuts, a population has faint or undetectable flux densities in the 3.4$\mu$m (W1) and 4.6$\mu$m (W2) bands, while being well detected (signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) $>$ 5 in the All-Sky WISE Source Catalog[^2]) in the 12 and/or 22$\mu$m bands. These galaxies have been called “W1W2-dropouts” [@eisenhardt12] and Hot DOGs [@wu12].
In the major merger theory, the SMG population would represent an earlier, starburst-dominated phase of merging galaxies, and the luminous DOG population are the later, most luminous AGN-dominated phase of merging galaxies, and in energetic terms could easily become optically visible QSOs [@narayanan10]. The Hot DOGs presented in this paper would qualify the DOG selection criterion, F$_{24\mu \textrm{m}} >$ 0.3 mJy and R$- [24] >$ 14 (where R is the Vega magnitudes for optical R band and *Spitzer* mid-IR 24$\mu$m [@dey08]) however, the Hot DOGs are more luminous, hotter and rarer than typical DOGs and could be extreme cases of DOGs or another stage of merging galaxies [@wu12]. To investigate this Hot DOG population, follow-up spectroscopy of more than 100 of them revealed that these galaxies are intrinsically very luminous, potentially putting them in the class of ULIRGs$^{1}$ and Hyper-Luminous Infrared Galaxies (HyLIRGs)$^{1}$ (Bridge et al. 2013, in prep.; Eisenhardt et al. in prep.; Tsai et al. in prep.). They are frequently found in the redshift range 2 $<$ $z$ $<$ 3 [@eisenhardt12; @wu12; @bridge13], and so far the highest redshift is $z = 4.59$ for W2246-0526 (Tsai et al. in prep.). Their SEDs show a mid-IR to far-IR colour that is too blue to be well fitted by many standard AGN templates, suggesting that they represent a short evolutionary phase of merging galaxies, where an AGN is fueling very rapidly inside a thick dust shroud, leading to very intense mid-IR but obscured emission and a hot SED, as proposed by (Wu et al. 2012; Bridge et al. 2013; Assef et al. in prep.). The Hot DOGs should show the impact of an AGN on the surrounding ISM at its very greatest. These WISE-selected sources are certainly not typical galaxies, but the processes taking place within them should be at work everywhere.
In this paper, James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) Submillimetre Common-User Bolometer Array 2 (SCUBA-2) [@holland13] observations of 10 Hot DOGs are reported. These long wavelength measurements are needed to understand the cold dust properties and to calculate the total luminosity all the way from 8$\mu$m to 1000$\mu$m ($L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$). Section 2 describes the sample, along with the details of WISE and SCUBA-2 observations. Section 3 reports the SCUBA-2 results, and the SEDs and total IR luminosities ($L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$) of the Hot DOGs in comparison with other populations. Existing SED templates of well-studied objects are compared to find out the nature of the Hot DOGs, and their accuracy and a need for additional mid-IR extinction to fit the data is discussed. The submm to mid-IR ratios are discussed, to investigate if the Hot DOG SEDs are dominated by AGN emission or star formation. The luminosities of an underlying extended host galaxy component are calculated, in order to calculate the potential host galaxy contribution to the typical Hot DOG total IR luminosity, to see if the Hot DOGs are dominated by AGN or starburst activity. To see if there is an overdensity of SMGs in the SCUBA-2 fields, SMG number counts are compared to those in other submm surveys.
Throughout this paper we assume a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with H$_0$ = 71kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_{\rm{m}}$ = 0.27 and $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.73 [@hinshaw09]. WISE catalogue magnitudes are converted to flux densities using zero-point values on the Vega system of 306.7, 170.7, 29.04 and 8.284Jy for WISE 3.4, 4.6, 12 and 22$\mu$m wavelengths, respectively [@wright10].
Observations
============
WISE
----
WISE was launched in December 2009 and surveyed the entire sky at wavelengths of 3.4, 4.6, 12 and 22$\mu$m [@wright10]. One of the primary science goals was to identify the most luminous galaxy in the observable universe, which can be accomplished due to WISE obtaining much greater sensitivity than previous all-sky IR survey missions. For example, *IRAS* yielded catalogued source sensitivities of 0.5Jy at 12, 25 and 60$\mu$m and 1Jy at 100$\mu$m [@neugebauer84]. WISE achieved 5-$\sigma$ source sensitivities better than 0.054, 0.071, 0.73 and 5.0mJy and angular resolutions of 6.1, 6.4, 6.5 and 12.0arcsec in the W1 to W4 bands, respectively [@wright10; @jarrett11].
Target Selection
----------------
The objects observed here are selected from the WISE All-Sky Source catalog$^2$, with IR magnitudes derived using point source profile-fitting [@cutri12]. The Hot DOG selection criteria are to have a faint or undetectable flux in W1 and W2, but a detectable flux (SNR $>$ 5) in W3 and/or or W4. The selected galaxies have W1 $>$ 17.4 mag and either W4 $<$ 7.7 mag and W2 $-$ W4 $>$ 8.2 or W3 $<$ 10.6 mag and W2 $-$ W3 $>$ 5.3 [@eisenhardt12]. The search was made greater than 30$^{\circ}$ away from the Galactic centre and 10$^{\circ}$ from the Galactic plane to avoid enhanced levels of saturation artifacts and stars.
The number of WISE-selected Hot DOGs over the extragalactic sky, to this magnitude limit, is about 1000, which points to this population being extremely rare, and perhaps a transitional population (Eisenhardt et al. 2012; Assef et al. in prep.; Tsai et al. in prep.). The JCMT targets were selected because they had known spectroscopic redshifts (Eisenhardt et al. 2012, in prep.; Bridge et al. in prep.), could be observed in the A-semester (January to July) at the JCMT, and were queued to obtain *Herschel* data (Bridge et al. in prep.; Tsai et al. in prep.). We selected 31 targets and obtained observations of 10 targets with SCUBA-2 that were chosen at random due to the vagaries of the queue observing system. Their WISE W4 band fluxes were selected to be among the greatest of the suitable sources, in the hope of increasing the chance that their 850$\mu$m flux would be bright enough to be detected or limits would be significant. Therefore, with any conclusions drawn it must be remembered that these Hot DOGs have been selected to be mid-IR bright.
The WISE flux densities presented in Table 1 are from the subsequent AllWISE Source Catalog[^3], that has improved photometric sensitivity and accuracy, and improved astrometric precision compared to the WISE All-Sky Source Catalog.
JCMT SCUBA-2
------------
Ten Hot DOGs were observed with SCUBA-2 on the 15-m JCMT atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii, primarily in May 2012 but also on other nights throughout the 12A semester, from January to July 2012.
SCUBA-2 is a bolometer camera and has eight 32 x 40 pixel detector arrays each with a field of view of 2.4arcmin$^2$ [@holland13]. SCUBA-2 observes in the atmospheric windows at 450$\mu$m and 850$\mu$m. The diffraction-limited beams have full-width half maxima (FWHM) of approximately 7.5 and 14.5arcsec, respectively.
The optical depth at 225 GHz, $\tau$$_{225}$, during the observations was in the range of JCMT Band 2 conditions: 0.05 $<$ $\tau$$_{225}$ $<$ 0.08 [@dempsey13]. The corresponding opacities for each atmospheric window, 450$\mu$m and 850$\mu$m, were 0.61 $<$ $\tau$$_{450}$ $<$ 1.18 and 0.24 $<$ $\tau$$_{850}$ $<$ 0.40. Therefore, we could not use any 450$\mu$m data because the atmospheric opacity was too great.
All observations were taken in the “CV DAISY" mode that produces a 12-arcmin diameter map, with the deepest coverage in a central 3-arcmin diameter region [@holland13]. The target stays near the centre of the arrays and the telescope performs a pseudo-circular pattern with a radius of 250arcsec at a speed of 155arcsecs$^{-1}$. This mode is best for point-like sources and those smaller than 3-arcmin. Each scan was 30minutes long and four scans were made per target, totalling a exposure time of 120minutes per target. The typical 850$\mu$m noise achieved in these DAISY maps was 1.8mJy/beam, and the noise increases by $\sim$10$\%$ out to a radius of 1.5arcmin (Table 1). We have treated only this uniform central region of the SCUBA2 DAISY maps in this analysis.
Pointing checks were taken throughout the night. The calibration sources observed were Uranus, CRL 2688, CRL 618 and Mars. Calibrations were taken at the start and end of every night in the standard manner [@dempsey13], and where consistent with the standard values.
Results
=======
Photometry
----------
The maps were reduced with the STARLINK SubMillimeter User Reduction Facility (SMURF) data reduction package with the “Blank Field" configuration suitable for low SNR point sources [@chapin13]. SMURF performs pre-processing steps to clean the data by modelling each of the contributions to the signal from each bolometer, flatfields and removes atmospheric emission, and finally regrids to produce a science-quality image. Using the STARLINK PIpeline for Combining and Analyzing Reduced Data (PICARD) package the maps were mosaiced with all four observations per target, beam-match filtered with a 15arcsec FWHM Gaussian and calibrated with the flux conversion factor (FCF) of 2.34JypW$^{-1}$arcsec$^{-2}$ (appropriate for aperture photometry) or 537JypW$^{-1}$beam$^{-1}$ (in order to measure absolute peak fluxes of discrete sources) that is appropriate for 850$\mu$m data [@dempsey13].
The 850$\mu$m flux densities of the 10 Hot DOGs at their WISE positions and the noise level in the maps are presented in Table 1. Six Hot DOGs are detected at greater than 3$\sigma$ significance, while the other four targets had positive flux measurements at the WISE position with significances between 1.1$\sigma$ and 1.9$\sigma$. The flux density limits for all the targets were measured in an aperture diameter of 15arcsec, which is the same size as the FWHM of the telescope beam. This was an appropriate aperture size: for the detected sources, the aperture flux densities on this scale are consistent with the peak flux densities. Figure \[det6\] and Figure \[undet4\] show the sensitive 3-arcmin diameter SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m DAISY fields of the 6 detected Hot DOGs and the 4 undetected Hot DOGs, respectively. The typical error of the WISE position compared to the SCUBA-2 position of the detected targets was 1arcsec.
To test whether the positive flux density of the four targets with upper limits is likely to be real, random points were sampled from the maps, and the stacked average flux density was 0.0 $\pm$ 0.5mJy. This is consistent with the positive flux densities from the Hot DOGs with upper limits being due to fainter, undetected targets.
W2026$+$0716 is the only target whose 850$\mu$m flux increases when measured in a larger aperture (see Figure \[w2026scuba2wise\]). It has a 850$\mu$m flux density of 2.1 mJy with a 15-arcsec beam-sized aperture. However, when increasing the diameter to 29arcsec, the flux density increases to 7.3 mJy. The higher flux is likely because the target has multiple components on scales bigger than the SCUBA-2 beam. Multiple components have been seen in another Hot DOG, W1814$+$3412, where several objects on scales less than 10arcsec are apparent [@eisenhardt12]. Alternatively, there could be an unrelated source or sources. The WISE extended source flag is 0 for the W1 through W4 bands, which means that the detected source is not extended at WISE wavelengths (see Figure \[w2026scuba2wise\]). There are no obvious signs of a cluster of sources nearby in *Spitzer* images (Wu et al. priv. comm.). However, *Herschel* 160$\mu$m imaging shows a possible companion about 10arcsec away that could contribute enhanced flux in larger apertures in this source (Bridge et al. priv. comm.). Due to this uncertainty, the quoted 850$\mu$m flux density in Table 1 is the 15-arcsec beam-sized aperture flux density (2.1mJy).
When the images of the four undetected sources are stacked together into one image (Figure \[stack\]) and centred on the WISE-determined position of each target, the net flux is 7.8 $\pm$ 2.3mJy in the central 15arcsec region, a net detection of 3.4$\sigma$. The four undetected targets are consistent with being on average 2.5 times fainter than the six detected targets. To get deeper observations with SCUBA-2 would require several more hours of integration per target, beyond the existing 120minutes, but would not add much more value to this stacked result.
The flux densities presented in Table 1 can be compared with the results of @wu12, who observed 14 WISE-selected Hot DOGs with the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO) SubMillimeter High Angular Resolution Camera II (SHARC-II) at 350 to 850$\mu$m and 18 Hot DOGs with CSO Bolocam at 1.1 mm. Using a 3$\sigma$ threshold, @wu12 found that nine out of 14 Hot DOGs were detected at 350$\mu$m and 6 of the 18 targets were detected at 1.1mm. Three sources from the Hot DOG sample in this paper were in common with @wu12; W1603+2745, W1814$+$3412 and W1835+4355. These CSO results are consistent with our SCUBA-2 observations at 850$\mu$m. The relative sensitivities of SHARC-II and Bolocam are such that we believe the SCUBA-2 detections and limits provide a substantial increase in our knowledge of the HotDOGs’ submm properties. Furthermore, W1814$+$3412 which was detected at 350$\mu$m by @wu12, with upper limits reported at 450$\mu$m and 1100$\mu$m was also detected by the Institut de Radioastronomie Millimetrique (IRAM) Plateau de Bure interferometer in the 1.3mm band in 2013 (Blain et al. in prep.).
{width="17cm" height="11.5cm"}
{width="11cm" height="11cm"}
{width="15cm"}
![SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m 48arcsec radius map showing the central region of the 4 undetected targets stacked together. The cross shows the central pixel. North is up, East is to the left.[]{data-label="stack"}](stack_central.eps){width="6cm" height="6cm"}
SEDs
----
### Short Wavelength SEDs
The SEDs of the 10 SCUBA-2 Hot DOGs are shown in Figure \[sedall\]. The SEDs are normalised at rest-frame 3$\mu$m and shown at rest-frame wavelengths in order to compare to various galaxy SED templates [@polletta07] in order to try and understand the Hot DOGs nature. The Polletta galaxy templates are Arp 220 (starburst-dominated galaxy), Mrk 231 (heavily obscured AGN-starburst composite), QSO 1 and 2 (optically-selected QSOs of Type 1 and 2) and torus (type-2 heavily-obscured QSO: an accreting SMBH with a hot accretion disk surrounded by dust and Compton-thick gas in a toroidal structure [@krolik88]. The Hot DOG SEDs are broadly similar. They have a steep red power-law IR (1-5$\mu$m) section with a potential mid-IR peak from hot dust emission, a mid-IR to submm section that appears to be flatter, i.e. less peaked, than the Polletta AGN templates, turning over to a Rayleigh-Jeans spectrum longwards of 200$\mu$m from the coolest dust emission. The mid-IR to submm section is consistent with being “flat-topped” (in f$_{\nu}$), as suggested by @wu12, and consistent with the 850$\mu$m data presented in this paper, and consistent to *Herschel* results from the most luminous Hot DOGs (Tsai et al. in prep.). However, *Herschel* data of Lyman-alpha blobs (LABs) [@bridge13] that have similar WISE colours to the Hot DOGs in this paper show a far-IR peak in the SED. Further discussion of this point and the presentation of *Herschel* follow-up of WISE Hot DOGs will be presented by Bridge et al. in prep. and Tsai et al. in prep.
A better fitting SED model for these Hot DOGs is also shown in Figure \[sedall\] and Figure \[w1814\_temp\]. The W1814$+$3412 template shown is entirely empirical, and assumes a single-temperature dust spectrum representing the minimum dust temperature present (53 $\pm$ 5K), with an emissivity index of $\beta$ = 1.5 at longer wavelengths, smoothly interpolated to a power-law spectrum instead of a Wien law at shorter wavelengths, with an opacity factor imposed at the shortest mid-IR wavelengths, to match the WISE data, corresponding to a finite total luminosity $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = 4.6 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_\odot$ for W1814$+$3412. It is constrained by *Herschel* data from @wu12 and IRAM data from Blain et al. (in prep.), and so unsurprisingly provides a better fit than the @polletta07 templates that pre-date these observations.
The SEDs are not well-fitted by any of the templates; the closest fitting template is the single torus template, although extra dust extinction is required to fit the W1 and W2 data. Between the Polletta torus template and the mean SED of the 850$\mu$m detected targets, both normalised at 3$\mu$m, the extra dust extinction required at rest-frame 1$\mu$m is 1.6mag. Converting to a $V$-band extinction implies an extra dust extinction $A_{\rm{V}}$ $\ge 6.8$mag. @eisenhardt12 found significant obscuration in the SED of W1814$+$3412 with a dust extinction value of $A_{\rm{V}} = 48 \pm 4$ in the rest-frame from optical SED fitting. The gas column density $N_{\rm{H}}$ can be estimated by applying a standard “gas-to-extinction" equation $N_{\rm{H}} \approx 2 A_{\rm{V}} \times 10^{22}$mag$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$ from @maiolino01, which estimates the extra $N_{\rm{H}}$ needed is $10^{23}$cm$^{-2}$. The Polletta torus template was modelled on a heavily obscured type-2 QSO, with a rest-frame $N_{\rm{H}}$ of $2.14^{+0.54}_{-1.34} \times 10^{24}$cm$^{-2}$ [@polletta06]. The extra $N_{\rm{H}}$ can be added to the Polletta torus template $N_{\rm{H}}$ to estimate the total $N_{\rm{H}}$ of the Hot DOGs to be $\sim$ 2.3 $\times 10^{24}$cm$^{-2}$, implying a Compton-thick AGN [@osterbrock88; @madau94; @comastri95; @maiolino95; @risaliti99; @piconcelli03; @treister05]. This is consistent with @stern14, who observed three Hot DOGs, including W1814$+$3412 in common with this paper, with NuSTAR and XMM-Newton, and found that the three targets have gas column densities $N_{\rm{H}}$ $\ge$ $10^{24}$cm$^{-2}$, which implies the targets are Compton-thick AGNs.
{width="170mm"}
![SED of W1814$+$3412 at $z$=2.452, including the 850$\mu$m SCUBA-2 data with Polletta galaxy templates Arp 220, Mrk 231, QSO 1, QSO 2 and torus [@polletta07] and W1814$+$3412 template (Blain et al. in prep.) normalised at rest-frame 3$\mu$m. CSO SHARC-II 350$\mu$m and 450$\mu$m and CSO Bolocam 1100$\mu$m data points from @wu12 are included. Detections are represented by filled circles, while 2$\sigma$ upper limits are represented by arrows.[]{data-label="w1814_temp"}](w1814_andrew.ps){width="84mm"}
### Long Wavelength SEDs
Normalised to the WISE data at rest-frame 3$\mu$m that lies within the WISE rest-frame wavelength range for all of our Hot DOGs, the SCUBA-2 data shows that the Hot DOGs have less submm emission than the Polletta torus template, with an average flux difference factor of 5 between the data and template, and a range of 2-8 factor, for the detected targets, and an average flux difference factor of 7 between the data and template, and a range of 6-8, for the undetected targets (limits plus 2$\sigma$).
The submm to mid-IR ratio (F$_{850 \mu \textrm{m}}$ / F$_{22 \mu \textrm{m}}$) of the 10 targets in the observed frame are listed in Table 1. The weighted average F$_{850 \mu \textrm{m}}$ / F$_{22 \mu \textrm{m}}$ of the six detected targets is 0.6 $\pm$ 0.1, where the error is the weighted standard error. Figure \[85022\] shows these ratios in the observed sample, and for the W1814$+$3412 and Polletta AGN torus templates, as a function of redshift. The subsequent empirical W1814$+$3412 template provides a better fit to the targets, as expected. Most of the Hot DOGs appear to lie near the W1814$+$3412 template but show no clear sign of the expected K-correction with redshift of the templates: in particular the two highest redshift Hot DOGs (W0831$+$0140 and W2246$-$0526) lie beneath both templates with relatively faint submm fluxes, and similar observed submm to mid-IR ratios of the other lower redshift Hot DOGs. They are also the most luminous targets, with infrared luminosities, $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ $>$ 10$^{14}$L$_{\odot}$ (see section 3.3), which suggests that they have hotter effective dust temperatures compared with the rest of the sample. Another distant Hot DOG, W0410-0913 at $z$ = 3.592, was reported by @wu12. It has a submm to mid-IR ratio of 3.2 $\pm$ 0.8 (log(0.5 $\pm$ 0.1)), and lies close to the W1814$+$3412 template.
The Hot DOGs are all consistent with high dust temperatures inferred from the submm/WISE data [@wu12]. The W1814$+$3412 template (Figure \[w1814\_temp\]) has a temperature of 53 $\pm$ 5K for the coolest contribution to the SED. Estimates of the temperatures for Hot DOGs and WISE-selected LABs have included 60-120K [@wu12] and 40-90K [@bridge13]. This is greater than other SMGs and DOGs, which have typical temperatures of 25 - 40K [@chapman05; @coppin08; @magnelli12; @melbourne12]. The definitions of SED shape and temperature contributions can be complex, but the rest-frame peak of the Hot DOG SEDs occurs bluewards of other galaxy classes.
![The submm to mid-IR ratio (F$_{850 \mu \textrm{m}}$ / F$_{22 \mu \textrm{m}}$) of the 10 Hot DOGs. The solid line shows the W1814$+$3412 template (Blain et al. in prep.) and the dotted line shows Polletta torus template [@polletta07] as a function of redshift. Detections are represented by filled circles, while 2$\sigma$ upper limits are represented by arrows.[]{data-label="85022"}](85022.ps){width="84mm"}
Luminosities
------------
Total IR luminosities are calculated for each target using a minimal power-law interpolation between the WISE and SCUBA-2 data points, and also by using the W1814$+$3412 template with each targets’ WISE and SCUBA-2 data.
A conservative lower limit to the total IR luminosities of the galaxies were estimated by connecting all the WISE and SCUBA-2 data points with power-laws and then integrating, without extrapolating beyond the range of the data in wavelength. This luminosity is a conservative estimate because any strong peak in the SED would not be included on the power-law interpolation. The resulting $L_{8\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}}$ values for the 10 Hot DOGs are presented in Table 2. The six detected targets have values that range from (1.0 $\pm$ 1.8) $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$ to (1.3 $\pm$ 2.9) $\times$ 10$^{14}$L$_{\odot}$, with one having $L_{8\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}}$ $\ge$ 10$^{14}$L$_{\odot}$. This classifies them all as HyLIRGs.
The $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ are also found by fitting the W1814$+$3412 template from Blain et al. (in prep.) with the targets’ SCUBA-2 data. The W1814$+$3412 template was used because it is based on data from WISE, *Herschel* and IRAM of the Hot DOG W1814$+$3412 that are near the peak of the SED. The six detected targets assuming the W1814$+$3412 template, yield luminosities from (2.7 $\pm$ 1.6) $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$ to (6.4 $\pm$ 2.4) $\times$ 10$^{14}$L$_{\odot}$, the factor of $\sim$4 difference between the two methods for calculating the luminosities is due to the systematic uncertainties of the SED.
Our total IR luminosity of W1835$+$4355 ($L_{8\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}}$ = 4.0 $\pm$ 4.1 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$), the source also observed by CSO, is consistent with $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = 6.5 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$ reported in @wu12. The derived luminosity of the W1814$+$3412 template from Blain et al. (in prep.) was $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = 4.6 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_\odot$ and compared with the luminosity calculated using the WISE and SCUBA-2 data was $L_{8\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}}$ $<$ 2.0 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_\odot$, is slightly higher due to the W1814$+$3412 template included CSO SHARC-II data, which is nearer the peak of the SED.
Exceptionally bright galaxies can often be found to be gravitational lensed, for example @eisenhardt96 [@williams96; @solomon05; @vieira10; @negrello10; @bussmann13]. However, the Hot DOG luminosities are thought to be intrinsic and not due to gravitational lensing: high-resolution imaging programmes (Bridge et al. in prep.; Petty et al. in prep) from *Hubble Space Telescope* (*HST*) and ground-based telescopes of a subset of Hot DOGs show no obvious lensed structures [@wu14]. Resolved near-IR *HST* observations show the population to have a range of morphologies from clumpy and extended to point-like (Bridge et al. in prep.; Petty et al. in prep.). This suggests that the Hot DOGs are indeed amongst the most intrinsically luminous galaxies in the universe (Eisenhardt et al. 2012; Tsai et al. in prep.).
The four undetected Hot DOGs each have $L_{8\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}}$ $\le$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$ (Table 2). The stacked 850$\mu$m flux density (7.8 $\pm$ 2.3mJy) of the four targets with 850$\mu$m upper limits was used with the W1814$+$3412 template to estimate the luminosity $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = (9.3 $\pm$ 4.7) $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_\odot$, which is consistent with a HyLIRG. A higher luminosity could be found if there are *Herschel* detections of a significant peak in the far-IR (Bridge et al. in prep.; Tsai et al. in prep.).
We also use the SCUBA-2 data to limit the luminosity of an underlying extended galaxy. A spiral (Sb) galaxy template and a warmer ULIRG-type (Arp 220) template were fitted to account for all of the SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m flux density, and then by integrating under the Sb or Arp 220 template, the maximum total luminosity of this template SED can be estimated. This approach assumes that an underlying extended dusty galaxy, disconnected from the mid-IR emission, accounts for all of the measured SCUBA-2 flux. This extended emission can be assumed to all be due to star-formation rather than an AGN. An Sb host galaxy template cannot exceed $\sim$ 2$\%$ of the inferred Hot DOG luminosity from 8-1000$\mu$m. This would give a Sb luminosity of 1.3 $\times$ 10$^{12}$L$_{\odot}$; 22 times more luminous than the Milky Way (6 $\times$ 10$^{10}$L$_{\odot}$), with an equivalent star formation rate (SFR) of $\sim$ 30M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$, which is lower than the UV-derived SFR of $\sim$ 300M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$ derived for W1814$+$3412 [@eisenhardt12]. An Arp 220 ULIRG template can account for the 850$\mu$m data, if the host galaxy has a luminosity of 2.9 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$, $\sim$ 55$\%$ of the inferred Hot DOG luminosity, with an equivalent SFR of $\sim$ 450M$_\odot$yr$^{-1}$. This emphasises that the full Hot DOG SED from 8-1000$\mu$m has a small contribution from cold far-IR dust and is dominated by hot dust and mid-IR emission.
Clustering
----------
There is significant evidence from previous studies that the galaxy density in the environments of high-redshift far-IR and mid-IR luminous galaxies and SMGs appears to be above average [@scott02; @blain04; @borys04; @scott06; @farrah06; @gilli07; @chapman09; @cooray10; @hickox12]. Clustering of SMGs could be evidence of massive dark matter halos associated with the SMGs at high-redshift. To investigate if there is clustering of SMGs in the Hot DOG fields, the serendipitous sources number counts will be compared with the number counts from two different blank-field submm surveys. To provide another way to test SMG clustering in the Hot DOG fields, 1.5-arcmin-radius circles will be places at random and centred on SMG detections in a blank-field submm survey.
Seventeen serendipitous 850$\mu$m sources were detected at greater than 3$\sigma$ in the 10 SCUBA-2 maps, and one source was detected at greater than 4$\sigma$; see Table 3. The total area surveyed is 71arcmin$^2$, or about 1500 SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m beams. Figure \[det6\] and Figure \[undet4\] show the location of detected serendipitous sources in the SCUBA-2 fields of all the detected and undetected Hot DOGs, respectively.
There are 4$\pm$2 negative peaks in the 10 maps at above the same 3$\sigma$ threshold (see Table 3), consistent with the 2$\pm$1 3$\sigma$ negative peaks expected from Gaussian noise.
To see if there is evidence for an over-density of SMGs in the 10 SCUBA-2 Hot DOG fields, the number of serendipitous sources can be compared with the results of field submm surveys. In the LESS survey, @weiss09 detected 126 SMGs in a uniform area of 1260arcmin$^2$ with a noise level of 1.2mJy at 870$\mu$m. They also found evidence for an angular two-point clustering signal on angular scales smaller than 1arcmin. There are 101 LESS sources brighter than our average 3$\sigma$ flux density limit of 5.3mJy, which implies 5.7 serendipitous sources would be expected in our 10 SCUBA-2 fields; however, we find 15. This indicates a relative overdensity of SMGs in our Hot DOG fields by a factor of 2.6 $\pm$ 0.7. The noise level range of our maps is 1.5-2.1 mJy beam$^{-1}$. In order to check the effect of our range of sensitivity in each field we also compare the number of SMGs at our highest noise level (2.1 mJy beam$^{-1}$) with to the LESS survey. The number of LESS sources brighter than our greatest 3$\sigma$ flux density limit of 6.3mJy is 60 SMGs, which implies that 3.4 serendipitous sources would be expected in our 10 SCUBA-2 fields. However, we find 9 and thus a relative overdensity of SMGs by a factor of 2.7 $\pm$ 1.0. The overdensity using the highest noise level is consistent with that using the average noise level; therefore, the difference in the 10 map noise levels appears not to have a large effect on the overdensity factor.
A complementary way to test whether there is an overdensity of SMGs near the Hot DOG targets is to place 1.5-arcmin-radius circles at random locations in the LESS field and count the number of sources from the catalogue source positions that would have been detected in our survey, taking into account the differences in depth, by employing a flux density limit of 5.3mJy. The 1.5-arcmin-radius circles were chosen because the SCUBA-2 maps were 1.5 arcmin in radius. In 10 sets of 10 randomly selected 1.5-arcmin-radius circles within LESS, we found 7 $\pm$ 3 LESS sources brighter than 5.3mJy, to mimic our SCUBA-2 images in this surveyed field. The total number of 1.5-arcmin-radius fields available within LESS is $\sim$ 200. There is thus a hint of evidence for a relative over-density of SMGs around Hot DOGs by a factor of 2.1 $\pm$ 1.0 as compared with this blank-field.
A third way to test the over density of SMGs in the SCUBA-2 fields is to compare the number of LESS sources brighter than 5.3mJy within 1.5-arcmin-radius circles centred on LESS-detected sources. In 101 available positions, there are 18 not counting the LESS sources on which each 1.5-arcmin-radius field was centred. This suggests that in 10 SCUBA-2 fields centred on LESS detections there would be only 1.8 serendipitous sources detected; however, we find 15 centred on WISE-selected targets, potentially giving a Hot DOG to SMG companion overdensity factor of order 8.
We can repeat this approach in another submm blank-field survey. @casey13 used SCUBA-2 to observe the COSMOS field over a uniform area of 394arcmin$^2$ at a noise level of 0.80mJy at 850$\mu$m and detected 99 SMGs brighter than 3.6$\sigma$. There are 18 COSMOS sources brighter than our average detection threshold of 5.3mJy (3$\sigma$), which would imply 6.3 serendipitous sources expected in the 10 SCUBA-2 Hot DOG fields. We find 15, implying a relative overdensity of SMGs by a factor of 2.4 $\pm$ 0.7, which is consistent with 2.6 $\pm$ 0.7 from LESS. The number of sources brighter than our greatest 3$\sigma$ flux density limit of 6.3mJy is 18 SMGs, which implies that 3.2 serendipitous sources would be expected in our 10 SCUBA-2 fields. However, we find 9 and thus a relative overdensity of SMGs by a factor of 2.8 $\pm$ 1.1, which is consistent with 2.7 $\pm$ 1.0 from LESS. Again, the variation in noise levels of the 10 Hot DOG field does not appear to have a large effect on the overdensity factor. These results are consistent with the LESS survey. Random 1.5-arcmin-radius circles were not placed in the COSMOS field due to the small size of the field, with only $\sim$ 50 1.5-arcmin-radius fields available.
The six detected Hot DOG targets and the four undetected Hot DOG targets have similar numbers of serendipitous sources, see Figure \[det6\] and Figure \[undet4\]. The overdensity of SMGs around detected and undetected Hot DOGs appear to be comparable.
Figure \[clustering\_his\] shows the fraction of the total number of serendipitous sources for the 10 SCUBA-2 maps found within 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.25 and 1.5arcmin from the WISE target. The expected fraction of the total number of serendipitous sources with no angular clustering is also plotted on Figure \[clustering\_his\]. There is no hint of angular clustering of serendipitous sources around the Hot DOGs on these scales, despite the greater average density of submm sources in the WISE fields as compared with blank-field surveys. Clustering of SMGs on larger scales could be expected because there is tentative evidence of clustering from previous submm studies on scales up to $\sim$8arcmin [@scoville00; @blain04; @greve04; @farrah06; @ivison07; @weiss09; @cooray10; @scott10; @hickox12]. Nevertheless, the lack of a clear two-point correlation signal is interesting, because SMG clustering observations can constrain of the nature of the host halos around SMGs [@cooray10].
![The fraction of the total number of serendipitous sources in each field within different radii of the WISE targets. The solid line shows the fields of the Hot DOGs. The dashed-dotted line shows the expected number of serendipitous sources if they are randomly located with no clustering. The beam size of SCUBA-2 at 850$\mu$m is 14.5arcsec; serendipitous sources cannot be detected within the beam.[]{data-label="clustering_his"}](clustering_his.ps){width="84mm"}
Discussion
==========
The above results obtained for the Hot DOGs will be discussed by comparing their SEDs and luminosities with other galaxy populations. Next the Hot DOGs environments are investigated by comparing the serendipitous source number counts to other submm surveys.
The Hot DOG SEDs in Figure \[sedall\] show a blue mid-IR to submm colour. A Compton-thick AGN torus template would fit the Hot DOG SEDs if extra mid-IR extinction of $A_{\rm{V}}$ $\ge$ 6.8mag is included. These results can be compared with the SEDs of ULIRGs and LIRGs which have large amounts of obscuring material around the AGN and/or starburst activity, and have estimated dust extinctions between $A_{\rm{V}}$ $\simeq$ 5 and 50mag [@genzel98]. Comparing the SED of Arp 220 (a starburst-dominated ULIRG) with the Hot DOG SEDs in Figure \[sedall\], reveals that the Hot DOGs appear to have more mid-IR dust extinction than the exceptionally mid-IR red Arp 220. This leads to the conclusion that the Hot DOGs have extremely large amounts of absorption in the AGN torus, and/or host galaxy [@goulding12], and could have even larger amounts of obscuring material than typical ULIRGs and LIRGs.
The SCUBA-2 observations show that the Hot DOGs have relatively less submm emission than other galaxy SED templates: the detected Hot DOG targets’ SCUBA-2 flux density is on average 5 times fainter than the Polletta torus template. This leads to the suggestion that the Hot DOGs have less cold dust in the host galaxy and/or on the outer edge of the torus, and hence the torus could be denser, smaller and hotter than in the template. Alternatively, less submm emission could be due to an excess of mid-IR emission from the AGN as compared with the torus template [@wu12]. The median 850$\mu$m flux density of SMGs, 5.7 $\pm$ 3.0mJy [@chapman05], is comparable with these Hot DOGs with a median 850$\mu$m flux density of 5.4 $\pm$ 1.8mJy. Since SMGs and Hot DOGs have similar redshifts ($z \sim 2$), this might suggest comparable cold dust properties. However, to address the degree of similarity between SMGs and Hot DOGs in the far-IR will require knowledge of the far-IR colours of Hot DOGs with data from *Herschel* (Bridge et al. in prep.; Tsai et al. in prep.).
The luminosities of all six detected targets (with a mean luminosity of $L_{8\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}}$ = 5.3 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$ and a median luminosity of $L_{8\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}}$ = 3.6 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$) are greater than those of typical SMGs, which have $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = 8.5 $\times$ 10$^{12}$L$_{\odot}$ [@chapman05; @kovacs06], and DOGs, which have a mean luminosity $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = 9 $\times$ 10$^{12}$L$_{\odot}$ [@melbourne12]. This is in agreement with @wu12 who found a sample mean $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = 6.1 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$ for Hot DOGs. However, the targets in this paper and @wu12 could be biased towards being the mid-IR brightest and rarest galaxies, because they were selected on the grounds of their bright mid-IR flux. It is certainly inevitable that deeper mid-IR samples will include DOGs and SMGs; however, our current observed sample of 10, which has a range of W4 fluxes (6.19 to 7.66 mag, or 7.2 to 27.7mJy), due to the various selection cuts involved, certainly shows no SMG/ULIRG type SEDs. Eight WISE-selected LABs [@bridge13] were also found to be ultra-luminous galaxies from *Herschel* data ($L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = 2.3 $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_{\odot}$), and included a wider range of mid-IR fluxes with no colour cut, again indicating very luminous mid-IR properties of galaxies with extremely red WISE colours.
Comparing number counts of the serendipitous sources in the 10 Hot DOG fields with other submm surveys, implies there is an overdensity of SMGs in the 10 SCUBA-2 fields by factor of $\sim$2-3. This is consistent with finding Hot DOGs in potentially overdense environments. @umehata14 observed the protocluster SSA22 field with the Astronomical Thermal Emission Camera (AzTEC) on the Atacama Submillimeter Telescope Experiment (ASTE), at 1.1-mm to a depth of 0.7 - 1.3 mJy beam$^{-1}$, and found 10 SMGs are correlated with $z = 3.1$ Lyman-alpha emitters (LAE)s in the protocluster, which suggests that SMGs are formed in dense environments. Our SMG overdensity around Hot DOGs could indicate that Hot DOGs signpost protocluster regions.
These Hot DOGs appear to be very powerful AGN that have more mid-IR emission and mid-IR opacity than AGN in standard galaxy templates. Therefore, the Hot DOGs might be experiencing the most powerful feedback possible and could be an AGN-dominated short evolutionary phase of merging galaxies, and appear to reside in intriguing arcmin-scale overdensities of very luminous, dusty sources.
Summary
=======
The results from SCUBA-2 850$\mu$m observations of 10 WISE-selected, high-redshift, luminous, dusty Hot DOGs are:
- The 10 Hot DOGs have SEDs that are not well fitted by the current AGN templates (see Figure \[sedall\]). The best fitting single Polletta torus template [@polletta07] needs extra dust extinction to fit the Hot DOG SEDs with extra $A_{\rm{V}}$ $\ge$ 6.8mag, which could be due to more screening from the host galaxy and/or AGN torus. The $N_{\rm{H}}$ was estimated to be $\sim$ 2.3 $\times$ 10$^{24}$cm$^{-2}$, which is Compton-thick.
- The Hot DOGs have a lower ratio of cold to hot dust than the Polletta torus template, which could be because there is less cold dust in the host galaxy, and/or the outer AGN torus in the Hot DOGs are smaller. Alternatively there could be more intense mid-IR emission from the inner regions [@wu12]. *Herschel* observations near the peak of the SED should soon provide more information.
- Despite being observed over a wide redshift range, the Hot DOGs show uniform submm to mid-IR ratios. The highest redshift, most luminous targets, could thus have hotter dust temperatures than assumed in the templates. However, the number of targets involved is currently only modest and the selection of the targets is sensitive to redshift, owing to very red intense WISE colours.
- The six SCUBA-2 detected Hot DOGs have very high IR luminosities, $L_{8\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}}$ $\ge 10^{13}$L$_{\odot}$: they are HyLIRGs. These are conservative values as any pronounced peak of the SED would increase these further and could be missed without *Herschel* data. The stacked IR luminosity, $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}}$ = (9.3 $\pm$ 4.7) $\times$ 10$^{13}$L$_\odot$, of the four undetected targets is consistent with being a HyLIRG. With no obvious signatures of gravitational lensing known, Hot DOGs are amongst the most luminous galaxies.
- The luminosity of an underlying extended star-forming galaxy cannot exceed a luminosity $\sim$ 2$\%$ (for a cool spiral galaxy template) or $\sim$ 55$\%$ (for a warmer ULIRG-like galaxy template) as compared with the typical Hot DOG luminosity, respectively. Our SCUBA-2 observations confirm that Hot DOGs are a mid-IR dominated population.
- When comparing the submm galaxy counts of the 10 1.5-arcmin-radius SCUBA-2 maps observed here to blank-field surveys, there is an over-density of SMGs on this scale by a factor 3, but no evidence for any angular clustering within these fields.
- The next step to understand these Hot DOGs is with more *Herschel* observations to accurately define the peak of the SED and increase the sample size, presented in future papers (Bridge et al. in prep.; Tsai et al. in prep.). Another subpopulation of galaxies selected with similar WISE colours but also selected to be radio bright, that could be AGN quenching star formation by radio jet feedback at the highest rate of AGN fueling. A larger number of these targets have been observed with SCUBA-2 and Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), and will be presented in future papers (Jones et al. in prep.; Lonsdale et al. in prep.). These SCUBA-2 observations provide a comparable density analysis.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referee for his/her comments and suggestions, which have greatly improved this paper.
S. F. Jones gratefully acknowledges support from the University of Leicester Physics & Astronomy Department. R. J. Assef was supported by Gemini-CONICYT grant number 32120009. This publication makes use of data products from the *Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer*, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, and the National Research Council of Canada. Additional funds for the construction of SCUBA-2 were provided by the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The program ID under which the data were obtained was M12AU010.
-------------- ------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------- ----------
Source R.A. Dec. 3.4$\mu$m 4.6$\mu$m 12$\mu$m 22$\mu$m 850$\mu$m 850$\mu$m / 22$\mu$m Redshift
(J2000) (J2000) (mag) (mag) (mag) (mag) (mJy) Ratio
W0831$+$0140 08:31:53.30 $+$01:40:10.8 17.92 $\pm$ 0.28 16.10 $\pm$ 0.20 10.15 $\pm$ 0.07 7.28 $\pm$ 0.12 9.3 $\pm$ 2.1 0.9 $\pm$ 0.2 3.91
W1136$+$4236 11:36:34.31 $+$42:36:02.6 18.19 $\pm$ 0.24 15.83 $\pm$ 0.11 10.62 $\pm$ 0.07 7.66 $\pm$ 0.11 5.3 $\pm$ 1.7 0.7 $\pm$ 0.1 2.39
W1603$+$2745 16:03:57.40 $+$27:45:53.3 $<$ 18.02 17.04 $\pm$ 0.34 9.89 $\pm$ 0.04 7.28 $\pm$ 0.11 10.2 $\pm$ 1.8 1.0 $\pm$ 0.2 2.63
W1835$+$4355 18:35:33.73 $+$43:55:48.7 17.44 $\pm$ 0.09 15.20 $\pm$ 0.05 9.15 $\pm$ 0.03 6.19 $\pm$ 0.04 8.0 $\pm$ 1.5 0.3 $\pm$ 0.1 2.30
W2216$+$0723 22:16:19.09 $+$07:23:54.5 17.33 $\pm$ 0.16 15.59 $\pm$ 0.13 9.91 $\pm$ 0.05 6.91 $\pm$ 0.09 5.5 $\pm$ 1.6 0.4 $\pm$ 0.1 1.68
W2246$-$0526 22:46:07.54 $-$05:26:35.1 17.54 $\pm$ 0.21 16.65 $\pm$ 0.37 10.27 $\pm$ 0.09 6.80 $\pm$ 0.11 11.4 $\pm$ 2.1 0.7 $\pm$ 0.1 4.59
W1814$+$3412 18:14:17.31 $+$34:12:24.8 18.86 $\pm$ 0.44 17.61 $\pm$ 0.49 10.41 $\pm$ 0.06 6.86 $\pm$ 0.07 2.0 $\pm$ 1.8 $<$ 0.4 2.45
W2026$+$0716 20:26:15.27 $+$07:16:23.9 17.58 $\pm$ 0.21 15.69 $\pm$ 0.13 10.18 $\pm$ 0.07 7.31 $\pm$ 0.11 2.0 $\pm$ 1.7 $<$ 0.6 2.54
W2054$+$0207 20:54:25.69 $+$02:07:11.0 18.27 $\pm$ 0.32 15.32 $\pm$ 0.09 9.59 $\pm$ 0.05 7.13 $\pm$ 0.09 3.3 $\pm$ 1.8 $<$ 1.1 2.52
W2357$+$0328 23:57:10.82 $+$03:28:03.4 $<$ 18.14 $<$ 16.61 10.09 $\pm$ 0.07 6.94 $\pm$ 0.11 2.2 $\pm$ 1.9 $<$ 0.4 2.12
-------------- ------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------- ----------
\[fluxes\]
-------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Source Total IR Luminosities (8$\mu \textrm{m}-\textrm{SCUBA2}$) W1814$+$3412 Template
(L$_\odot$) Total IR Luminosities (8-1000$\mu$m)
(L$_\odot$)
W0831$+$0140 8.7 $\pm$ 1.8 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ 3.6 $\pm$ 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{14}$
W1136$+$4236 1.5 $\pm$ 4.6 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ 6.2 $\pm$ 3.8 $\times$ 10$^{13}$
W1603$+$2745 3.1 $\pm$ 0.7 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ 1.5 $\pm$ 0.5 $\times$ 10$^{14}$
W1835$+$4355 4.3 $\pm$ 4.1 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ 8.5 $\pm$ 3.4 $\times$ 10$^{13}$
W2216$+$0723 1.0 $\pm$ 1.8 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ 2.7 $\pm$ 1.6 $\times$ 10$^{13}$
W2246$-$0526 1.3 $\pm$ 2.9 $\times$ 10$^{14}$ 6.4 $\pm$ 2.4 $\times$ 10$^{14}$
W1814$+$3412 $<$ 2.5 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ $<$ 7.0 $\times$ 10$^{13}$
W2026$+$0716 $<$ 2.1 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ $<$ 7.3 $\times$ 10$^{13}$
W2054$+$0207 $<$ 2.9 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ $<$ 9.2 $\times$ 10$^{13}$
W2357$+$0328 $<$ 1.9 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ $<$ 5.3 $\times$ 10$^{13}$
-------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
\[luminosities\]
-------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
Source Number of Number of Number of
Serendipitous Sources Serendipitous Sources Negative Peaks
at greater than 3$\sigma$ at greater than 4$\sigma$ at greater than 3$\sigma$
W0831$+$0140 3 0 0
W1136$+$4236 1 0 0
W1603$+$2745 1 0 0
W1814$+$3412 1 0 1
W1835$+$4355 1 0 0
W2026$+$0716 2 1 1
W2054$+$0207 3 0 1
W2216$+$0723 2 0 0
W2246$-$0526 1 0 1
W2357$+$0328 2 0 0
-------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
\[number\]
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: LIRGs, ULIRGs and HyLIRGs have characterising total infrared luminosities (8-1000$\mu$m) of $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}} > 10^{11}$L$_\odot$, $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}} > 10^{12}$L$_\odot$ and $L_{8-1000\mu \textrm{m}} > 10^{13}$L$_\odot$
[^2]: http://wise2.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/release/allsky/
[^3]: http://wise2.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/release/allwise/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Axion Like Particles (ALPs) with a sub-keV range mass are searched by using the light-shining-through-a-wall technique. A novel system is developed in which injected X rays are converted and reconverted by the Laue-case conversion within a silicon single crystal with dual blades. The resonant ALPs mass of the conversion is scanned by varying the X-ray injection angle to the crystal. No significant signals are observed, and 90% C. L. upper limits on the ALP-two photon coupling constant are obtained as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{a\gamma\gamma} &<& 4.2\times 10^{-3}~{\rm GeV^{-1}}~(m_a<10~{\rm eV}),\\
g_{a\gamma\gamma} &<& 5.0\times 10^{-3}~{\rm GeV^{-1}}~(46~{\rm eV}<m_a<1020~{\rm eV}).\end{aligned}$$ These are the most stringent laboratory-based constraints on ALPs heavier than 300 eV.
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan'
- 'RIKEN SPring-8 Center, 1-1-1 Kouto, Sayo-cho, Sayo-gun, Hyogo 679-5148, Japan'
- 'International Center for Elementary Particle Physics, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan'
- 'High energy Accelerator Research Organization, KEK, 203-1 Tokai-mura, Naka-gun, Ibaraki 319-1106, Japan'
author:
- 'T. Yamaji'
- 'K. Tamasaku'
- 'T. Namba'
- 'T. Yamazaki'
- 'Y. Seino'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Search for Axion like particles using Laue-case conversion in a single crystal'
---
Introduction
============
Axion Like Particles (ALPs) [@bib:ALPs1; @bib:ALPs2; @bib:ALPs3] predicted by theories beyond the Standard Model are also of astronomical interest because they can provide possible explanation for anomalous observations of the universe. ALPs are one of the viable candidates for the dark matter [@bib:DM1; @bib:DM2]. It has been also suggested that ALPs with a sub-keV range mass may be related to anomalous phenomena such as solar coronal heating and X rays from the dark side of the moon [@bib:keV_motivation].
ALPs have properties similar to an exotic particle, axion [@bib:PQ1; @bib:PQ2; @bib:WW1; @bib:WW2], predicted by extended Peccei-Quinn Model of QCD never observed so far and able to solve the CP violation puzzle. ALPs and the original axion can interact with two photons via an anomaly diagram with fermions carrying exotic charges. The interaction mixes ALPs and photons under external electromagnetic fields, which is referred to as the Primakoff effect [@bib:primakov1]. The interaction Lagrangian density can be represented as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}=-\frac{g_{a\gamma\gamma}}{4}\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{\tilde{F}}^{\mu\nu}=g_{a\gamma\gamma}{\bf E\cdot B}a,\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ is the ALP-two photon coupling constant, $\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{\tilde{F}}^{\mu\nu}$ is the product of the electromagnetic field strength tensor and its dual, ${\bf E\cdot B}$ is the pseudo-scaler dot product of electromagnetic fields, and $a$ is the ALP field. The Primakoff effect takes place only when the electromagnetic fields of photons and external fields are parallel to each other. ALPs and the original axion can be searched by almost the same experimental techniques using the mixing effect. Although the original axion has the proportionality between the coupling constant and the axion mass [@bib:KSVZ1; @bib:KSVZ2; @bib:DFSZ1; @bib:DFSZ2], the ALPs coupling constant is not bound to the ALP’s mass, $m_a$. Searches for ALPs target the whole parameter region of $m_a$ and $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$.
Solar axion searches have imposed stringent upper limits on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ within a broad mass range [@bib:SUMICO; @bib:CAST; @bib:COSME; @bib:SOLAX; @bib:DAMA; @bib:CDMS]. However, these limits are inevitably model-dependent. The production rate of solar ALPs may be reduced by exotic models in which $m_a$ and $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ depend on temperature and matter density within stellar systems [@bib:reduction_model; @bib:ALPs_reduction]. Laboratory-based experiments are scientifically important since they can complement more model-dependent celestial searches.
Model-independent laboratory-based searches have been performed by using the Primakoff effect under external magnetic fields [@bib:BFRT1; @bib:BFRT2; @bib:BMV_LSW1; @bib:BMV_LSW2; @bib:GammaV; @bib:LIPSS1; @bib:LIPSS2; @bib:ALPS0; @bib:ALPS; @bib:OSQAR0; @bib:OSQAR; @bib:LSWXE1; @bib:LSWXE2; @bib:NOMAD]. These experiments mainly utilize an experimental technique referred to as “Light-Shining-through-a-Wall (LSW)" [@bib:LSW1]. LSW experiments convert real photons from an laboratory source into ALPs under an external magnetic field. Unconverted photons are blocked by an opaque wall, and then ALPs are reconverted into photons in a second magnetic field. The sensitivity to $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ is determined by the product of the magnetic field strength and length, which are typically $\mathcal{O}(1)$ T and $\mathcal{O}(1)$ m, respectively. The Primakoff effect under the magnetic fields efficiently generates and reconverts ALPs whose mass satisfies the following resonant condition, $$\left|m_a^2-m_\gamma^2\right|<\frac{4k_\gamma}{L_{\rm M}}
\label{eq:ma_m}$$ where $m_\gamma$ is the plasma frequency of the media within the magnetic fields, $k_\gamma$ is the photon energy, and $L_{\rm M}$ is the magnetic field length. The ALPs mass satisfying the resonant condition (referred to as the resonant ALPs mass in this paper) has an upper limit determined by $m_\gamma$, $k_\gamma$, and $L_{\rm M}$, which are experimentally difficult to be changed continuously. The previous experiments search only ALPs with a mass of up to $\sim$40 eV [@bib:NOMAD] since the plasma frequency and the photon energy cannot be increased arbitrarily.
The Primakoff effect can take place also under electric fields such as high atomic electric fields within single crystals. The atomic electric fields are as high as $10^{11}$ V/m, which correspond to high magnetic fields of $10^{3}$ T. The Primakoff effect within single crystals has been explored by [*Büchmuller and Hoogeveen*]{} [@bib:braggtheory], [*Liao*]{} [@bib:simpletheory], and [*Yamaji, et. al.*]{} [@bib:yamaji_laue]. The high electric fields can coherently convert injected X rays or ALPs with an energy of $\sim 10$ keV. The conversion probability can be represented as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
P_{a\rightarrow\gamma}&=&\left(\frac{1}{2}g_{a\gamma\gamma}E_TL_{\rm eff}{\rm cos}\theta_{\rm B}\right)^2,\label{eq:prob_laue}\\
L_{\rm eff}&=&2L_{\rm att}\left(1-{\rm exp}\left(-\frac{L}{2L_{\rm att}}\right)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $E_T$ is an effective electric field, $L_{\rm eff}$ is an effective conversion length, $\theta_{\rm B}$ is the Bragg angle, $L$ is the X-ray path length within the crystal, and $L_{\rm att}$ is the X-ray attenuation length. The effective conversion length is shorter than $L$ since the crystal absorbs X rays. The Bragg-case conversion, in which lattice planes are parallel to the crystal surfaces, has been utilized by solar axion searches [@bib:COSME; @bib:SOLAX; @bib:DAMA; @bib:CDMS]. It is recently shown in Ref. [@bib:yamaji_laue] that $L_{\rm eff}$ for the Laue-case conversion, in which lattice planes are perpendicular to the crystal surfaces, is longer than that of the Bragg-case one. The effective conversion lengths of silicon crystals are $\sim 10^{-3}$ m, and the sensitivity to $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ ($\propto E_T L_{\rm eff}$) is the same order as that of X-ray LSW experiments using external magnetic fields [@bib:LSWXE1; @bib:LSWXE2].
The resonant ALPs mass of the Laue-case conversion is constrained by the condition as follows [@bib:simpletheory; @bib:yamaji_laue],
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:resonant_mass}
\left|m_a^2-m_\gamma^2-2q_T\left(k_\gamma{\rm sin}\theta^\gamma_T-\frac{q_T}{2}\right)\right|{\protect\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\:\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}\:$}}\frac{4k_\gamma}{L},\end{aligned}$$
where $m_\gamma=\mathcal{O}(10)$ eV is the plasma frequency of the crystal, $q_T=\mathcal{O}(10)$ keV is the reciprocal lattice spacing, and $\theta^\gamma_T$ is an X-ray injection angle. Although the expression is almost the same as Eq. (\[eq:ma\_m\]), an additional factor emerges on the left side. The factor within the parenthesis is equivalent to the deviation from the Bragg condition, $k_\gamma{\rm sin}\theta_{\rm B}=\frac{q_T}{2}$. This factor can be simplified as $k_\gamma\Delta\theta{\rm cos}\theta_{\rm B}$ in the case of $\Delta\theta\simeq 0$, where $\Delta\theta=\theta^\gamma_T-\theta_{\rm B}$ is the deviation of the X-ray injection angle from the Bragg angle (the detuning angle). The resonant ALPs mass can be scanned by rotating conversion crystals and varying $\Delta\theta$ since it is roughly proportional to $\sqrt{\Delta\theta}$. The scanning procedure can easily search massive ALPs (up to $10$ keV) in comparison with the previous LSW experiments.
This paper reports the first LSW experiment using the Laue-case conversion within a single crystal. The experiment utilizes BL19LXU beam line of SPring-8. Injected X rays are converted and reconverted by a novel system composed of thin silicon blades and an opaque wall. The resonant ALPs mass is continuously scanned by rotating the conversion system.
Experimental setup and measurement
==================================
The experiment has been performed during a 96-hour beam time of BL19LXU in Oct. 2017. SPring-8 is a third-generation synchrotron radiation facility producing nearly continuous X-ray beams. BL19LXU beam line is the strongest beam line among the facility [@bib:bl19]. The undulator of BL19LXU radiates horizontally-polarized X rays.
The whole experimental setup is shown in Fig. \[fig:optics\]. The photon energy of fundamental radiation is tuned to be 17 keV in order for the X-ray attenuation length to accord with the thickness of silicon blades shown later. The X-ray beams are monochromatized to a bandwidth of 2.1 eV (FWHM) by a double-crystal monochromator (DCM) located at the optical hatch. Higher-harmonics are rejected by a total reflection mirror system (TRMs) to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio of the experiment. The X-ray beams are collimated by a tantalum four-jaw slits with an opening window of $2\times 2~{\rm mm^2}$ to block stray X rays. The flux, the angular divergence, and the widths of injected X rays are $2.5\times 10^{13}$ photons/s, $6.1~{\rm \mu rad}$ (FWHM), and $0.5 ({\rm V})\times 0.6 ({\rm H})~{\rm mm^2}$ (FWHM), respectively.
The conversion system is installed into the experimental hatch 1. The system is composed of a silicon single crystal with dual blades and an opaque wall as shown in Fig. \[fig:system\]. The system is covered by HDPE sheets to reduce the fluctuation of the temperature around the system. The silicon single crystal has two $600~{\rm \mu m}$-thick blades manufactured on it. The crystal has Si(220) lattice planes perpendicular to the blade surfaces (Laue-case). The effective electric field of Si(220) is calculated to be $E_T=4.1\times 10^{10}$ V/m (the Dirac-Fock method [@bib:DF; @bib:DIRAC]). The reciprocal lattice spacing and the Bragg angle are $q_T=6.46$ keV and $\theta_{\rm B}=10.95$ degrees, respectively, in this case. The X-ray attenuation length is $L_{\rm att}=650~{\rm \mu m}$ for 17 keV X rays, and the effective conversion length is calculated to be $L_{\rm eff}=488~{\rm \mu m}$. The value of $E_TL_{\rm eff}{\rm cos}\theta_{\rm B}$ corresponds to $0.23~{\rm GeV}$ in the natural unit. The opaque wall is made of a 15 mm-thick stainless steel plate, which is equipped with a PIN photodiode (HAMAMATSU S3590-09) to monitor the intensity of injected X rays. The X-ray injection angle is aligned by using a precision goniometer, KOHZU RA20-21. The goniometer is driven discretely by a stepping motor with a stepping angle of $\Delta\theta_{\rm step}=0.17~{\rm \mu rad}$.
The first blade converts injected X rays with $\sigma$-polarization into ALPs vertically downwards, and these ALPs are reconverted into X rays (signal X rays) by the second blade. The signal X rays are parallel to the injected ones and have the same X-ray photon energy of 17 keV. The bandwidth of the resonant ALPs mass, Eq. (\[eq:resonant\_mass\]), is equivalent to an acceptable divergence of the X-ray/ALPs injection angles as follows, $$\Delta\theta_{\rm CV}=\frac{2d_{220}}{\pi H}=\frac{2\times 1.92~{\AA}}{\pi \times 600~{\rm \mu m}}=204~{\rm nrad},$$ where $d_{220}$ is the spacing of (220) lattice planes and $H$ is the crystal thickness. The parallelism between lattice planes within these blades is required to be less than $\Delta\theta_{\rm CV}$ in order to effectively reconvert ALPs into X rays. The parallelism is guaranteed with the precision of $\sim 1$ nrad since these blades are made of the same single crystal.
A germanium semiconductor detector, CANBERRA GL0210 with a crystal geometry of $\phi$16 mm$\times$t10 mm [@bib:germanium], is installed into the experimental hatch 3 to suppress stray X rays scattered by the conversion system. The evacuated pipe between the conversion system and the detector is equipped with two four-jaw slits similar to the one within OH in order to suppress stray X rays further. The pulse height of the detected X rays is enhanced by an amplifier (ORTEC 572) and recorded by using a peak hold ADC (HOSIN C011) with an internal trigger. The energy resolution and the detection efficiency of the detector for signal X rays are measured to be $(111\pm 2)$ eV ($1\sigma$) and $\epsilon_d=(82\pm1)$%, respectively, by using radioisotopes ($^{55}$Fe, $^{57}$Co, and $^{241}$Am). The gain stability of the detector during the beam time is also measured to be $\pm10$ eV by using 13.95 keV and 17.75 keV X rays from $^{241}$Am. The energy window for signal X rays is determined to be ($17.00 \pm 0.23)~{\rm keV}$ by taking into account the gain stability and the resolution ($2\sigma$). The detector is covered almost all around by 5 cm-thick lead blocks to reduce environmental X rays. The detection rate of environmental X rays within the energy window is measured to be $(0.51\pm 0.10)\times 10^{-3}$ photons/s.
The detector position is aligned by using X rays reflected twice by the conversion system. Injected X rays can be reflected by Laue-case X-ray diffraction within the first blade under the Bragg condition. The reflected X rays are subsequently reflected by the second blade when the wall is opened. The X-ray beams reflected twice (RR beams) are almost coaxial to the signal X rays. The height difference between the RR beams and the signal X rays is an increasing function of $\Delta\theta$ ($m_a$), and the difference is $6~{\rm \mu m}$ for ALPs with a mass of 1 keV. The X-ray beam profile is also estimated by measuring the diffraction efficiency of the RR beams as a function of $\Delta\theta$, which is referred to as the rocking curve. The diffraction efficiency of the RR beams depends on the deviation from the Bragg condition in the same way as the Laue-case conversion. Since the Bragg condition couples the X-ray injection angle and the X-ray photon energy, the energy-angular profile of injected X rays is equivalent to the one with no bandwidth and an effective angular profile, $\frac{dF}{d\theta_X}$, for X-ray diffraction and the Laue-case conversion, where $F$ is the normalized profile of injected X rays and $\theta_X$ is the effective angular deviation from the center of injected X rays. The rocking curve has a profile expanded by X-ray diffraction from $\frac{dF}{d\theta_X}$. The expected $\Delta\theta$ distribution of signal X rays has the same profile as $\frac{dF}{d\theta_X}$ with a mean value corresponding to the ALP’s mass. The signal-to-noise ratio also depends on $\frac{dF}{d\theta_X}$ since environmental X rays within the energy window and a $\Delta\theta$ window shown later are indistinguishable from signal X rays.
The total throughput of the reflection (two times) is measured by a S3590-09 PIN photodiode installed in front of the germanium detector in the experimental hatch 3. The measured rocking curve with the largest FWHM is shown in Fig. \[fig:rocking\]. The peak value and the width of the rocking curve are ($2.15\pm 0.01$)% and $\Delta\theta_{\rm BL}=27.2~{\rm \mu rad}$ (FWHM, with the fluctuation of $<0.7~{\rm \mu rad}$), respectively. The measured width is larger than the angular divergence of injected X rays ($6.1~{\rm \mu rad}$) due to its bandwidth. These measured values are consistent with ones calculated by assuming a simple Gaussian energy-angular profile within the relative precision of $2$%, which guarantees that X-ray diffraction within the conversion system is well understood and that the apparatus is correctly setup. The deviation between them can be attributed to the Gaussian approximation of the beam profile. The effective angular profile is approximated by the measured rocking curve in this paper. The approximation overestimates the effective angular divergence since the measured rocking curve is a convolution between the angular divergence and the intrinsic rocking curve.
The goniometer angle is varied at $\Delta\theta_{\rm step}$ intervals from the Bragg angle during the measurement of signal X rays. The scanning range is set to be from $\Delta\theta=0~{\rm mrad}$ to $\Delta\theta=4.9~{\rm mrad}$, which corresponds to the resonant ALP’s mass of $m_a<1$ keV. The data takings are performed four times with a scanning speed of 5.82, 5.66, 9.70, and 4.62 ${\rm \mu rad/min}$. Two beam dumps take place during the third (at $\Delta\theta$=$3.99~{\rm mrad}$) and the fourth ($3.17~{\rm mrad}$) measurement. The overall data acquisition time is 47.2 hours. The fluctuation of X-ray intensity during the data takings is measured to be $<1.2$% by the PIN photodiode within the wall. The goniometer angle drifts slowly due to the fluctuation of the room temperature. The drift angle, $\Delta\theta_{\rm D}$, is estimated by rocking curves measured before and after the data takings. The drift angles of the four data takings are $-15.7$, $-6.11$, $-10.8$, and $-12.9$ ${\rm \mu rad}$, respectively. The X-ray injection angle also temporally shifts during the drive of the stepping motor by $\Delta\theta_{\rm DT}=+3.49~{\rm \mu rad}$ due to the distortion of a rotation coupler between the goniometer axis and the silicon crystal holder. Although these drifts are much smaller than the scanning range and do not affect the experimental sensitivity strongly, we take into account them in the signal integration procedure described later.
Figure \[fig:compare\] (left) shows the energy-$\Delta\theta$ distribution of detected X rays in the vicinity of the energy window. The sparse distribution outside the energy window shows the contribution of environmental X rays independent of $\Delta\theta$. The number and the rate of detected X rays within the energy window are 94 photons and $(0.554\pm0.057)\times 10^{-3}$ photons/s, respectively. The latter is consistent with the rate of the environmental X rays. The signal yield can be enhanced by integrating the detected X rays within a $\Delta\theta$ window due to the effective angular profile. The $\Delta\theta$ window for $\Delta\theta=\Delta\theta_i$ is defined as \[$\Delta\theta_i-\Delta\theta_{\rm BL}/2-|\Delta\theta_{\rm DT}|$, $\Delta\theta_i+\Delta\theta_{\rm BL}/2+|\Delta\theta_{\rm D}|$\] where all contributions discussed above are taken into account. The definition of the $\Delta\theta$ window is conservative since the effective angular divergence is overestimated as shown above. Figure \[fig:compare\] (right) shows the integrated $\Delta\theta$ distribution of detected X rays. The spectrum has two fine peaks with seven photons at 0.31/2.92 mrad, where a mean number of environmental X rays is expected to be $(1.0\pm 0.1)$ photons from the measured rate of environmental X rays. The peaks can be explained by the accidental accumulation of environmental X rays. The probability that environmental X rays make a peak higher than six photons is calculated to be $4.4$% ($\sim$1.7$\sigma$) by assuming the Poisson distribution. The measured peaks are not significant enough to be identified as the signals of ALPs.
The upper limits on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ can be obtained as a function of $m_a$ from the effective number of injected X rays shown below. The number of X rays satisfying the resonant condition at $\Delta\theta=\Delta\theta_i$ can be approximated to be $N_\gamma^i\Delta\theta_{\rm CV}\frac{dF}{d\theta_X}\left(\theta_X=\Delta\theta_j-\Delta\theta_i\right)$, where $N_\gamma^i$ is the total number of injected X rays at $\Delta\theta=\Delta\theta_i$ and $\Delta\theta_j$ is the detuning angle corresponding to an ALPs mass. The number integrated within the $\Delta\theta$ window, $N_{\rm eff}^i$, can be interpreted as an effective number of injected X rays which can be converted into ALPs with a certain mass. $N_{\rm eff}^i$ can be represented as follows by assuming that $N_\gamma^i$ is constant within the $\Delta\theta$ window, $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\rm eff}^i=N_\gamma^i\frac{\Delta\theta_{\rm CV}}{\Delta\theta_{\rm step}}\sum_{|\theta_X|<\frac{\Delta\theta_{\rm BL}}{2}}\left[\frac{dF}{d\theta_X}\Delta\theta_{\rm step}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where the summation is performed with the same stepping as $\Delta\theta$ ($\theta_X=n\Delta\theta_{\rm step}$). The values of $N_{\rm eff}^i$ are about $1.6\times 10^{14}$ ($\Delta\theta<3.17$ mrad), $1.3\times 10^{14}$ ($3.17~{\rm mrad}<\Delta\theta<3.99$ mrad), and $8.1\times 10^{13}$ photons ($\Delta\theta>3.99$ mrad), respectively.
The upper limit can be simplified as follows by assuming that the conversion-reconversion probability has a constant value shown in Eq. (\[eq:prob\_laue\]) within the required angular precision, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{a\gamma\gamma}&<&\left(\frac{1}{2}E_TL_{\rm eff}{\rm cos}\theta_{\rm B}\right)^{-1}\left(\frac{N^s_{i,CL}}{N_{\rm eff}^i\epsilon_d}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\\
{\rm for}~m_a&=&\sqrt{m_\gamma^2+2q_T\left\{k_\gamma{\rm sin}(\theta_{\rm B}+\Delta\theta_i)-\frac{q_T}{2}\right\}}.
\label{eq:sense}\end{aligned}$$ $N^s_{i,CL}$ is an upper limit on the number of X rays within the signal window, which is calculated from the integrated $\Delta\theta$ distribution of detected X rays by assuming the Poisson distribution. The upper limit can be obtained as a function of $m_a\propto\sqrt{\Delta\theta}$.
Systematic uncertainties related to $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ and $m_a$ are summarized in Tab. \[tab:uncertainties\]. The largest uncertainties come from the estimation of $L_{\rm eff}$ and the effect of X-ray heat load. Minor X-ray diffraction on lattice planes other than Si(220) takes place during the scanning at $\Delta\theta=3.67~{\rm mrad}$. The X-ray diffraction reduces the X-ray attenuation length at $\Delta\theta>\sim 3.67~{\rm mrad}$. The sensitivity to $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ is reduced by $3.7\%$ at $3.40~{\rm mrad}< \Delta\theta <3.84~{\rm mrad}$ and $1.4\%$ at $3.84~{\rm mrad}<\Delta\theta<4.9~{\rm mrad}$, where these values are estimated by the monitored X-ray intensity. The X-ray heat load on the first blade ($\sim 41.5~{\rm mW}$) reduces the Bragg angle at the conversion by expanding the crystal lattice. The effect on the Bragg angle is evaluated by a finite-element-method simulation code, ANSYS [@bib:ANSYS]. The simulation ignores heat conduction via the atmosphere and assumes the X-ray beam profile to be rectangular with the same widths as the FWHM of injected X rays. These approximations overestimate the effect of the X-ray heat load. The shift of the Bragg angle is estimated to be $<97.3$ nrad, which reduces the reconversion efficiency and the sensitivity to $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ by $<17.4$% and $<4.4\%$, respectively.
The uncertainties shown in Tab. \[tab:uncertainties\] are linearly accumulated, and the sensitivities to $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ and $m_a$ are deteriorated by $1\sigma$ of the overall uncertainty, as much as 9.5% ($g_{a\gamma\gamma}$, max) and $0.33\%$ ($m_a$). The upper limits are numerically calculated as shown in Fig. \[fig:limits\], and their values can be represented by the maximum upper limits shown below, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{a\gamma\gamma} &<& 4.2\times 10^{-3}~{\rm GeV^{-1}}~({\rm for}~m_a<10~{\rm eV}),\\
g_{a\gamma\gamma} &<& 5.0\times 10^{-3}~{\rm GeV^{-1}}~({\rm for}~46~{\rm eV}<m_a<1020~{\rm eV}).\end{aligned}$$ The sensitivity around the plasma frequency of silicon, $m_\gamma=31$ eV, is reduced due to the effect of the Laue-case diffraction [@bib:yamaji_laue]. X rays propagate through the crystal as two standing waves, the Bloch waves $\alpha/\beta$, under the Bragg condition. The plasma frequencies of the Bloch waves are shifted from $m_\gamma$, and their contribution to the conversion of ALPs with a mass of $\sim m_\gamma$ interferes destructively. Figure \[fig:limits\] also shows upper limits imposed by previous LSW experiments. The obtained upper limits provide the most stringent laboratory-based constraint on ALPs heavier than $m_a=300$ eV. The sensitivity to ALPs heavier than resonant ALPs mass has large uncertainties since the sensitivity fluctuates rapidly as a function of experimental parameters. The obtained limits are also the first rigid constraints in the range of $40~{\rm eV}<m_a<1~{\rm keV}$.
Conclusion
==========
We have performed a novel LSW search using the Laue-case conversion in a silicon crystal. The resonant ALPs mass is continuously scanned by rotating the conversion system and varying the detuning angle. The obtained upper limits are the most stringent conditions on ALPs with a mass of $300~{\rm eV}<m_a<1~{\rm keV}$ as a laboratory-based search. The experimental results can be also considered as the first rigid constraints on ALPs heavier than $\sim$40 eV, where previous experiments using external magnetic fields cannot resonantly convert ALPs.
Acknowledgements
================
The research is funded by the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (Grant number 15J00509), and the experiment at BL19LXU is approved by RIKEN with the proposal number of 20170021. We would like to thank Shoji Asai for useful discussion and suggestions.
![Schematics of the whole experimental setup. The shaded regions are evacuated to avoid the X-ray absorption due to atmospheric molecules.[]{data-label="fig:optics"}](optics5.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![Schematics of the conversion system.[]{data-label="fig:system"}](system3.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![The measured rocking curve with the largest FWHM among the ones measured during the beam time (the solid line). The circles show data points. The calculated rocking curve is also shown by the dashed line.[]{data-label="fig:rocking"}](rocking3.eps){width="60.00000%"}
![The $\Delta\theta$ distribution of signal X rays. Left: the energy-$\Delta\theta$ distribution of detected X rays in the vicinity of the energy window (scatter plot). The positions of peaks with seven photons are shown by the dash-dotted lines. Right: the $\Delta\theta$-integrated distribution of X rays within the energy window.[]{data-label="fig:compare"}](signal_compare7.eps){width="100.00000%"}
![The comparison between the obtained limit and previous laboratory-based experiments. The exclusion region obtained by this experiment is shown as the hatched area. The upper limits obtained by previous experiments are shown by the dashed lines. The ALPs masses corresponding to the peaks with seven photons are shown by the arrows. The figure shows only laboratory-based experiments sensitive to ALPs with $m_a>10^{-2}$ eV. ALPS experiment [@bib:ALPS] is an optical LSW experiment. Battesti (2010) [@bib:LSWXE1] and Inada (2017) [@bib:LSWXE2] show X-ray LSW experiments performed at ESRF and SPring-8. PVLAS experiment [@bib:PVLAS] is a VMB experiment. NOMAD experiment [@bib:NOMAD] uses high energy photons from a neutrino beam line. []{data-label="fig:limits"}](limits4.eps){width="60.00000%"}
uncertainty affected factor uncertainties on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ $m_a$
------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------
blade thickness $L_{\rm eff}$/$\Delta\theta_{CV}$ $\pm 0.48\%$
the beam intensity $N_\gamma^i$ $\pm 0.33\%$
stray X rays from TRMs $N_\gamma^i$ +0.18%
drift of $\Delta\theta$ $N_\gamma^i/\Delta\theta_i$ $\pm 0.08\%$ $\pm 0.15\%$
absolute accuracy of $\Delta\theta$ $\Delta\theta_i$ $\pm 0.18\%$
detector efficiency $\epsilon_d$ $\pm 0.37\%$
accidental X-ray diffraction $L_{\rm eff}$ $0/3.7/1.4\%$
X-ray heat load $P^2$ $4.4\%$
Overall (conservative) $9.5$% (max) 0.33%
: Summary of systematic uncertainties on $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ and $m_a$.[]{data-label="tab:uncertainties"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents three objective Bayesian methods for analyzing bilateral data under Dallal’s model and the saturated model. Three parameters are of interest, namely, the risk difference, the risk ratio, and the odds ratio. We derive Jeffreys’ prior and Bernardo’s reference prior associated with the three parameters that characterize Dallal’s model. We derive the functional forms of the posterior distributions of the risk difference and the risk ratio and discuss how to sample from their posterior distributions. We demonstrate the use of the proposed methodology with two real data examples. We also investigate small, moderate, and large sample properties of the proposed methodology and the frequentist counterpart via simulations.'
author:
-
-
title: Objective Bayesian Inference for Bilateral Data
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Bilateral data arise in medicine when a group of randomly chosen patients with a condition receive a new treatment, for example, surgery, on paired body parts within the same individual (eyes, ears, breasts, arms, hands, knees, legs, or feet), while another group of patients with this condition receive a control treatment, for example, the currently accepted medical treatment. The investigator records paired Bernoulli outcomes about a particular characteristic, for example, absence of the condition, that are then grouped into one of three categories. (i) The two body parts are cured, recorded as $(1,1)$. The counts of patients with this characteristic from the control and treatment groups are denoted by $m_{20}$ and $m_{21}$. (ii) One of the two body parts is cured while the other remains diseased, recorded as $(1,0)$ or $(0,1)$. However, these $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ outcomes are thrown away and this detailed information is no longer available. Only the counts of patients from the control and treatment groups in that category, $m_{10}$ and $m_{11}$ are available. (iii) Neither of the two body parts are cured, denoted by $(0,0)$. The counts of patients in this category from the control and treatment groups are denoted by $m_{00}$ and $m_{01}$. The data, denoted by $D$, can be summarized into a $3\times2$ contingency table (see Table \[tab1sec1\]) where the trinomial counts $(m_{01}, m_{11}, m_{21})$ for the treatment group and $(m_{00}, m_{10}, m_{20})$ for the control group are the cell entries. Such data are very common in ophthalmologic, orthopaedic and otolaryngologic studies. Twin studies are also a familiar source of bilateral data. The goal of such clinical trials is to quantify the benefit of treatment over placebo.
-------------- ---------------------- -- -- ----------------------
Numbers of
cured organs Treatment Control
0 $m_{01} \; (p_{01})$ $m_{00} \; (p_{00})$
1 $m_{11} \; (p_{11})$ $m_{10} \; (p_{10})$
2 $m_{21} \; (p_{21})$ $m_{20} \;(p_{20})$
Total $m_{+1}$ $m_{+0}$
-------------- ---------------------- -- -- ----------------------
: Data structure for bilateral data along with their corresponding trinomial probabilities. $p_{00}+p_{10}+p_{20}=1=p_{01}+p_{11}+p_{21}$, $m_{00}+m_{10}+m_{20}=m_{+0}$ and $m_{01}+m_{11}+m_{21}=m_{+1}$ are fixed by design.[]{data-label="tab1sec1"}
The main parameter in bilateral models is the difference between the proportion of body parts $(\lambda_0,\lambda_1)$ with the characteristic of interest in the two groups, $\Delta=\lambda_1-\lambda_0$. However, the dependency between paired observations cannot be ignored. @Rosner1982, @Morris1993, and @TangTangRosner2006 discuss the consequences of ignoring this dependency.
Five models have been proposed for bilateral data: Rosner’s model, Dallal’s model, the equal correlation model, the independence model, and the full or saturated model. Of these five models, the most extensively studied is Rosner’s model. @TangTangQiu2008 present several test statistics for the equality of $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ under Rosner’s model. @QiuTangTang2009 consider the problem of sample size calculations under Rosner’s model. @TangQiuTangPei2011 discuss various techniques to construct asymptotic confidence intervals for $\Delta$ under Rosner’s model and evaluate the performance of these via empirical studies. @TangPeiWongLi2010 is perhaps the only paper that discusses all five models simultaneously to determine which one provides a better fit to the data. @PeiTangWongGuo2010 present asymptotic confidence intervals under the equal correlation model and evaluate their performance. @PeiTangGuo2008 present a test for the equality of $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ when unilateral and bilateral data are combined under the equal correlation model.
Among these five models, the independence model is rarely used in practice in the context of bilateral data. The objective priors for the saturated model have already been investigated in the literature. The challenge with Rosner’s model is that it is difficult to justify this model from a biological point of view. Only the equal correlation model and the equal conditional probability model (Dallal’s model) have sound statistical foundations and biological interpretation. Indeed, one can always characterize a bivariate discrete distribution for two binary random variables by making assumptions about (i) their marginal distributions and the correlation they share or (ii) their marginal distributions and the two conditional distributions they share. For Rosner’s model and the equal correlation model, Jeffreys’ prior and Bernardo’s reference prior are too complex to be of much practical use. Dallal’s model is the only model for which we could derive useful closed-form expressions for various objective priors. For these reasons, we solely focus on Dallal’s model in this paper.
Bayesian methods have gained incredible popularity in recent years both in the theory and practice of statistics. Under non-informative priors, Bayesian inferences yield results similar to that obtained under the frequentist paradigm. As we will show in an example presented in Section \[sub2sec6\], Bayesian inference for Dallal’s model yields similar findings to the corresponding frequentist analysis. Bayesian methods, however, do not rely on the normal approximation to carry out statistical inferences, which is an advantage over the frequentist methods. It is not unusual to encounter $3\times2$ bilateral data where one or more cells have sparse data, thereby preventing the use of the usual normal approximation that underlies frequentist inferences developed in Appendix 1 of the Supplementary Web Materials. Also, in some sparse $3\times2$ bilateral data, frequentist estimates lie on the boundary of the parameter space, which are not permitted by design. In such situations, one cannot compute the confidence intervals for some parameters or carry out tests of hypotheses about some of the parameters. We provide one such example in Section \[sub1sec6\]. Bayesian methods provide a simpler way to analyze such sparse bilateral data. Another benefit of Bayesian inference for $3\times2$ bilateral data is its ability to handle the nuisance parameter in Dallal’s model which complicates frequentist analyses.
There are no existing Bayesian methods for bilateral data in the literature yet. We present objective Bayesian inferences for three parameters of interest: the risk difference, the risk ratio, and the odds ratio. In Section 2, we present Dallal’s reduced model along with Dallal’s full model. Section 3 is dedicated to the derivation of the objective Bayesian modeling of bilateral data. We focus primarily on deriving Jeffreys’ prior and Bernardo’s reference prior. We then discuss the Bayes factor in the context of hypothesis testing as well as a simulation scheme for the joint posterior distribution. Section 4 presents results of an empirical comparison between Bayesian methods and frequentist methods. Section 5 presents two illustrative case studies. In Section 6, we present two families of Bayesian prior distributions, including Jeffreys’ or Bernardo’s reference priors as special cases. Section 7 concludes this paper.
Dallal’s Dependence Model {#sec2}
=========================
Dallal’s model was presented for the first time as model 2 in @Dallal1988. Let “$i=1$" and “$i=0$" denote the treatment group and the control group, respectively. Denote by $Z_{ijk}$ a binary variable such that $Z_{ijk}=1$ if the $k$th site ($k$th body part) of the $j$th subject in the $i$th treatment group is free of disease at the end of the study and 0 otherwise for $i=0,1$, $j=1,\dots, m_{+i}$, and $k=1,2$. Dallal’s (reduced) model is characterized by the following assumptions:
Assumption 1:
: $P\big(Z_{ijk}=1\big) = \lambda_i$ for $i=0,1$ with $0<\lambda_i<1$.
Assumption 2:
: $P\big(Z_{ijk}=1 \mid Z_{ij(3-k)}=1\big) = 1-\gamma
$ with $0<\gamma<1$.
Assumption 2 states that the conditional probability of an occurrence of a particular characteristic at one site given an occurrence of that characteristic at the other site to be the same in the two treatment groups. This statement is relaxed and replaced by $P\big(Z_{ijk}=1 \mid Z_{ij(3-k)}=1\big) = 1-\gamma_i$ with $0<\gamma
_i<1,\,i=0,1$ in the full or saturated model. That is, two conditional probability statements are made, one for the treatment group and the other for the control group. We also refer to this saturated model as Dallal’s saturated model. However, the full model has one more parameter than the reduced model.
Let $m_{hi}$ be the number of subjects in the $i$th group with exactly $h$ site(s) cured and $p_{hi}$ be the success probability associated with $m_{hi}$ for $h=0,1,2$ and $i=0,1$. The two group total sample sizes are denoted by $m_{+1}$ for the treatment group and $m_{+0}$ for the control group and these are assumed fixed by design. Hence, $(m_{0i}, m_{1i},
m_{2i})$ follows the trinomial distribution with total number of trials $m_{+i}$ and probability parameter vector $(p_{0i}, p_{1i}, p_{2i})$ for $i=0,1$ such as $$p_{0i} = 1 - (1+\gamma)\lambda_i, \;\;
p_{1i} = 2\gamma\lambda_i, \;\; \mbox{and} \;\;
p_{2i} = (1-\gamma)\lambda_i.$$ Dallal’s model also implies that the correlation coefficients between the $Z_{ijk}$ variables take the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_i = {\mathbf{Corr}}\big(Z_{ijk}, Z_{ij(3-k)}\big) = 1- \dfrac{\gamma
}{1-\lambda_i},\qquad i=0,1.\label{eq1sec2}\end{aligned}$$ In fact, the conditional probability assumption in Dallal’s model can be replaced by the statement in about the correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient, $\rho_i$, takes both positive and negative values over the entire range $(-1,1)$. The excess risk is defined as $$\delta_i = P(Z_{ijk}=1 \mid Z_{ij(3-k)}=1) - P(Z_{ijk}=1 ) = 1-\gamma-
\lambda_i$$ for $i=0,1$.
The main parameter of interest in this investigation is the risk difference, $\Delta=\lambda_1 - \lambda_0$, and, therefore, $\gamma$ can be viewed as a nuisance parameter. The risk ratio, $R =\dfrac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_0}$ and the odds ratio, $\psi= \dfrac{\lambda_1(1-\lambda_0)}{(1-\lambda
_1)\lambda_0}$ can also be of interest. Another parameter of interest is the difference of excess risks in both the treatment and the control groups, $\delta_0-\delta_1$, which is equal to $\Delta$ under Dallal’s reduced model. To date, the risk ratio, the odds ratio and the difference of excess risks have never been discussed in the bilateral data literature. The first two parameters add another dimension to the utility of bilateral data so that they can be collected under either a prospective study paradigm or a retrospective observational study paradigm, allowing for more applications than those under the current clinical setting. Although the addition of these new parameters poses more challenges for carrying out frequentist inference, no additional work is required in the Bayesian framework.
What makes the inferential process challenging in Dallal’s model is that one deals with a constrained parameter space. Indeed, the parameter space is $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega= \bigg\{ \big(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1\big): \; & & 0
< \gamma< 1 \mbox{ if } 0 < \max(\lambda_0, \lambda_1) \leq\frac
{1}{2};\nonumber\\
\; & & 0 <\gamma< \dfrac{1}{\max(\lambda_0, \lambda_1)}-1 \mbox{
if } \max(\lambda_0, \lambda_1)>\frac{1}{2} \bigg\}\;\;\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1sec3}
\Omega= \bigg\{ \big(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1 \big): \;
& & 0<\gamma<1\;\mbox{and}\; 0 < \lambda_0, \lambda_1 <
\dfrac{1}{1+\gamma} \bigg\}.\end{aligned}$$ We adopt the second representation in the sequel. The likelihood function can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
L(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) & = & \prod_{i=0}^1 {m_{+i} \choose
{m_{0i}, m_{1i}, m_{2i}}} \big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_i\big]^{m_{0i}}
(2\gamma\lambda_i)^{m_{1i}} \big[(1-\gamma)\lambda_i\big
]^{m_{2i}}\nonumber\\
& \propto& \gamma^{m_{10}+ m_{11}}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{20}+m_{21}}\lambda_0^{m_{10} + m_{20}} \lambda_1^{m_{11}
+ m_{21}}\;
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]^{m_{00}}\nonumber\\
& & \times\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]^{m_{01}},\qquad\qquad\qquad
(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1)\in\Omega.\end{aligned}$$ In Appendix 1 of the Supplementary Web Appendix, we develop for the first time large-sample frequentist inferences for the risk difference, the risk ratio and the odds ratio under Dallal’s model.
Bayesian Analysis {#sec4}
=================
A key component in Bayesian analysis is the choice of the prior distribution. Traditionally, Bayesians have turned to conjugate priors. However, the concept of conjugate priors is only universal in standard univariate problems. In addition, when little or no prior information is available, conjugate priors become subjective. Thus, non-informative or objective priors are more widely accepted. The uniform distribution over the parameter space is an obvious non-informative prior. Jeffreys’ prior and Bernardo’s reference prior are alternative choices that are invariant under any parameterization or a larger class of parameterizations. Another alternative choice is to use a joint prior that is the compromise between an informative prior and a non-informative prior [@SunBerger1998]. We discuss four types of priors: the uniform prior, Jeffreys’ prior, Bernardo’s prior, and Sun and Berger’s reference prior in light of partial information. We derive the posterior distributions of $\Delta$ and $R$ as well as $P\big(\Delta>\Delta_0\,|\,D\big)$ and $P\big(R>R_0\,|\,D\big)$ in Appendix 4. Although we do not provide the posterior distribution of $\psi$ (more complex), we discuss in Section \[sub4sec4\] how to sample from the posterior distributions of $\Delta
, R$ and $\psi$. We use the parameter values generated to compute posterior probabilities such as $P\big(\Delta>\Delta_0\,|\,D\big), P\big(R>R_0\,|\,D\big)$, $P\big(\psi
>\psi_0\,|\,D\big)$, and Bayesian credible intervals. The Bayes factors are introduced in Section \[sub5sec4\] to compare the models under the hypotheses (i) $H_0$: $\lambda_0=\lambda
_1$ and $H_1$: $\lambda_1\neq\lambda_0$ and (ii) $H^\ast_0$: $\gamma_1=\gamma_0$ versus $H^\ast_1$: $\gamma_1\neq
\gamma_0$.
The Uniform Prior Distribution {#sub1sec4}
------------------------------
The prior $\pi_U(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1) = 2$ for $(\gamma,\lambda
_0,\lambda_1)\in\Omega$ refers to the uniform distribution under Dallal’s model. This prior is proper and expresses a complete indifference of one vector of parameter values over another. The resulting posterior distribution is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1sub1sec4}
\pi_U\big(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1|D\big)
& \propto& 2^{m_{1+}} \gamma^{m_{1+}}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}}\lambda_0^{m_{10} + m_{20}}
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]^{m_{00}}\lambda_1^{m_{11} + m_{21}}
\nonumber\\
& & \times\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]^{m_{01}},
\qquad\qquad(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1)\in\Omega,\qquad\qquad\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{1+}=m_{10}+ m_{11}$ and $m_{2+}=m_{20}+ m_{21}$. As a result, the marginal posterior distribution of the nuisance parameter $\gamma$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2sub1sec4}
\pi_U\big(\gamma|D\big) = \dfrac{2^{m_{1+}+1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{1+}+1,m_{2+}+1)}
\dfrac{\gamma^{m_{1+}}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}}}{(1+\gamma)^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}+2}}, \qquad0<\gamma<1,\end{aligned}$$ and the conditional posterior distribution of $\lambda_i, i=0,1$ given $\gamma$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3sub1sec4}
\pi_U\big(\lambda_i|\,\gamma, D\big)
& = & (1+\gamma)^{m_{1i}+m_{2i}+1}\dfrac{\lambda_i^{m_{1i}+m_{2i}}
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_i\big]^{m_{0i}}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{1i}+m_{2i}+1,m_{0i}+1)},
\quad0<\lambda_i<\dfrac{1}{1+\gamma},\qquad\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mbox{{\bf B}}}(.,.)$ refers to the Beta function. In other words, $\dfrac{1-\gamma}{1+\gamma}\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(m_{2+}+1,m_{1+}+1)$ and $(1+\gamma)\lambda_i|\gamma\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(m_{1i}+m_{2i}+1,m_{0i}+1),\,i=0,1$, where the notation ${\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\alpha,\beta)$ represents the standard Beta distribution with shape parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The uniform prior can be viewed as a process of adding $1/2$ to the summary statistics in the bottom four cells of the $3\times2$ table and 1 to the top two cells. The uniform prior is appealing in situations where the physical system imposes a natural parameterization with a nice physical interpretation. In general, the uniform distribution lacks the property of parameterization invariance.
Jeffreys’ Prior {#sub2sec4}
---------------
Jeffreys’ prior has the property of being invariant under a one-to-one reparameterization [@Jeffreys1946]. Regardless of the parameterization used, Jeffreys’ prior distribution is proportional to the square root of the absolute value of the determinant of the Fisher’s information matrix.
Define $U = (1+\gamma)\lambda_0$ or equivalently $\lambda_0 = \dfrac
{U}{1+\gamma}$, and let $V = (1+\gamma)\lambda_1$ or equivalently $\lambda_1 =\dfrac
{V}{1+\gamma}$. Under this new parametrization, the parameter space reduces to the interval $(0,1)$ for each of the three parameters $\gamma$, $U$ and $V$. Thus, we are no longer dealing with a constrained parameter space. Moreover, the triplet $(\gamma, U,
V)$ forms a set of orthogonal parameters in the sense of @CoxReid1987, that is, the off-diagonal elements of the expected Fisher information matrix are all zero. Propositions \[prop1sub2sec4\] and \[prop2sub2sec4\] give Jeffreys’ priors for $(\gamma, U, V)$ and $(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1)$, which are derived in Appendix 1.
\[prop1sub2sec4\] Jeffreys’ prior under the parameterization $(\gamma,U,V)$ is $$\label{eq1sub2sec4}
\pi_J(\gamma, u, v) \propto \dfrac{\gamma^{1/2-1}(1-\gamma
)^{1/2-1}}{(1+\gamma)} (u + rv)^{1/2}
u^{1/2-1}(1-u)^{1/2-1} v^{1/2-1}(1-v)^{1/2-1}$$ for $0<\gamma, u, v<1$ and it is proper, where $r=\dfrac
{m_{+1}}{m_{+0}}$ is the ratio of the sample sizes in the two treatment groups.
Under Jeffreys’ prior, the nuisance parameter, $\gamma$, is independent of both $U$ and $V$ and its marginal prior distribution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2sub2sec4}
\pi_J(\gamma) = \dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} \,\frac{\gamma^{1/2-1}
\;(1-\gamma)^{1/2-1}}{(1+\gamma)}, \qquad0<\gamma<1.\end{aligned}$$ However, Jeffreys’ prior depends indirectly on the sample sizes in both groups through their ratio, $r$.
\[prop2sub2sec4\] In the original space, Jeffreys’ prior reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq3sub2sec4}
\pi_J(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) & \propto&
\sqrt{\frac{(1+\gamma) (\lambda_0+r\lambda_1)}{\gamma
(1-\gamma) \lambda_0 \lambda_1
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big] \big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]}},\\
& & (\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \in\Omega.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The posterior distribution resulting from the use of Jeffreys’ prior is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4sub2sec4}
\pi_J\big(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1|D\big) \propto&
\dfrac{2^{m_{1+}+1/2}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{1+}+1/2,m_{2+}+1/2)} \gamma^{m_{1+}+1/2-1}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}+1/2-1}(1+\gamma)^{1/2}\nonumber\\
& \times(\lambda_0 + r\lambda_1)^{1/2}\,\lambda_0^{m_{10}+m_{20}+1/2-1}
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]^{m_{00}+1/2-1} \nonumber\\
& \times\lambda_1^{m_{11}+m_{21}+1/2-1}\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big
]^{m_{01}+1/2-1},
\qquad(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1)\in\Omega.\end{aligned}$$
Reference Priors {#sub3sec4}
----------------
Despite its success in the one-parameter context, Jeffreys’ non-informative prior methodology often runs into serious difficulties in multiparameter problems [@DattaGhosh1996]. The prior distribution may be difficult to derive and too complex to be easily interpretable. This is often the case when several nuisance parameters are present. For our problem, Jeffreys’ prior is difficult to interpret given that it depends on the ratio of sample sizes $m_{+1}$ and $m_{+0}$. In this context, the reference prior may be more preferred [@Bernardo1979; @BergerBernardo1989], loosely defined as vague priors with the least amount of information. Here, we divide the vector of parameters into two sets: parameters of interest and nuisance parameters. Then, we consider the parameters sequentially in the process of deriving a reference prior. @BergerBernardo1992a [@BergerBernardo1992b; @BergerBernardo1992c] took this idea to another level by suggesting to split the parameter vector into multiple groups according to their orders of inferential importance. The two authors provided a general algorithm for the construction of reference priors. Hence, reference priors are not uniquely defined. We derive the reference prior for the parameters $\gamma$, $U$, and $V$, leading to an induced reference prior for $\gamma$, $\lambda_0$, and $\lambda_1$.
We start with the two group orderings: (i) $\{U,V\}$ and then $\{\gamma
\}$ and (ii) $\{V,U\}$ and then $\{\gamma\}$.
\[prop1sub3sec4\] Bernardo’s reference prior corresponding to the groups ordering $\{U,V\}
$ and then $\{\gamma\}$ or $\{V,U\}$ and then $\{\gamma\}$ is $$\label{eq1sub3sec4}
\pi_R(\gamma, u, v) = \dfrac{2^{1/2}\gamma^{1/2-1}
(1-\gamma)^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)(1+\gamma)}
\dfrac{u^{1/2-1}(1-u)^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)} \dfrac
{v^{1/2-1}(1-v)^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)},\quad$$ $0<\gamma, u, v<1$. That is, $\dfrac{1-\gamma}{1+\gamma}\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(1/2,1/2)$, $U\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(1/2,1/2)$ and $V\sim\break{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(1/2,1/2)$.
\[prop2sub3sec4\] In the original parameterization, $(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1)$, Bernardo’s reference prior is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2sub3sec4}
\pi_R(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) = & \;
\dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} \gamma^{1/2-1}
(1-\gamma)^{1/2-1} \dfrac{\lambda_0^{1/2-1}
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)}\nonumber\\
& \; \times\dfrac{\lambda_1^{1/2-1}
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)},\qquad
(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \ \in\Omega.\end{aligned}$$
The proofs of Propositions \[prop1sub3sec4\] and \[prop2sub3sec4\] are given in Appendix 2. Unlike Jeffreys’ prior, $\gamma$, $U$, and $V$ are independent under Bernardo’s reference prior. The posterior distribution resulting from the use of Bernardo’s reference prior is $$\begin{aligned}
& \; \pi_R\big(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1|D\big) \\
\propto& \;
\dfrac{2^{m_{1+}+1/2}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{1+}+1/2,m_{2+}+1/2)}\gamma^{m_{1+}+1/2-1}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}+1/2-1}\lambda_0^{m_{10}+m_{20}+1/2-1}\\
& \; \times\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]^{m_{00}+1/2-1}
\lambda_1^{m_{11}+m_{21}+1/2-1}\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]^{m_{01}+1/2-1},\end{aligned}$$ $(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1)\in\Omega$ or equivalently $$\begin{aligned}
& \; \pi_R\big(\gamma, u, v \,|D) \\
= & \; \dfrac{2^{m_{1+}+1/2}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{1+}+1/2, m_{2+}+1/2)}
\dfrac{\gamma^{m_{1+}+1/2-1} (1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}+1/2-1}}{(1+\gamma
)^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}+1}} \nonumber\\
& \; \times\dfrac{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}+1/2-1}(1-u)^{m_{00}+1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{10}+m_{20}+1/2, m_{00}+1/2)}
\dfrac{v^{m_{11}+m_{21}+1/2-1} (1-v)^{m_{01}+1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{11}+m_{21}+1/2, m_{01}+1/2)},\end{aligned}$$ $0<\gamma,u,v<1$. The reference prior can be viewed as adding $1/4$ to each of the bottom four cells of the $3\times2$ table and $1/2$ to the top two cells.
@GhoshMukerjee1992 advise reversing the role of parameters of interest and nuisance parameters to obtain a reverse reference prior. That is, reconsider the group ordering of $\{\gamma\}$ and then $\{U,V\}$ or $\{\gamma\}$ and then $\{V,U\}$. The reference prior remains unchanged as shown in Appendix 2. We also discuss the idea of reference priors under the partial information introduced by @SunBerger1998 and known as conditional reference priors in Appendix 2.
Sampling from the Posterior Distribution {#sub4sec4}
----------------------------------------
With analytical solutions difficult to derive or compute, we turn to Monte-Carlo simulation methods. We first discuss how to simulate $\gamma$ from the distribution $$\begin{aligned}
f(\gamma) & = &
\dfrac{2^{\mu}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}\dfrac{\gamma^{\mu-1} \;(1-\gamma)^{\nu-1}}{
(1+\gamma)^{\mu+\nu}}\,,\qquad0<\gamma<1,\end{aligned}$$ which includes the marginal posterior distributions, $\pi_U(\gamma\,|\,
D)=\pi_J(\gamma\,|\,D)$, as special cases with $\mu=m_{1+}+\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $\nu=m_{2+}+\tfrac{1}{2}$. Then, we discuss how to simulate $(\lambda_1,\lambda_0)$ jointly from $f(\lambda_1,\lambda_0 \mid D)$.
We propose two direct and efficient approaches to generate $\gamma$ from $f(\gamma)$.
- Let $\gamma= \dfrac{e^\Psi}{1+e^\Psi}$. We show in Appendix 3 that $\phi= \Psi-\log(2)$ has the same distribution as $\mbox{logit}(p) =
\log\left(
\dfrac{p}{1-p}\right)$, where $p\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\mu,\nu)$. Thus, simulate $p_i\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\mu,\nu)$, compute $\phi_i=\mbox{logit}(p_i)-\log(2)$, and set $\gamma_i=\dfrac{e^{\phi_i}}{1+e^{\phi_i}},\,i=1,\dots,M$.
- Let $\gamma= \dfrac{1-\pi}{1+\pi}$. We show in Appendix 3 that $\pi\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\nu,\mu)$. Thus, simulate $\pi_i\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\nu, \mu)$ and set $\gamma_i = \dfrac{1-\pi_i}{1+\pi_i},\,i=1,\dots,M$.
We now focus on the joint marginal posterior distribution of $(U,V)$ obtained under Jeffreys’ prior $$\begin{aligned}
f(u, v\,|\,D) \propto& \; (u + rv)^{1/2}\,
\dfrac{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}-1/2}(1-u)^{m_{00}-1/2}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{10}+m_{20}+1/2,
m_{00}+1/2)}\,\\
& \times\dfrac{v^{m_{11} + m_{21}-1/2} (1-v)^{m_{01}-1/2}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{11}+m_{21}+1/2, m_{01}+1/2)},\end{aligned}$$ which is independent of $\gamma$. To simulate $M$ observations $(u_i,v_i), \; i=1,\cdots,M$, we proceed as follows:
- Simulate independent observations $(u_i, v_i), \; i=1,\cdots
,M$, with $u_i\sim
{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+1/2, m_{00}+1/2\big)$ and $v_i\sim
{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+1/2, m_{01}+1/2\big)$.
- Compute the weights $w_i=(u_i+rv_i)^{1/2}, \; i=1,\cdots,M$.
- Use the acceptance/rejection sampling method: Simulate $\xi
_i\sim U(0,1)$ and accept the pair $(u_i,v_i)$ only if $\xi_i < w_i/(1+r)$.
- Or use the importance sampling method, where all the pairs $(u_i,v_i)$ are accepted and use the weights $w_i$ to correct for the bias in the computation of posterior mean and quantiles.
Under the reference prior, we simulate independent observations $(u_i,
v_i), \; i=1,\cdots,M$, with $u_i\sim
{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+1/2, m_{00}+1/2\big)$ and $v_i\sim
{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+1/2, m_{01}+1/2\big)$. Having simulated a triplet $(\gamma_i, U_i,V_i)$, we compute $\lambda^i_0=U_i/(1+\gamma_i)$ and $\lambda^i_1=V_i/(1+\gamma_i)$ as well as the risk difference, $\Delta
_i=\dfrac{(V_i-U_i)}{(1+\gamma_i)}$, the risk ratio, $R_i=\dfrac{V_i}{U_i}$ (does not depend on $\gamma$), and the odds ratio, $\psi_i=\dfrac{V_i\big[1+\gamma_i-U_i\big]}{U_i\big
[1+\gamma_i-V_i\big]}$. These simulated values are in turn used to compute posterior probabilities and Bayesian credible intervals such as equal-tailed intervals and highest posterior density (HPD) intervals. Bayesian HPD intervals are the shortest intervals containing the parameter of interest with the desired posterior coverage probability. They are more desirable than the commonly used equal-tailed intervals when the posterior distribution is highly skewed, but are more difficult to compute. @ChenShao1999 develop the Monte Carlo method to compute the HPD intervals. In their paper, they also discussed how to compute Monte-Carlo-based Bayesian credible intervals under importance sampling.
Marginal Predictive Distribution and Bayes Factor {#sub5sec4}
-------------------------------------------------
In this section, we derive the marginal predictive distribution and the Bayes factor under Jeffreys’ prior and Bernardo’s prior. For simplicity and clarity of the presentation, we work with the parameterization $(\gamma, U, V)$. In addition, we derive a single Bayes factor formula for these two priors. To accomplish this single formulation, we use a family of prior distributions that encapsulates both Jeffreys’ prior and the reference prior as special cases.
### $H_0$: $\lambda_0=\lambda_1$ versus $H_1$: $\lambda_1\neq
\lambda_0$ {#sub1sub4sec4}
Consider the hypotheses $H_0$: $\lambda_0=\lambda_1=\lambda$ and $H_1$: $\lambda_1\neq\lambda_0$ or equivalently $H_0$: $U=V=\theta$ against $H_1$: $ U \neq V$. Under $H_1$, we consider the family of prior distributions $$\begin{aligned}
& \; \pi_{H_1}\big(\gamma, u, v\big) \\
= & \; \dfrac{1}{K} \dfrac{2^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}
\dfrac{\gamma^{\frac{1}{2}-1} (1-\gamma)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{(1+\gamma)} (u+rv)^{d}
\dfrac{u^{\frac{1}{2}-1}(1-u)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\frac{1}{2}, \frac
{1}{2})} \dfrac{v^{\frac{1}{2}-1}
(1-v)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2})},\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is the normalizing constant and $0<\gamma, u, v<1$. Note that when $d=0$, $K=1$. Two choices of $d$ are of interest: $d=0$ corresponding to the reference prior and $d=1/2$ corresponding to Jeffreys’ prior. The marginal predictive distribution under $H_1$ is $$\begin{aligned}
& \; p_{H_1}(m_{10}, m_{20}, m_{11}, m_{21}) \\
= & \; \dfrac{1}{K} p(m_{10}, m_{20}, m_{11}, m_{21})
\int_0^1 \int_0^1 (u+rv)^{d}
\dfrac{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}-1} (1-u)^{m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2},m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}\big)} \\
& \; \times
\dfrac{v^{m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}-1} (1-v)^{m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2},m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}\big)} dv\,du,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
p(m_{10}, m_{20}, & m_{11}, m_{21}) = {m_{+0} \choose{m_{00}, m_{10}, m_{20}}}
{m_{+1} \choose{m_{01}, m_{11}, m_{21}}} \dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{1+}+\frac
{1}{2}, m_{2+}+\frac{1}{2}\big)}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big)} \\
& \; \times\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{00}+\frac
{1}{2}\big)}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big)}
\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}\big)}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big
(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big)}.\end{aligned}$$ Under $H_0$, the likelihood reduces to $$L(\gamma, \theta) = \left\{\prod_{i=0}^1 {m_{+i} \choose{m_{0i},
m_{1i}, m_{2i}}}\right\} \;2^{m_{1+}} \dfrac{\gamma^{m_{1+}}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}}}{(1+\gamma)^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}}}\,
\theta^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}}(1-\theta)^{m_{0+}},$$ where $\theta=(1+\gamma)\lambda$. Jeffreys’ and Bernardo’s priors belong to the family of priors $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{H_0}(\gamma, \theta) & = & \dfrac{2^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\frac
{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}\,
\dfrac{\gamma^{\frac{1}{2}-1}\;(1-\gamma)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{(1+\gamma)}
\;
\dfrac{\theta^{a-1}\;(1-\theta)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a,\frac
{1}{2})},\quad0<\gamma,\theta<1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the resulting marginal predictive distribution is $$\begin{aligned}
& \; p_{H_0}(m_{10}, m_{20}, m_{11}, m_{21}) \\
= & \; {m_{+0} \choose{m_{00},
m_{10}, m_{20}}}\;{m_{+1} \choose{m_{01},m_{11}, m_{21}}}\,
\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{1+}+\frac{1}{2},\, m_{2+}+\frac{1}{2}\big)}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big
(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big)} \\
& \times\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{2+}+m_{1+}+a,\,m_{0+}+\frac{1}{2})}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a,\frac
{1}{2}\big)}.\end{aligned}$$ The ratio of these two marginal predictive distributions, $BF^\lambda
_{01}$, under the condition $P(H_1)=P(H_0)=\tfrac{1}{2}$ (the Bayes factor for testing $H_0$ vs $H_1$) satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& \dfrac{1}{BF_\lambda}
= \dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}\big) {\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}\big) {\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(a,\frac
{1}{2}\big)}
{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{2+}+m_{1+}+a, m_{0+}+\frac{1}{2}\big) {\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(\frac
{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big) {\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big)}\\
& \times\int_0^1 \int_0^1 \dfrac{(u+rv)^{d}}{K} \dfrac
{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}-1}
(1-u)^{m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2},m_{00}+\frac
{1}{2})} \dfrac{v^{m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}-1}
(1-v)^{m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2},m_{01}+\frac
{1}{2})} dv du.\end{aligned}$$ Under Jeffreys’ prior, the constant $K$ and the integral term in the Bayes factor are computed using computer simulation. Under the reference prior, the integral term disappears and the Bayes factor is computed exactly using only the Beta functions.
### $H^\ast_0$: $\gamma_1=\gamma_0$ versus $H^\ast_1$: $\gamma_1\neq\gamma_0$ {#sub2sub4sec4}
One of the statements made in Dallal’s model is that the parameter $\gamma$ is constant. As discussed earlier, this assumption can be relaxed to $P\big
(Z_{ijk}=1 \,|\, Z_{ij(3-k)}=1\big) = 1-\gamma_i$, giving rise to the full or saturated model. Therefore, it is important to test the hypothesis $H^\ast_0$: $\gamma_1=\gamma_0=\gamma$ (Dallal’s reduced model) versus the alternative hypothesis $H^\ast_1$: $\gamma_1\neq\gamma_0$ (Dallal’s full model). Under $H^\ast_1$, $U$ and $V$ are redefined as follows: $U=(1+\gamma_0)\lambda_0$ and $V=(1+\gamma
_1)\lambda_1$. Under $H^\ast_0$, the prior is $\pi_{H_1}(\gamma,u,v)$ defined in Section \[sub1sub4sec4\]. Under $H^\ast_1$, the family of priors under consideration is $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{H^\ast_1}(\gamma_0, \gamma_1, u, v) = &
\dfrac{2^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma_0^{\frac{1}{2}-1}\,
(1-\gamma_0)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})(1+\gamma_0)}\;
\dfrac{2^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma_1^{\frac{1}{2}-1}\,
(1-\gamma_1)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})(1+\gamma_1)}\,
\dfrac{u^{a_0-1}\,(1-u)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_0,\frac{1}{2})}\\
&\, \times\dfrac{v^{a_1-1}\,(1-v)^{\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_1,\frac
{1}{2})},\,\qquad0<\gamma_0, \gamma_1, u, v <1.\end{aligned}$$ The resulting marginal predictive distribution is $$\begin{aligned}
p_{H^\ast_1}\big(m_{10}, m_{20}, m_{11}, m_{21}\big) = & {m_{+0}
\choose{m_{00},
m_{10}, m_{20}}}\;{m_{+1} \choose{m_{01}, m_{11}, m_{21}}}\,\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+\frac{1}{2},
m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}\big)}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big)} \\
& \times\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}\big)}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big)}\;
\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{10}+m_{20}+a_0, m_{00}+\frac{1}{2})}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(a_0,\frac
{1}{2}\big)}\\
& \times\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{11}+m_{21}+a_1, m_{01}+\frac{1}{2})}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big
(a_1,\frac{1}{2}\big)}.\end{aligned}$$ We are only concerned with two sets of parameters choices: $d=1/2, a_0=a_1=1$ used in Jeffreys’ prior and $d=0, a_0=a_1=1/2$ used in the reference prior.
The Bayes factor for testing $H^\ast_0$ vs $H^\ast_1$ under the condition $P(H_1)=P(H_0)=\tfrac{1}{2}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
& BF_\gamma = \dfrac{p_{H_1}\big(m_{10}, m_{20}, m_{11}, m_{21}\big
)}{p_{H^\ast_1}
\big(m_{10}, m_{20}, m_{11}, m_{21}\big)} \\
= & \; \dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{1+}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{2+}+\frac{1}{2}\big) {\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big
(a_0,\frac{1}{2}\big)\,{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(a_1,\frac{1}{2}\big)}
{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}\big) {\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+\frac
{1}{2}, m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}\big)
{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\big)}\\
& \times\dfrac{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}\big)
{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}, m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}\big)}
{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+a_0, m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}\big)
{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+a_1, m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}\big)}\\
& \times\int_0^1 \int_0^1 \Big\{ \dfrac{(u+rv)^{d}}{K} \dfrac
{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}-1}
(1-u)^{m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac
{1}{2},m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}\big)}\\
& \hspace*{0.3in} \times\dfrac{v^{m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}-1}
(1-v)^{m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac
{1}{2},m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}\big)} \Big\} dvdu.\end{aligned}$$ Under Jeffreys’ prior, $BF_\gamma$ is computed using computer simulation while under the reference prior it is computed exactly.
Comparisons of Bayesian and Frequentist Intervals: An Empirical Study {#sec5}
=====================================================================
In this section, we investigate small, moderate and large-sample performances of frequentist confidence intervals (FCIs) and Bayesian credible intervals (BCIs) under three criteria. For a set values for the model parameters, 10,000 $3\times2$ bilateral data tables are generated from the product of trinomial distributions under a balanced design. The essence of these criteria rely on the principle that good FCIs (Wald FCIs described in Appendix 1 of the Supplementary Web Materials) or good HPD BCIs should have their true coverage close to or preferably larger than the nominal value. Indeed, FCIs and BCIs with deflated true coverage are recommended against. Lengths of the intervals must also be considered. We use the three following criteria:
- the expected true coverage probability (ETCP) of the interval $\big(\widehat{\Delta}_L,
\widehat{\Delta}_U\big)$ for $\Delta$, $P\big(\widehat{\Delta}_L\leq
\Delta\leq\widehat{\Delta}_U\big)$, in repeated sampling;
- the expected width (EWCI) of the interval of $\big(\widehat
{\Delta}_L, \widehat{\Delta}_U\big)$ for $\Delta$, $\widehat{\Delta}_U-\widehat{\Delta}_L$, in repeated sampling; and
- the expected mean square error (MSE) that reflects a compromise between bias and precision, in repeated sampling.
Although these criteria are defined in terms of $\Delta$, we also examine the behaviors of these criteria for $(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1)$ as well. For the case of the MSE, we go further by adding the three MSEs corresponding to $(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1)$ to obtain a global measure of MSE. Four equal sample size scenarios are chosen: $m_{+0}=m_{+1}=m=10, 25, 50, 100$ to reflect small, moderate and large sample size situations. For symmetry, we only consider cases where $\Delta$ is non-negative. More specifically, we examine cases with $\Delta=\Delta_h=h/10, \,h \in\{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9\}$. Each choice of $\Delta$ implies the constraint: $0<\gamma<\gamma_{h,\max}=\min(1,1/\Delta_h-1)$. We then choose a grid of $\gamma$ points: $\gamma_{hj}=j\gamma_{h, \max}/10$ with $j=1,2,\dots,9$. These values are meant to capture a wide range of behaviours of the conditional probability of an occurrence of a particular characteristic at one site given an occurrence of that characteristic at the other site in the range $(1-\gamma_{h,\max},1)$. Then, set $\lambda_{hj, \max}=\dfrac{1}{1+\gamma_{hj}}-\Delta_h$. For the pair $(\lambda_0,\lambda_1)$, we select the values: $\lambda
_{0hjk} = k\lambda_{hj,\max}/10$ with $k=1,2,\dots,9$ and $\lambda
_{1hjk} =
\lambda_{0hjk}+\Delta_h$. Hence, for each sample size and $\Delta_h$, we compute the three criterion functions for 81 combinations of the triplets $(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1)$. In the Bayesian framework, we examine HPD intervals under the uniform, Jeffreys’, and reference priors.
The probability of obtaining degenerate results in the frequentist framework (non-estimable model parameters or model parameters on the boundary of the parameter space or parameters with a zero variance) is relatively high in smaller samples, and even higher when combined with large and small $\gamma$ values. These cases are eliminated from the frequentist calculations. The five tables in Appendix 2 of the Supplementary Web Materials give a summary of results of the simulation study. In each cell, we compute two numbers: the proportion of empirical coverages within 0.01 of the nominal coverage and the proportion of empirical coverages above -0.02 of the nominal coverage. The latter summary carries out more value than the former one. The findings for the ETCP criterion are summarized as follows.
- For $\Delta=0$, Bayesian HPD intervals perform similarly for moderate and large sample sizes ($m=50, 100$) and the proportions of coverages above -0.02 of the nominal coverage are close to 100% for $\lambda_0,\lambda_1$ and $\Delta$. This finding actually holds true for $\Delta\leq0.4$.
- Wald FCIs perform poorly for estimating $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ when $m=10, 25$ and $\Delta\leq0.3$.
- Overall, in terms of coverage probability, the uniform distribution seems to perform better than the other methods when $\Delta
\leq
0.5$. When $\Delta\geq0.6$, Jeffreys’ prior and the reference prior perform better when estimating $\lambda_0$, $\lambda_1$ and $\Delta$.
- When it comes to estimating $\gamma$, the uniform prior outperforms the other methods regardless of the nominal value of $\Delta$.
- In general, Jeffreys’ prior and the reference prior tend to give similar results regardless of the nominal value of $\Delta$.
A summary of the findings for the MSE criterion is given as follows.
- Jeffreys’ prior and the reference prior perform similarly regardless of the nominal value of $\Delta$. The MSEs for $\Delta$ are scattered around the line $y=x$, with increasing deviations as $n$ gets smaller. As $\Delta$ increases, the deviations from the 45 degree line also increase with a slim advantage of Jeffreys’ prior when $\Delta>0.5$. See Figures 1 and 2. The same pattern is observed with the global measure of MSE obtained by adding the MSEs for $\gamma, \lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$.
- Jeffreys’ prior and the uniform prior have equivalent properties for moderate and large sample sizes when $\Delta\leq0.6$. However, when $\Delta\geq0.7$, the superiority of Jeffreys’ prior is highly evident.
- Wald FCIs perform worst when $\Delta\leq0.6$, with differences worsening as $n$ gets smaller. This behavior is reversed when $\Delta\geq0.7$. See Figures 1 and 2.
- In terms of the MSEs corresponding to $\gamma$, all the Bayesian approaches perform better than Wald’s approach when $\Delta\leq0.8$.
The findings for the EWCI criterion are the following.
- Jeffreys’ prior and the reference prior give similar results when estimating $\Delta$. See Figure 4. The reference prior tends to be better than the uniform prior when $\Delta\geq0.6$ and inferior when $\Delta\leq0.5$. The Wald FCI is the worst when $\Delta\leq0.6$ and the best when $\Delta\geq0.7$. See Figure 3.
- Wald FCIs perform worst when estimating $\gamma$. The uniform prior is no better than Jeffreys’ prior with a slight edge to Jeffreys’ prior when the sample size is small.
Case Studies {#sec6}
============
Bayesian Analysis of Bilateral Data with Sparse Data {#sub1sec6}
----------------------------------------------------
@MandelBluestone1982 considered a double-blind randomized clinical trial which compared the antibiotics Cefaclor and Amoxicillin for the treatment of otitis media with effusion (OME). Among a total of 214 participants in the trial, 11 children were at least six years old and underwent bilateral tympanocentesis prior to randomization into one of two groups (Cefaclor or Amoxicillin). Children in each treatment group received a 14-day course of treatment with one of the antibiotics and dichotomous ear outcomes were determined (i.e., cured or not-cured) and recorded. Table \[tab1sub1sec6\] provides a summary of the data collected. The primary goal of this investigation is to test if the cure rates were identical between Cefaclor and Amoxicillin. A further goal is to estimate the size of the difference of the percentage change, $R-1$, in the performance of the two medications. This example was discussed in @TangTangQiu2008 under Rosner’s model. They obtained $\widehat{\lambda}_0=0.875$ and $\widehat{\lambda
}_1=0.857$. They also found that there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis of equal cure rates.
------------------------- -- -- ------------- -- -- -----------
[Number of ears with]{}
Amoxicillin Cefaclor
0 1 0
1 0 1
2 6 3
[**Total**]{} [**7**]{} [**4**]{}
------------------------- -- -- ------------- -- -- -----------
: OME status after 14 days of Cefaclor or Amoxicillin treatments.[]{data-label="tab1sub1sec6"}
Two striking features characterize this data. (i) The total sample sizes in the Cefaclor and Amoxicillin groups are extremely small. (ii) Table \[tab1sub1sec6\] is sparse with a zero cell in each group. As a result, the normal approximation used in classical analysis does not apply. In addition, the maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of Dallal’s reduced and saturated models sit on the boundary of the parameter space (leading to success probabilities not truly allowed by the product trinomial model). It is impossible to carry out frequentist inference or apply a likelihood-based model selection procedure. In this situation, a common ad-hoc adjustment is to add 1/2 to each cell count. A problem with this ad-hoc adjustment is that the total sample sizes are not integer numbers. The normal approximation still does not apply despite this adjustment. So the Bayesian methodology appears here to be one of the few alternatives.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
\
$U$ & $V$ & $\gamma$ & $\lambda_0$ & $\lambda_1$ & $\Delta$ & $R$ & $\psi$\
1 & 6/7 & 1/19 & 0.95 & 57/70 & -19/140 & 6/7 & 3/13\
\
$U$ & $V$ & $\gamma$ & $\lambda_0$ & $\lambda_1$ & $\Delta$ & $R$ & $\psi$\
10/11 & 14/17 & 1/11 & 5/6 & 77/102 &-4/51 & 77/85 & 77/125\
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
\
$U$ & $V$ & $\gamma_0$ & $\gamma_1$ & $\lambda_0$ & $\lambda_1$ & $\Delta$ & $R$ & $\psi$\
1 & 6/7 & 1/7 & 0 & 0.875 & 6/7 & -1/56 & 48/49 & 6/7\
\
$U$ & $V$ & $\gamma_0$ & $\gamma_1$ & $\lambda_0$ & $\lambda_1$ & $\Delta$ & $R$ & $\psi$\
10/11 & 14/17 & 3/17 & 1/27 & 17/22& 27/34 & 4/187 & 297/289 & 135/119\
[|c|ccc|c|ccc|]{}\
\
& mean & std & 95% HPD & & mean & std & 95% HPD\
$U$ & 0.904 & 0.119 & (0.649, 1.000) & $\lambda_1$ & 0.764 & 0.125 & (0.515, 0.970)\
$V$ & 0.819 & 0.127 & (0.570, 1.000) & $\Delta$ &-0.079 & 0.162 & (-0.417, 0.265)\
$\gamma$ & 0.076 & 0.061 & (0.000, 0.198) & $R$ & 0.931 & 0.245 & (0.468, 1.370)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.842 & 0.120 & (0.597, 0.998) & $\psi$ & 1.013 & 2.052 & (0.002, 3.423)\
\
\
& mean & std & 95% HPD & & mean & std & 95% HPD\
$U$ & 0.899 & 0.124 & (0.635, 1.000) & $\lambda_1$ & 0.756 & 0.128 & (0.505, 0.969)\
$V$ & 0.812 & 0.130 & (0.559, 0.999) & $\Delta$ & -0.082 & 0.168 & (-0.439, 0.261)\
$\gamma$ & 0.077 & 0.062 & (0.000, 0.199) & $R$ & 0.929 & 0.260 & (0.469, 1.395)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.838 & 0.124 & (0.583, 0.997) & $\psi$ & 1.030 & 2.166 & (0.001, 3.486)\
\
\
& mean & std & 95% HPD & & mean & std & 95% HPD\
$U$ & 0.833 & 0.141 & (0.549, 1.000) & $\lambda_1$ & 0.713 & 0.127 & (0.461, 0.935)\
$V$ & 0.778 & 0.131 & (0.524, 0.989) & $\Delta$ & -0.051 & 0.177 & (-0.400, 0.317)\
$\gamma$ & 0.095 & 0.066 & (0.003, 0.224) & $R$ & 0.973 & 0.303 & (0.453, 1.536)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.764 & 0.136 & (0.491, 0.977) & $\psi$ & 1.200 & 1.766 & (0.016, 3.796)\
[|c|ccc|c|ccc|]{}\
\
& mean & std & 95% HPD & & mean & std & 95% HPD\
$U$ & 0.910 & 0.112 & (0.670, 1.000) & $\Delta$ & 0.021 & 0.179 & (-0.342, 0.371)\
$V$ & 0.824 & 0.123 & (0.583, 0.998) & $R$ & 1.065 & 0.299 & (0.548, 1.628)\
$\gamma_0$ & 0.192 & 0.145 & (0.000, 0.481) & $\psi$ & 2.633 & 7.094 & (0.001, 8.849)\
$\gamma_1$ & 0.039 & 0.055 & (0.000, 0.151) & $\delta$ & -0.132 & 0.167 & (-0.491, 0.200)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.773 & 0.128 & (0.532, 0.988) & $\Delta\gamma$ &-0.153 & 0.155 & (-0.495, 0.114)\
$\lambda_1$ & 0.795 & 0.125 & (0.553, 0.993) & & & &\
\
\
& mean & std & 95% HPD & & mean & std & 95% HPD\
$U$ & 0.900 & 0.122 & (0.638, 1.000) & $\Delta$ & 0.019 & 0.186 & (-0.361, 0.393)\
$V$ & 0.813 & 0.129 & (0.560, 0.999) & $R$ & 1.067 & 0.326 & (0.508, 1.667)\
$\gamma_0$ & 0.193 & 0.145 & (0.000, 0.484) & $\psi$ & 2.574 & 6.512 & (0.004, 8.772)\
$\gamma_1$ & 0.040 & 0.055 & (0.000, 0.153) & $\delta$ & -0.135 & 0.176 & (-0.502, 0.221)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.765 & 0.134 & (0.508, 0.988) & $\Delta\gamma$ & -0.153 & 0.155 & (-0.506, 0.106)\
$\lambda_1$ & 0.784 & 0.130 & (0.531, 0.989) & & & &\
\
\
& mean & std & 95% HPD & & mean & std & 95% HPD\
$U$ & 0.833 & 0.141 & (0.548, 1.000) & $\Delta$ & 0.040 & 0.192 & (-0.339, 0.418)\
$V$ & 0.777 & 0.132 & (0.522, 0.989) & $R$ & 1.116 & 0.386 & (0.476, 1.831)\
$\gamma_0$ & 0.231 & 0.148 & (0.007, 0.521) & $\psi$ & 2.161 & 3.727 & (0.022, 6.814)\
$\gamma_1$ & 0.075 & 0.073 & (0.000, 0.224) & $\delta$ & -0.110 & 0.186 & (-0.484, 0.267)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.686 & 0.140 & (0.414, 0.938) & $\Delta\gamma$ & -0.157 & 0.165 & (-0.515, 0.142)\
$\lambda_1$ & 0.725 & 0.131 & (0.470, 0.956) & & & &\
------------------------ -- -- ------------ -- -- ------------
[Number of forearms]{}
Collagen Placebo
0 36 55
1 4 3
2 6 3
[**Total**]{} [**46**]{} [**61**]{}
------------------------ -- -- ------------ -- -- ------------
: Number of scleroderma patients whose forearm MRSS decreased by 2 or 3, or has 0 MRSS at month 15.[]{data-label="tab1sub2sec6"}
[|c|ccc|c|ccc|]{}\
\
& mean & std & 95% HPD & & mean & std & 95% HPD\
$U$ & 0.107 & 0.039 & (0.037, 0.186) & $\lambda_1$ & 0.178 & 0.049 & (0.087, 0.277)\
$V$ & 0.229 & 0.061 & (0.114, 0.348) & $\Delta$ & 0.095 & 0.057 & (-0.017, 0.208)\
$\gamma$ & 0.290 & 0.099 & (0.109, 0.486) & $R$ & 2.479 & 1.338 & (0.640, 5.007)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.084 & 0.031 & (0.028, 0.147) & $\psi$ & 2.855 & 1.746 & (0.566, 6.124)\
\
\
& mean & std & 95% HPD & & mean & std & 95% HPD\
$U$ & 0.104 & 0.038 & (0.037, 0.182) & $\lambda_1$ & 0.174 & 0.049 & (0.085, 0.272)\
$V$ & 0.223 & 0.060 & (0.111, 0.341) & $\Delta$ & 0.092 & 0.056 & (-0.015, 0.204)\
$\gamma$ & 0.291 & 0.099 & (0.110, 0.487) & $R$ & 2.481 & 1.318 & (0.630, 5.004)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.081 & 0.031 & (0.027, 0.143) & $\psi$ & 2.846 & 1.707 & (0.582, 6.115)\
\
\
& mle & std & 95% CI & & mle & std & 95% CI\
$U$ & 0.098 & 0.038 & (0.024, 0.173) & $\lambda_1$ & 0.170 & 0.049 & (0.073, 0.267)\
$V$ & 0.217 & 0.061 & (0.098, 0.337) & $\Delta$ & 0.093 & 0.057 & (-0.019, 0.205)\
$\gamma$ & 0.280 & 0.102 & (0.081, 0.479) & $R$ & 2.210 & 1.057 & (0.866, 5.641)\
$\lambda_0$ & 0.077 & 0.030 & (0.017, 0.136) & $\psi$ & 2.458 & 1.323 & (0.855, 7.062)\
Bayesian posterior estimates and 95% HPD intervals for Dallal’s model and the saturated model based on Jeffreys’, the reference, and the uniform priors and 100,000 iterations are summarized in Tables \[tab2sub1sec6\] and \[tab3sub1sec6\]. Under these three priors, the posterior means of $U$ are far away from the parameter space boundaries as indicated by the non-zero median estimates (not provided for obvious reasons). The 95% HPD intervals for $R$ under the uniform prior tend to be larger than those under Jeffreys’ prior or the reference prior. In addition, the uniform prior seems to perform the worst in terms of the deviance information criterion (DIC) while Jeffreys’ prior and the reference prior seem to perform similarly. The risk difference is essentially zero ($BF^{J}_\lambda=1.965$ and $P(\Delta>0|D)=0.550$; $BF^{R}_\lambda
=1.818$ and $P(\Delta>0|D)=0.541$) and the two cure rates themselves are very high (above 75%). We retain the saturated model over Dallal’s reduced model according to the DIC and $P(\gamma_1-\gamma_0<0|D)$. However, the Bayes factors indicate minimal evidence against the null hypothesis $H^\ast_0: \gamma_1=\gamma_0$ ($BF^{J}_\gamma= 0.682$ and $BF^{R}_\gamma
=1.052$). The 95% HPD interval for $\gamma_1-\gamma_0$ also covers zero. According to the retained model, the conditional posterior probabilities of the cure rate at one site given the other site was cured are very high and slightly higher in the Amoxicillin group, therefore this dependency cannot be ignored. There is also a noticeable discrepancy between the correlation coefficients for the $Z_{ijk}$ variables for the two treatment groups, $1- \dfrac{\gamma_i}{1-\lambda_i},\;i=0,1$.
Bayesian Analysis of Bilateral Data with Large Sample Data {#sub2sec6}
----------------------------------------------------------
@Postlethwaiteetal2008 considered a two-arm multi-centre double-blind randomized trial where 168 diffuse scleroderma patients are randomized to one of two groups to receive either oral native collagen at a dose of 500g/day or a similar appearing placebo. The total duration of the treatment phase was 12 months with an additional visit at month 15 for safety follow-up. Rheumatologists routinely examine both the left and right feet, forearms, hands, fingers, legs, thighs, and upper arms of the patient and assign a modified Rodnan Skin Score (MRSS) score between 0 and 3, that is 0 for normal, 1 for mild, 2 for moderate and 3 for severe skin thickening. The patient’s improvement at each body part level is recorded. After consultation with rheumatologists, a patient has improved at a body part level if the MRSS at the end of the trial is either zero or has dropped by two units or more from baseline. The goal is to test whether there is a significant difference in the improvement rates between the two groups at each body part level. Table \[tab1sub2sec6\] reports an examplary set of results from the trial for the forearms.
In blocks 1 and 2 of Table \[tab2sub2sec6\], we provide Bayesian posterior estimates and credible intervals for Dallal’s model based on Jeffreys’ and Bernardo’s priors. The results are based on 100,000 posterior simulations. In block 3 of Table \[tab2sub2sec6\], we provide frequentist MLEs, Wald FCIs, Aikaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC), along with large-sample $\chi^2$ test for $H_0:\lambda_0=\lambda_1$ and $H^\ast_0: \gamma_1=\gamma_0$. For this data, the total sample size in each group is moderate. Although four of the cells have counts less than 5, the tallies that matter here are the subtotals, $m_{1+}=7, m_{2+}=9, m_{10}+m_{20}=6, m_{00}=55,
m_{11}+m_{21}=10, m_{01}=36$, which are all greater than 5. We provide only the results for Dallal’s reduced model. Indeed, Bayes factors indicate the null hypothesis, $H^\ast_0: \gamma
_1=\gamma_0$, is supported. In this example, the treatment cure rate has decreased the disease risk by two fold. The risk of disease in both treatment and control groups remain high (above 80%). The null hypothesis of equality of the treatment cure rates, $H_0:\lambda_0=\lambda_1$ is supported by our analysis. Overall Dallal’s model and the saturated model give similar results and there is no difference between using Jeffreys’ prior (e.g., $\widehat{R}=2.479$ and BCI: (0.640, 5.007)) or Bernardo’s prior (e.g., $\widehat{R}=2.481$ and BCI: (0.630, 5.004)), although results from Bernardo’s reference prior are easier to compute. Note that our posterior estimates and HPD intervals for the risk difference are in line with the results in Pei et al. (2010) obtained under the equal correlation model ($\widehat{\Delta}=0.0970$, CI: $(-0.0214, 0.2217)$).
General Classes of Prior Distributions {#sec8}
======================================
The reference priors and the uniform prior discussed earlier can be embedded in the family of prior distributions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4sub3sec4}
\pi(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) & = &
\dfrac{2^\alpha}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\alpha,\beta)} \dfrac{\gamma^{\alpha-1}
(1-\gamma)^{\beta-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{\alpha+\beta-a_0-a_1}}
\dfrac{\lambda_0^{a_0-1} \big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]^{b_0-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_0,b_0)}\nonumber\\
& & \dfrac{\lambda_1^{a_1-1}
\;\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]^{b_1-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_1,b_1)},\qquad
(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \ \in\Omega,\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to stating that $$\label{eq5sub3sec4}
\pi(\gamma, u, v) = \dfrac{2^\alpha}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\alpha,\beta)}
\dfrac{\gamma^{\alpha-1} (1-\gamma)^{\beta-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{\alpha+\beta}}
\dfrac{u^{a_0-1}\;(1-u)^{b_0-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_0,b_0)} \dfrac{v^{a_1-1}
(1-v)^{b_1-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_1,b_1)}.$$ Another representation of this class of prior distributions is through the following hierarchical model: (a) $\gamma\sim f(\gamma) = \dfrac{2^\alpha}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\alpha,\beta)}\;
\dfrac{\gamma^{\alpha-1}\;(1-\gamma)^{\beta-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{\alpha+\beta
}}$ or equivalently $\dfrac{1-\gamma}{1+\gamma}\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\beta, \alpha)$, (b) $\lambda_0|\gamma\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}\left(a_0, b_0; 0,\dfrac{1}{1+\gamma
}\right)$, and (c) $\lambda_1|\gamma\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}\left(a_1, b_1; 0,\dfrac{1}{1+\gamma
}\right)$, where ${\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\alpha,\beta; l, u)$ stands for a Beta random variable with shape parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ defined on the interval $(l,u)$.
Jeffreys’ prior distribution for the parameterization $(\gamma, U, V)$ suggests a larger family of conjugate prior distributions for $(\gamma, U, V)$, namely, $$\pi(\gamma, u, v) \propto
\frac{2^\alpha}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\alpha,\beta)}\frac{\gamma^{\alpha-1}
(1-\gamma)^{\beta-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{\alpha+\beta}} (u + rv)^{1/2}
u^{a_0-1}(1-u)^{b_0-1} v^{a_1-1}(1-v)^{b_1-1},$$ with $0<\gamma, u, v<1$ and $\alpha,\beta, a_0, b_0, a_1, b_1>0$, which translates into the prior distribution$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq7sub2sec4}
\pi(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \propto&
\; \frac{2^\alpha}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\alpha,\beta)}\;\frac{\gamma^{\alpha-1}
(1-\gamma)^{\beta-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{\alpha+\beta-a_0-a_1-d}} (\lambda_0 +
r\lambda_1)^{1/2}
\lambda_0^{a_0-1}\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]^{b_0-1}\nonumber\\
& \; \times\lambda_1^{a_1-1}\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big
]^{b_1-1},\qquad\qquad(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1)\in\Omega.\end{aligned}$$
Concluding Remarks {#sec7}
==================
Using the parameterization $(\gamma,U,V)$, it can be deduced that $\Delta=\dfrac{V-U}{1+\gamma}$. This result highlights a direct dependence of the risk difference on the nuisance parameter $\gamma$. This result also points out the main difference between the risk difference in $3\times2$ bilateral data and the risk difference, $V-U$, in an ordinary $2\times2$ table where one collects a single measurement per subject. In other words, the divisor $1+\gamma$ is the term that connects the two disease risks in the bilateral data context. Indeed, according to the expression of the likelihood, $L(\gamma, U, V)$, given in Appendix 1, the parameters $U$ and $V$ can be interpreted as the proportions of cases with one or more body part(s) cured in the placebo and treatment groups. On the opposite side, $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ are interpreted as the proportions of body parts cured in the placebo and treatment groups. So unlike $U$ and $V$, one individual can contribute twice in the computation of $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$.
-------------- ------------------------ -- -- ------------------------
Numbers of
cured organs Treatment Control
0 $m_{01} \; (1-U)$ $m_{00} \; (1-V)$
1 or 2 $m_{+1}-m_{01} \; (U)$ $m_{+0}-m_{00} \; (V)$
-------------- ------------------------ -- -- ------------------------
: Relevant summary statistics for the risk ratio.[]{data-label="tab1sec7"}
Another benefit of the parameterization $(\gamma,U,V)$ is that it shows that the risk ratio, $R=\dfrac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_0}=\dfrac{V}{U}$, does not depend on the nuisance parameter $\gamma$. As a result, both frequentist and Bayesian inferences do not depend on $\gamma$ and are easier to compute. Therefore, the risk ratio has a technical advantage on the risk difference. Moreover, the definition of $R$ in $3\times2$ bilateral data coincides with the definition $R$ from the $2\times2$ binary table in Table \[tab1sec7\]. Actually, the $3\times2$ bilateral table can be replaced by Table \[tab1sec7\] when the focus is on $R$. For these reasons, our choice of the parameter in a bilateral data design is the risk ratio.
While there are numerous frequentist papers dealing with bilateral data, this work remains incomplete. For example, Dallal’s model used in this paper has not been investigated in the frequentist literature although other models have and there are no Bayesian treatments of the problem. Although the risk ratio and the odds ratio are well established parameters in medical settings, they do not appear in the bilateral data literature. A clear advantage of the risk ratio over the commonly used risk difference is that inference does not involve the nuisance parameter $\gamma$. In addition, the risk ratio remains unchanged when going from an ordinary $2\times2$ binary table where all observations are independent to a $3\times2$ binary table where observations taken from the same subjects are correlated. The risk ratio and the odds ratio open the door for bilateral data to be studied under a prospective scheme or a retrospective scheme using an observational study paradigm. The presentation exposed here has taken into account all these inconveniences and has provided a broad discussion of the Bayesian framework both from the point of view of the tests of hypotheses as well as the estimation of the key model parameters. We have added a simulation study to empirically compare the effectiveness of Bayesian methods against themselves as well as frequentist methods in the context of small, moderate and large sample sizes and for a wide range of $\Delta$ values. For example, we have found that Jeffreys’ prior and the reference prior tend to perform similarly. We have also found that frequentist methods tend to perform very poorly when $\Delta$ is small and the sample size is small or moderate. The uniform prior has the best overall property when it comes to estimating the parameter $\gamma$. We have concluded our work with two detailed case studies, one of which shows that it is impossible to carry out frequentist inference given that some of the parameters sit on the boundary of the parameter space or the normal approximation is not accurate. Our Bayesian framework works remarkably well in these situations as well as the large sample cases.
When subject level bilateral data with covariates are available, Dallal’s regression model can be developed in order to incorporate covariates. As discussed in Section \[sub2sec4\], $\gamma$, $U = (1+\gamma)\lambda
_0$, and $V = (1+\gamma)\lambda_1$ are unconstrained and the parameter space is (0,1) for each of these three transformed parameters. Therefore, a logistic regression model can be assumed for each of $\gamma$, $U$, and $V$. Consequently, Jeffreys’ prior and the reference prior can be derived. However, the computational and theoretical properties of these priors need to be carefully examined. The development of Dallal’s regression model deserves a future research project, which is currently under investigation.
The authors wish to thank the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor, the Associate Editor, and the anonymous referee for their very helpful comments and suggestions, which have led to a much improved version of the paper. Dr. M.-H. Chen’s research was partially supported by NIH grants \#GM 70335 and \#CA 74015.
[24]{}
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url\#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
Berger, J. O. and Bernardo, J. M. (1989). “Estimating a Product of Means: [Bayesian]{} Analysis with Reference Priors.” *Journal of the American of Statistical Assocation*, 84: 200–207.
— (1992a). “Ordered Group Reference Priors with Applications to a Multinomial Problem.” *Biometrika*, 79: 25–37.
— (1992b). “Reference Priors in a Variance Components Problem.” In Goel, P. K. and Iyengar, N. (eds.), *Bayesian Analysis in Statistics and Econometrics*, 323–340. New York: Springer-Verlag.
— (1992c). “On the Development of Reference Priors.” In Bernado, J. M., Berger, J. O., Dawid, A. P., and Smith, A. F. M. (eds.), *Bayesian Statistics*, volume 4, 35–60. New York: Oxford: University Press.
Bernardo, J. M. (1981). “Reference Posterior Distributions for [Bayes]{} Inference.” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B*, 41: 113–147.
Chen, M.-H. and Shao, Q.-M. (1999). “[Monte Carlo]{} Estimation of [Bayesian]{} Credible and [HPD]{} Intervals.” *Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics*, 8: 69–92.
Cox, D. R. and Reid, N. (1987). “Parameter Orthogonality and Approximate Conditional Inference.” *Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B*, 49: 1–39.
Dallal, G. E. (1988). “Paired Bernoulli Trials.” *Biometrics*, 44: 253–257.
Datta, G. S. and Ghosh, M. (1996). “On the Invariance of Noninformative Priors.” *The Annals of Statistics*, 24: 141–159.
Ghosh, J. K. and Mukerjee, R. (1992). “Non-informative Priors.” In Bernardo, J. M., Berger, J. O., Dawid, A. P., and Smith, A. F. M. (eds.), *Bayesian Statistics*, volume 4, 195–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jeffreys, H. (1946). “An Invariant Form for the Prior Probability in Estimation Problems.” *Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences*, 186: 453–461.
Mandel, E. M., Bluestone, C. D., Rockette, H. E., Blatter, M. M., Reisinger, K. S., Wucher, F. P., and Harper, J. (1982). “Duration of Effusion after Antibiotic Treatment for Acute Otitis Media: Comparison of Cefaclor and Amoxicillin.” *Pediatric Infectious Diseasee*, 1: 310–316.
Morris, R. W. (1993). “Bilateral Procedures in Randomised Controlled Trials.” *The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery*, 75: 675–6.
Pei, Y.-B., Tang, M.-L., and Guo, J. (2008). “Testing the Equality of Two Proportions for Combined Unilateral and Bilateral Data.” *Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation*, 37: 1515–1529.
Pei, Y.-B., Tang, M.-L., Wong, W.-K., and Guo, J. (2010). “Confidence Intervals for Correlated Proportion Differences from Paired Data in a Two-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial.” *Statistical Methods in Medical Research*, 21: 167–187.
Postlethwaite, A. E., Wong, W. K., Clements, P., Chatterjee, S., Fessler, B. J., Kang, A. H., Korn, J., Mayes, M., Merkel, P. A., Molitor, J. A., Moreland, L., Rothfield, N., Simms, R. W., Smith, E. A., Spiera, R., Steen, V., Warrington, K., White, B., Wigley, F., and Furst, D. E. (2008). “A Multicenter, Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Oral Type I Collagen in Patients with Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis: I. Oral Type I Collagen Does not Improve Skin in all Patients, but may Improve Skin in Late-Phase Disease.” *Arthritis and Rheumatism*, 58: 1810–1822.
Qiu, S.-F., Tang, N.-S., and Tang, M.-L. (2009). “Sample Size for Testing Difference between two Proportions for the Bilateral-Sample Design.” *Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics*, 19: 857–871.
Rosner, B. (1982). “Statistical Methods in Ophthalmology: An Adjustment for the Intraclass Correlation between Eyes.” *Biometrics*, 38: 105–114.
Sun, D. and Berger, J. O. (1998). “Reference Priors with Partial Information.” *Biometrika*, 85: 55–71.
Tang, M.-L., Pei, Y.-B., Wong, W.-K., and Li, J.-L. (2010). “Goodness-of-fit Tests for Correlated Paired Binary Data.” *Statistical Methods in Medical Research*, 1–15.
Tang, M.-L., Tang, N.-S., and Rosner, B. (2006). “Statistical Inference for Correlated Data in Ophthalmologic Studies.” *Statistics in Medicine*, 25: 2771–2783.
Tang, N.-S., Qui, S.-F., Tang, M.-L., and Pei, Y.-B. (2011). “Asymptotic Confidence Interval Construction for Proportion Difference in Medical Studies with Bilateral Data.” *Statistical Methods in Medical Research*, 20: 233–259.
Tang, N.-S., Tang, M.-L., and Qiu, S.-F. (2008). “Testing the Equality of Proportions for Correlated Otolaryngologic Data.” *Computational Statistics and Data Analysis*, 52: 3719–3729.
Yang, R. (1995). “Invariance of the Reference Prior Under Reparametrization.” *Test*, 4: 83–94.
Appendix 1: Derivation of Jeffreys’ Prior {#sec2app .unnumbered}
=========================================
Set $U = (1+\gamma)\lambda_0$ and $V = (1+\gamma)\lambda_1$. Under this new parametrization, the parameter space reduces to the interval $[0,1]$ for each of the three parameters. Theorem A.1 emphasizes the role of a reparametrization technique in obtaining Jeffreys’ prior distribution in the original parametrization after having derived Jeffreys’ prior in the reparametrized space.
[**Theorem A.1**]{} (Consistency Under Reparametrization). [*Consider a model $\mathfrak{M}\equiv\left\{p(X|\theta), {\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathcal{X}},\theta\in\Theta\right\}
$ and let $\phi(\theta)$ be an invertible transformation of $\theta$. Then, the Jeffreys’ prior corresponding to the parameter $\phi$, $\pi(\phi)$, is that induced by the Jeffreys’ prior density of $\theta$, $\pi(\theta)$.* ]{} We prove Proposition \[prop1sub2sec4\] and \[prop2sub2sec4\] below.
As a function of $(\gamma, U,V)$, the likelihood function simplifies to $$L(\gamma, U, V) \propto\dfrac{\gamma^{m_{1+}}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}}}{(1+\gamma)^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}}}
U^{m_{10}+m_{20}}(1-U)^{m_{00}} V^{m_{11}+m_{21}}
(1-V)^{m_{01}}.$$ This parametrization splits the likelihood function into three unrelated pieces, each piece related to a single parameter. This makes it very easy to derive Jeffreys’ prior. The first and second derivatives of the log-likelihood function with respect to $\gamma$, $U$, and $V$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial l(\gamma)}{\partial\gamma} = \dfrac{m_{1+}}{\gamma}-
\dfrac{m_{2+}}{1-\gamma} -
\dfrac{m_{1+}+m_{2+}}{1+\gamma}, & \; \frac{\partial^2 l(\gamma
)}{\partial\gamma^2} = -
\dfrac{m_{1+}}{\gamma^2}-\dfrac{m_{2+}}{(1-\gamma)^2}+\dfrac
{m_{1+}+m_{2+}}{(1+\gamma)^2}, \\
\frac{\partial l(U)}{\partial U} = \dfrac{(m_{20} +
m_{10})}{U}-\dfrac{m_{00}}{1-U}, & \; \frac{\partial^2 l(U)}{\partial
U^2} = -\dfrac{(m_{20} +
m_{10})}{U^2} - \dfrac{m_{00}}{(1-U)^2}, \\
\frac{\partial l(V)}{\partial V} = \dfrac{(m_{21}+m_{11})}{V}\;-\;\dfrac
{m_{01}}{1-V}, & \;
\frac{\partial^2 l(V)}{\partial V^2} = -\dfrac
{(m_{21}+m_{11})}{V^2}-\dfrac{m_{01}}{(1-V)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $r=\dfrac{m_{+1}}{m_{+0}}$ be the ratio of the sample size in the two groups. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
E\Big[-\frac{\partial^2 l(\gamma)}{\partial\gamma^2}\Big] = & \;
\dfrac{2m_{+0}(U + rV)}{\gamma(1-\gamma)(1+\gamma)^2}, \;\;
E\Big[-\dfrac{\partial^2 l(U)}{\partial U^2}\Big] =
\dfrac{m_{+0}}{U(1-U)}, \\
E\Big[-\frac{\partial^2 l(V)}{\partial V^2}\Big] = & \;
\dfrac{m_{+1}}{V(1-V)}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, Jeffreys’ prior under the parameterization $(\gamma, U, V)$ is $$\pi_J(\gamma, u, v) \propto \sqrt{\dfrac{(u + rv) }{\gamma
(1-\gamma) (1+\gamma)^2 u(1-u) v(1-v)}}, \qquad0<\gamma, u, v<1,$$ and it is proper. Theorem A.1 implies that Jeffreys’ prior density in the parameterization $(\gamma, \lambda_0,
\lambda_1)$ is $$\pi_J(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \propto
\sqrt{\dfrac{(1+\gamma)(\lambda_0 + r\lambda_1) }{\gamma
(1-\gamma) \lambda_0 \lambda_1
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]\; \big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]}},$$ where $(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \in\Omega$.
Appendix 2: Derivation of Reference Priors {#sec1app .unnumbered}
==========================================
We first derive the joint reference prior for the parameterization $(\gamma, U, V)$ and then transform back to derive the joint reference prior for $(\gamma,
\lambda_0, \lambda_1)$. See @Yang1995 for justification. We also adopt the notation in @Yang1995. [**Case 1:**]{} Consider the group ordering $\{U,V\}$ and then $\gamma$ or $\{V,U\}$ and then $\gamma$. We have $h_1=\dfrac{m_{+0}}{u(1-u)}$, $h_2=\dfrac{m_{+1}}{v(1-v)}$, and $h_3=\dfrac{2m_{+0}(u+rv)}{\gamma(1-\gamma)(1+\gamma)^2}$. Thus, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^1_R(u,v,\gamma) = & \; \dfrac{|h_3|^{1/2}}{\int|h_3|^{1/2}
d\gamma}\dfrac{\exp\left\{\frac{1}{2}
\int\log(h_1h_2)\,d\gamma\right\}} {\exp\left\{\dfrac{1}{2}\, \iiint
\log(h_1h_2) d\gamma du dv\right\}},\\
\propto& \; \dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} \dfrac{\gamma^{1/2-1}
(1-\gamma)^{1/2-1}}{(1+\gamma)}
\dfrac{u^{1/2-1}(1-u)^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)}\dfrac
{v^{1/2-1}(1-v)^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& \; \pi^1_R(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \\
= & \; \dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} \gamma^{1/2-1}
(1-\gamma)^{1/2-1}\; \dfrac{\lambda_0^{1/2-1}
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)}
\dfrac{\lambda_1^{1/2-1}\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)}.\end{aligned}$$
[**Case 2:**]{} Consider the group ordering of $\{\gamma\}$ and then $\{U,V\}$ or the ordering $\{\gamma\}$ and then $\{V,U\}$. We have $\,h_1=\dfrac{2m_{+0}(u+rv)}{\gamma(1-\gamma)(1+\gamma)^2},\,
h_2=\dfrac{m_{+0}}{u(1-u)}, \, h_3=\dfrac{m_{+1}}{v(1-v)}$. Thus, the reverse reference prior is $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^2_R(u,v,\gamma) = & \; \dfrac{|h_1\,h_2|^{1/2}}{\int|h_1 h_2|^{1/2}
dudv}\dfrac{\exp\left\{\frac{1}{2}
\iint\log(h_3)\,du\,dv\right\}} {\exp\left\{\frac{1}{2} \iiint
\log(h_3) du dv d\gamma\right\}}\nonumber\\
= & \; \dfrac{u^{1/2-1}(1-u)^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)} \dfrac
{v^{1/2-1}(1-v)^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)}
\dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} \dfrac{\gamma^{1/2-1} (1-\gamma
)^{1/2-1}}{(1+\gamma)} \\
= & \pi^1_R(u,v,\gamma).\end{aligned}$$
[**Case 3:**]{} Here one starts with some subjective joint prior distribution for the parameters for which one has a good knowledge of and for the other parameters, one uses a non-informative prior distribution to reflect the lack of knowledge. Assume there is prior evidence for assuming the following conditional joint distribution $$\pi^3_B(\lambda_0, \lambda_1| \gamma) = \dfrac{\lambda_0^{a_0-1}
\left(\frac{1}{1+\gamma}-\lambda_0\right)^{b_0-1}}
{\left(\frac{1}{1+\gamma}\right)^{a_0+b_0-1}{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_0,b_0)}
\dfrac{\lambda_1^{a_1-1}
\left(\frac{1}{1+\gamma}-\lambda_1\right)^{b_1-1}}{\left(\frac
{1}{1+\gamma}\right)^{a_1+b_1-1}{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_1,b_1)},\quad
0<\lambda_0, \lambda_1<\frac{1}{1+\gamma}.$$ about $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ given $\gamma$. That is, $$\lambda_0|\gamma\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}\left(a_0, b_0; 0,\dfrac{1}{1+\gamma}\right),
\;
\lambda_1|\gamma\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}\left(a_1,b_1; 0, \dfrac{1}{1+\gamma}\right)$$ and both $\lambda_0$ and $\lambda_1$ are conditionally independent given $\gamma$. But one has no idea about a prior for $\gamma$. A solution to this problem is to use a reference prior for $\gamma$. Under our partial prior specification, the reference prior is Jeffreys’ prior associated to the integrated likelihood (integrating out $U$ and $V$), $$L(\gamma) \propto \dfrac{\gamma^{m_{1+}}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}}}{(1+\gamma)^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}}}.$$ Hence, the reference prior corresponding to this integrated likelihood is $$\pi^3_R(\gamma) \propto \sqrt{\dfrac{m_{+0}E(\lambda_0) +
m_{+1}E(\lambda_1) }{\gamma(1-\gamma) (1+\gamma)^2}} \propto
\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{\gamma(1-\gamma) (1+\gamma)^2}},$$ and it is proper. Thus, the joint prior distribution over $\Omega$ is then $$\begin{aligned}
& \; \pi^3_R(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \\
= & \;
\dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi}\dfrac{\gamma^{1/2-1}
(1-\gamma)^{1/2-1}}{(1+\gamma)} \dfrac{\lambda_0^{a_0-1}
\;\left(\frac{1}{1+\gamma}-\lambda_0\right)^{b_0-1}}
{\left(\frac{1}{1+\gamma}\right)^{a_0+b_0-1}{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_0,b_0)}\dfrac{\lambda_1^{a_1-1}
\left(\frac{1}{1+\gamma}-\lambda_1\right)^{b_1-1}}{\left(\frac
{1}{1+\gamma}\right)^{a_1+b_1-1}{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(a_1,b_1)},\end{aligned}$$ and it belongs to the family of prior distributions discussed in .
[**Case 4:**]{} Similarly, in the second setup of partial prior specification, one assumes that there is available a family of prior distributions for $\gamma$, for example, $$\pi^4_B(\gamma) = \dfrac{2^\mu}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}\dfrac{\gamma^{\mu-1}
(1-\gamma)^{\nu-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{\mu+\nu}},$$ and one would like to find the joint reference prior distribution for the pair $(\lambda_0, \lambda_1)$ conditional on $\gamma$. The proposed reference prior under this partial prior specification is $$\pi^4_R(\lambda_0, \lambda_1|\gamma) \propto \big|\det(S)\big|^{1/2} =
\sqrt{F_{22} F_{33}} \propto\dfrac{(1+\gamma)}{\sqrt{\lambda_0\lambda_1
\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\big]\big[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\big]}},$$ where $S$ is the lower $2\times2$ left corner matrix of the Fisher information matrix. Hence, the joint prior distribution of $(\gamma,\lambda_0,\lambda_1)$ over $\Omega$ is $$\begin{aligned}
& \; \pi^4_R(\gamma, \lambda_0, \lambda_1) \\
= & \;
\dfrac{2^\mu}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}\dfrac{\gamma^{\mu-1}
(1-\gamma)^{\nu-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{\mu+\nu-1}}\dfrac{\lambda_0^{1/2-1}
\left[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_0\right]^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)}\dfrac{\lambda_1^{1/2-1}
\left[1-(1+\gamma)\lambda_1\right]^{1/2-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(1/2,1/2)}\end{aligned}$$ and it belongs again to the family of prior distributions discussed in .
Appendix 3: Results for Posterior Calculation {#sec3app .unnumbered}
=============================================
[**Proposition A.1.**]{} [*Let $\gamma$ have density $f(\gamma) =
\dfrac{2^{\mu}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}\dfrac{\gamma^{\mu-1} (1-\gamma)^{\nu-1}}{
(1+\gamma)^{\mu+\nu}}, \; 0<\gamma<1$. Then, the density of $\phi={\mbox{logit}}(\gamma)+\log(2)$ is $ f(\phi) = \dfrac{1}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}\dfrac{e^{\mu\phi}}{\big(1+e^\phi
\big)^{\mu+\nu}}$, which is well known to be the density of ${\mbox{logit}}(p)$, where $p\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\mu,\nu)$.*]{}
$\gamma= \dfrac{e^{\phi-\log(2)}}{1+e^{\phi-\log(2)}}$. We have $1-\gamma= \dfrac{1}{1+e^{\phi-\log(2)}}$, $1+\gamma=
\dfrac{1+2e^{\phi-\log(2)}}{1+e^{\phi-\log(2)}}$, and $\dfrac{d\gamma
}{d\phi} =
\dfrac{e^{\phi-\log(2)}}{(1+e^{\phi-\log(2)})^2}$. Thus, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace*{-20pt}f(\phi) = & \;
\dfrac{2^\mu}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}
\dfrac{e^{(\mu-1){(\phi-\log(2))}}}{(1+e^{\phi-\log(2)})^{\mu-1}} \dfrac
{1}{(1+e^{\phi-\log(2)})^{\nu-1}}
\dfrac{(1+e^{\phi-\log(2)})^{\mu+\nu}}{
(1+2e^{\phi-\log(2)})^{\mu+\nu}} \dfrac{e^{\phi-\log(2)}}{(1+e^{\phi
-\log(2)})^2}\hspace*{-20pt}\\
= & \; \dfrac{2^\mu}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}
\dfrac{e^{\mu({\phi-\log(2)})}}{(1+2e^{\phi-\log(2)})^{\mu+\nu}} =
\dfrac{1}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}
\dfrac{e^{\mu\phi}}{(1+e^\phi)^{\mu+\nu}}.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$
[**Proposition A.2.**]{} [*Let $\gamma$ have density $f(\gamma) =
\dfrac{2^{\mu}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}\dfrac{\gamma^{\mu-1} \;(1-\gamma)^{\nu-1}}{
(1+\gamma)^{\mu+\nu}}, \; 0<\gamma<1$. Then, $\pi=\dfrac{1-\gamma
}{1+\gamma}\sim{\mbox{{\bf Be}}}(\nu,\mu)$.*]{}
We have $\gamma= \dfrac{1-\pi}{1+\pi}$. So $1-\gamma= \dfrac{2\pi}{1+\pi}$, $1+\gamma= \dfrac{2}{1+\pi}$, and $\dfrac{d\gamma}{d\pi} = \dfrac{-2}{(1+\pi)^2}$. Thus, we have $$f(\pi) = \dfrac{2^{\mu}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\mu,\nu)}
\dfrac{(1-\pi)^{\mu-1}}{(1+\pi)^{\mu-1}}\dfrac{2^{\nu-1}\pi^{\nu
-1}}{(1+\pi)^{\nu-1}}
\dfrac{(1+\pi)^{\mu+\nu}}{2^{\mu+\nu}}\dfrac{2}{(1+\pi)^2}=
\dfrac{1}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(\nu, \mu)}\pi^{\nu-1}(1-\pi)^{\mu-1}.\qedhere$$
The marginal prior distribution $\pi(\gamma)$ has the following properties. When $\mu=\nu=1$, $\pi
(\gamma)$ is decreasing. When $\mu=1$ and $\nu<1$, $\pi(\gamma)$ is U-shaped, the anti-mode being at $\nu$. When $\mu=1$ and $\nu>1$ or $\nu=1$ and $\mu<1$ or $\mu>1$ and $\nu<1$, $\pi(\gamma)$ is decreasing. When $\nu=1$ and $1<\mu<3$, $\pi(\gamma)$ is unimodal and the mode is at $\gamma=\dfrac{\mu-1}{2}$. When $\nu=1$ and $\mu\geq3$, it is J-shaped. When $\mu,\nu>1$, $\pi(\gamma)$ is unimodal and the mode is at $\gamma= \dfrac{2(\mu-1)} {2\nu+\mu-1+\sqrt{\Lambda}}$, where $\Lambda=(2\nu+\mu-1)^2-8(\mu-1)$. When $\mu<1$ and $\nu<1$, $\pi(\gamma)$ is U-shaped, and the anti-mode is at $\gamma = \dfrac
{2\nu+\mu-1+\sqrt{\Lambda}}{4}$.
Appendix 4: Posterior Distribution of $\Delta$ and $R$ {#sec4app .unnumbered}
======================================================
To derive the posterior distribution of $\Delta$ and $R$, we consider the parameterization $(\gamma, U, V)$. Under this parameterization, the posterior distributions of interest belong to the family$$\begin{aligned}
\pi\big(\gamma, u, v \,|D\big) & = & \dfrac{1}{K} \;\dfrac
{2^{m_{1+}+\alpha}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{1+}+\alpha, m_{2+}+\beta)}
\dfrac{\gamma^{m_{1+}+\alpha-1}\;(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}+\beta-1}}{(1+\gamma
)^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}+\alpha+\beta}}\;(u+rv)^{d}\\
& & \times\dfrac{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}+a_0-1}(1-u)^{m_{00}+b_0-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{10}+m_{20}+a_0, m_{00}+b_0)}\dfrac{v^{m_{11}+m_{21}+a_1-1}\;
(1-v)^{m_{01}+b_1-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{11}+m_{21}+a_1, m_{01}+b_1)}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $0<\gamma, u, v<1$ and $K$ is the normalizing constant. The choice $d=1/2,a_0=b_0=a_1=b_1=1/2$ corresponds to Jeffreys’ posterior distribution and the choice $d=0,a_0=b_0=a_1=b_1=1/2$ corresponds to Bernardo’s posterior distribution.
[**Proposition A.3.**]{} [*The posterior distribution of the risk difference, $\Delta=\lambda
_1-\lambda_0=\dfrac{V-U}{1+\gamma}$, has the complex integral form $$\begin{aligned}
& \; \pi\big(\Delta\,|D\big) \\
= & \; \dfrac{1}{K} \;\int_{-\frac{1+|\Delta|}{|\Delta|}}^{\frac
{1-|\Delta|}
{|\Delta|}} \dfrac{2^{m_{1+}+\alpha}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{1+}+\alpha, m_{2+}+\beta)}
\dfrac{\gamma^{m_{1+}+\alpha-1}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}+\beta-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}+\alpha+\beta}} \\
& \times\int_{\max(0,-(1+\gamma)\Delta)}^{\min(1,1-(1+\gamma)\Delta
)}\Big((1+r)u+r(1+\gamma)\Delta\Big)^{d}
\dfrac{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}+a_0-1}(1-u)^{m_{00}+b_0-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{10}+m_{20}+a_0, m_{00}+b_0)}\nonumber\\
& \times\dfrac{\Big(u+(1+\gamma)\Delta\Big)^{m_{11}+m_{21}+a_1-1}
\Big(1-u-(1+\gamma)\Delta\Big)^{m_{01}+b_1-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{11}+m_{21}+a_1,
m_{01}+b_1)}\,du\,d\gamma.\end{aligned}$$ We also have $$\begin{aligned}
& P\big(\lambda_1-\lambda_0>\Delta_0|D\big) \\
= & \;
\dfrac{2^{m_{1+}+\frac{1}{2}}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{1+}+\frac{1}{2},m_{2+}+\frac
{1}{2}\big)}
\int_{0}^1 \int_0^1 \int_{v>u+\Delta_0/(1+\gamma)}^1 \dfrac{\gamma
^{m_{1+}+\frac{1}{2}-1}
(1-\gamma)^{m_{2+}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{(1+\gamma)^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}+1}}\\
& \times\dfrac{(u+rv)^{d}}{K} \dfrac{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac
{1}{2}-1}(1-u)^{m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac
{1}{2},m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}\big)} \dfrac{v^{m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}-1}
(1-v)^{m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac
{1}{2},m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}\big)} dv du d\gamma.\end{aligned}$$ When $\Delta_0=0$, this expression depends no longer on $\gamma$ and when $d=0$ it is even simpler.* ]{}
[**Proposition A.4.**]{} [*The posterior distribution of the risk ratio, $R=\dfrac{\lambda
_1}{\lambda_0}=\dfrac{V}{U}$, does not depend on $\gamma$ and it has the simpler integral form $$\begin{aligned}
\pi\big(R\,|D\big) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rr}
\displaystyle{\frac{R^{m_{11}+m_{21}+a_1-1}(1+rR)^d}{K\,K^\ast} \int_0^1
u^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}+d+a_0+a_1-1}(1-u)^{m_{00}+b_0-1}} \\
\qquad\displaystyle{\times\left(1-Ru\right)^{m_{01}+b_1-1} \,du}\,
,\qquad0<R \leq1,\\
\displaystyle{\frac{R^{-(m_{10}+m_{20}+a_1+d+1)}(1+rR)^d}{K\,K^\ast}
\int_0^1
v^{m_{1+}+m_{2+}+d+a_0+a_1-1}(1-v)^{m_{01}+b_1-1}}\\
\qquad\displaystyle{\times\left(1-Rv\right)^{m_{00}+b_0-1} \,dv}\,
,\qquad\qquad R>1,
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ where $K^\ast= {\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{10}+m_{20}+a_0, m_{00}+b_0){\mbox{{\bf B}}}(m_{11}+m_{21}+a_1,
m_{01}+b_1)$. When $d=0$, it can be shown that $\pi\big(R\,|D\big)$ is unimodal when $m_{00}$ and $m_{01}$ are positive. We also have $$\begin{aligned}
P\big(R>R_0|D\big)
= \int_0^1 \int_{v>R_0 u}^1 \Big[ & \dfrac{(u+rv)^{d}}{K}
\dfrac{u^{m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2}-1}(1-u)^{m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{10}+m_{20}+\frac{1}{2},m_{00}+\frac{1}{2}\big)} \\
& \times
\dfrac{v^{m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac{1}{2}-1}
(1-v)^{m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}-1}}{{\mbox{{\bf B}}}\big(m_{11}+m_{21}+\frac
{1}{2},m_{01}+\frac{1}{2}\big)} \Big] dv du.\end{aligned}$$* ]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the dynamics of a single electron in a chain of tunnel coupled quantum dots, exploring the formal analogies of this system with some of the laser-driven multilevel atomic or molecular systems studied by Bruce W. Shore and collaborators over the last 30 years. In particular, we describe two regimes for achieving complete coherent transfer of population in such a multistate system. In the first regime, by carefully arranging the coupling strengths, the flow of population between the states of the system can be made periodic in time. In the second regime, by employing a “counterintuitive” sequence of couplings, the coherent population trapping eigenstate of the system can be rotated from the initial to the final desired state, which is an equivalent of the STIRAP technique for atoms or molecules. Our results may be useful in future quantum computation schemes.'
author:
- 'D. Petrosyan'
- 'P. Lambropoulos'
title: 'Coherent population transfer in a chain of tunnel coupled quantum dots[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Population transfer in multistate quantum systems has been an active topic of research over the last half a century. In the context of atomic and molecular physics, coherent population transfer in optically-driven multilevel systems has been studied since the invention of lasers [@shoreBook]. Usually, the objective is to transfer the population from the initial to a well defined final state of the atom or molecule, via one or more intermediate states, while minimizing the loss of population through or its accumulation on the intermediate states. In early theoretical work, Shore and collaborators have studied population transfer in multilevel systems driven by resonant laser fields [@ShrEbr; @CookShore; @Shore]. In particular, they have found that it is possible to arrange the coupling strengths between the adjacent states in such a way that the system becomes analogous to a spin-$J$ in a magnetic field, whose dynamic evolution is known to be periodic for any $J$ [@CookShore]. This coupling scheme was therefore named spin-coupling.
Later, Hioe, Eberly, Bergmann and collaborators discovered the technique of stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) for three-level atomic/molecular systems [@stirap3ls]. They have identified a specific eigenstate of the system, the so-called coherent population trapping (CPT) state, which contains a superposition of the initial and final states, and dates back to Alzetta et al. and Arimondo and Orriols [@CPTeth]. The STIRAP technique is then based on first preparing the system in its initial bare state, which coincides with the CPT state, and then adiabatically rotating the CPT state towards the desired final bare state of the system. This techniques has been subsequently polished [@stirap-rev] and extended to multilevel systems [@stirap4ls; @stirapN-DT; @stirapNsqLs] with the active participation of Bruce W. Shore.
While the above studies were conducted in the context of multilevel atoms or molecules, here we show that similar effects can be found in the context of quantum transport in arrays of tunnel-coupled quantum dots [@QDarray; @DasSarma; @WeNa; @GCHH]. Often referred to as artificial atoms, semiconductor quantum dots offer an unprecedented possibility of constructing at will and exploring situations ranging from practically single atom to a fully solid state many-body systems [@QDrev]. The nanofabrication possibilities of tailoring structures to desired geometries and specifications, and controlling the number and mobility of electrons confined within a region of space, are some of the features that make these structures unique tools for the study [of a]{} variety of preselected set of phenomena, including the coherent population transfer in multistate systems.
Given the controllable quantum properties of the electrons in such structures, the possibility of their application to schemes of quantum computers (QCs) [@QCI] has not escaped attention [@LDV; @QDQCdsgn; @zanros]. The qubits of the QD-array based QC would be represented by the spin-states of single electrons confined in individual QDs, with the two-qubit nearest-neighbor coupling mediated by the controlled spin-exchange interaction [@LDV; @QDQCdsgn]. One of the main difficulties with the existing proposals for integrated solid-state based QCs is that there is no efficient way of transferring the information between distant qubits. We consider here a single-electron tunneling in a one-dimensional array of QDs and establish the conditions under which the complete transfer of the electron wavepacket between two distant locations can be achieved. Our findings could therefore be relevant to the reliable information exchange between distant parts of an integrated quantum computer [@weNPL].
In Section \[sec:mform\] we outline the mathematical formalism describing a chain of QDs, in terms of which, in Section \[sec:spin\], we present the theory of coherent propagation and periodic oscillations of the electron wavepacket between the two ends of the chain. The single-electron transfer via an equivalent of multistate STIRAP is discussed in Section \[sec:stirap\]. In Section \[sec:concl\] we describe an envisioned implementation of a scalable quantum computer, followed by the concluding remarks.
Mathematical formalism {#sec:mform}
======================
We consider electron transport in a linear array of $N$ nearly identical QDs which are electrostatically defined in a two-dimensional electron gas by means of metallic gates on top of a semiconductor heterostructure (GaAs/AlGaAs) [@QDarray; @QDrev]. This system is described by the extended Mott-Hubbard Hamiltonian [@DasSarma; @WeNa], which in its most general form is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& \sum_{j,\alpha} {\varepsilon}_{j\alpha} {a^{\dagger}}_{j\alpha} a_{j\alpha}
+\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j} U n_j (n_j -1) \nonumber \\ & &
+\sum_{i < j,\alpha} t_{ij,\alpha} ({a^{\dagger}}_{i\alpha} a_{j\alpha}+
a_{i\alpha} {a^{\dagger}}_{j\alpha}) + \sum_{i < j} V_{ij} n_i n_j , \label{Ham}\end{aligned}$$ where ${a^{\dagger}}_{j\alpha}$ and $a_{j\alpha}$ are the creation and annihilation operators for an electron in state $\alpha$ with the single-particle energy ${\varepsilon}_{j\alpha}$, $U$ is the on-site Coulomb repulsion, $n_j=\sum_{\alpha} {a^{\dagger}}_{j\alpha} a_{j\alpha}$ the total electron number operator of the $j$th dot, $t_{ij,\alpha}$ are the coherent tunnel matrix elements between dots $i$ and $j$, and $V_{ij}$ is the interdot electrostatic interaction. In general, the index $\alpha$ refers to both orbital and spin states of an electron. In the tight-binding regime, when the on-site Coulomb repulsion and single-particle level-spacing ${\Delta}{\varepsilon}$ are much larger than the tunneling rates, $U > {\Delta}{\varepsilon}\gg t_{ij,\alpha}$, only the equivalent states of the neighboring dots are tunnel-coupled to each other [@cmnt]. In the absence of a magnetic field, we can thus limit our consideration only to a single doubly- (spin-) degenerate level per dot ($\alpha\in\{{\uparrow},{\downarrow}\}$), assuming further that the tunneling rates do not depend on the electron spin.
![Schematic drawing of the chain of tunnel-coupled QDs. \[qdch\_1e\]](qdch1e.eps){width="6cm"}
In this paper we are concerned with single-electron dynamics, considering a situation in which a preselected QD is initially doped with one mobile electron, while all of the other dots of the chain are empty, as indicated in Fig. \[qdch\_1e\]. Our aim is to determine the conditions under which the complete coherent transfer of the electron between the two ends of the chain can be achieved. The population transfer in this system is mediated by the tunneling between the neighboring QDs. The individual tunneling rates $t_j \equiv t_{jj+1}$ are determined by the voltages applied to the gates defining the corresponding interdot tunneling barriers. A chain of $N$ tunnel-coupled QDs doped with a single electron is described by the following Hamiltonian, $$H_{\rm 1e} = \sum_{j,\alpha} {\varepsilon}_{j} {a^{\dagger}}_{j\alpha} a_{j\alpha}
+ \sum_{j,\alpha} t_j ({a^{\dagger}}_{j \alpha} a_{j+1,\alpha}+
a_{j\alpha} {a^{\dagger}}_{j+1,\alpha}) \label{Ham1e},$$ which obviously does not contain terms responsible for electrostatic interactions. Since this Hamiltonian preserves the electron number and its spin, the total state-vector of the system reads $${\, | \psi(\tau) \rangle} = \sum_{j,\alpha}^N A_{j}^{\alpha}(\tau){\, | j_\alpha \rangle}
\label{wfunct},$$ where ${\, | j_\alpha \rangle} \equiv {a^{\dagger}}_{j\alpha} {\, | 0_1,...,0_N \rangle}$ denotes the state with one electron having spin $\alpha$ at the $j$th dot. The time-evolution of the system is governed by the Schrödinger equation $\mathrm{i}{\, | \dot{\psi} \rangle} = H_{\rm 1e}{\, | \psi \rangle}$ ($\hbar =1$), which yields $$\mathrm{i} \frac{d A_j^{\alpha}}{d \tau} = {\varepsilon}_{j} A_j^{\alpha}
+ t_{j-1} A_{j-1}^{\alpha} + t_{j} A_{j+1}^{\alpha} ,
\label{em1e}$$ where $t_{0} = t_{N} =0$. Obviously, the two sets of these amplitude equations with $\alpha = {\uparrow}$ and $\alpha = {\downarrow}$ are equivalent and decoupled from each other. As a result, if the electron is prepared in an arbitrary superposition of spin up and spin down states, ${\, | \psi \rangle} = A_{j}^{{\uparrow}}{\, | j_{\uparrow}\rangle}+A_{j}^{{\downarrow}}{\, | j_{\downarrow}\rangle}$, the two parts of the wavefunction evolve symmetrically and independently of each other. This assertion is valid as long as all the uncontrollable spin-flip processes are vanishingly small on the time scale of $t^{-1}$. In semiconductor QDs, the spin decoherence originates mainly from the spin-phonon coupling, as well as the coupling of the electron spin with the nuclear spins of the surrounding crystal (hyperfine interaction) or stray magnetic fields. The first decoherence mechanism is suppressed at low temperatures [@cmnt], at which the density of crystal phonons is negligible [@phonons]. As for the uncontrollable hyperfine interactions, experimental measurements indicate spin-relaxation times in excess of $100\:\mu$s, which can be further improved by applying moderate magnetic fields or polarizing the nuclear spins [@sRLX]. Another mechanism for decoherence in the process of electron (charge) transfer in our system originates from the structure imperfections and gate voltage fluctuations, which cause uncertainty in the intradot energy levels and interdot couplings. These fluctuations, however, are typically slow on the time scale of $t^{-1}$, and the resulting disorder in the system may be considered frozen during its dynamic evolution, as we have discussed in a previous publication [@weNPL].
Let us write the Hamiltonian for the electron with spin $\alpha$ in the matrix form $$H_{\rm 1e}^{\alpha} =
\left[ \begin{array}{cccccc}
{\varepsilon}_1 & t_1 & 0 & \cdots & & \\
t_1 & {\varepsilon}_2 & t_2 & & & \\
0 & t_2 & {\varepsilon}_3 & & & \\
\vdots & & & \ddots & & \vdots \\
& & & & {\varepsilon}_{N-1} & t_{N-1} \\
& & & \cdots & t_{N-1} & {\varepsilon}_N
\end{array} \right] , \label{Ham1ealpha}$$ which is obviously tridiagonal. Inspection of the amplitude equations (\[em1e\]) or the Hamiltonian (\[Ham1ealpha\]) indeed verifies that our system is formally analogous to the laser-driven multilevel atomic or molecular systems studied by Shore and coworkers [@ShrEbr; @CookShore; @Shore] and Bergmann, Shore and others [@stirap3ls; @stirap-rev; @stirap4ls; @stirapN-DT; @stirapNsqLs]. Here, the tunneling rates $t_j$ between states ${\, | j \rangle}$ and ${\, | j+1 \rangle}$ play the same role as the Rabi frequencies of the laser fields acting on the atomic transitions ${\, | j \rangle} {\leftrightarrow}{\, | j+1 \rangle}$, while the energies ${\varepsilon}_{j}$ of states ${\, | j \rangle}$ correspond to the cumulative detunings of the atomic levels. In the following Sections, we describe two methods for achieving complete population transfer from the initial ${\, | 1 \rangle}$ to the final ${\, | N \rangle}$ state of the system, which turn out to be the counterpart of those in Refs. [@CookShore] and [@stirapNsqLs].
Periodic oscillations of population between the two end states {#sec:spin}
==============================================================
In this Section we consider the electron wavepacket dynamics in the chain with static couplings between the dots. Assume that at time $\tau=0$ the electron is localized on the first dot, ${\, | \psi^{\alpha}(0) \rangle} = {\, | 1_{\alpha} \rangle}$, and the tunnel couplings are switched on. This switching should be fast enough on the time scale of $t^{-1}$, so that no appreciable change in the initial state of the system occurs during the switching time $\tau_{\rm sw}$, but slow on the time scale of ${\varepsilon}^{-1}$, so that no nonresonant coupling between the dots is induced: ${\varepsilon}^{-1} < \tau_{\rm sw} < t^{-1}$. The aim is to determine the set of couplings between the states of the systems which will achieve a complete transfer of the electron population from the initial to the final dot.
To determine the time-evolution of the state vector (\[wfunct\]) we need to solve the eigenvalue problem $H_{\rm 1e}^{\alpha} {\, | \psi^{\alpha} \rangle} = {\lambda}{\, | \psi^{\alpha} \rangle}$ which will yield the eigenvalues ${\lambda}_k$ and corresponding eigenvectors ${\, | \psi_k^{\alpha} \rangle}$ of the Hamiltonian (\[Ham1ealpha\]). The state vector ${\, | \psi^{\alpha}(\tau) \rangle}$ at any time $\tau \geq 0$ is given by $${\, | \psi^{\alpha}(\tau) \rangle} = \sum_k^N e^{- \mathrm{i} {\lambda}_k \tau}
{\, | \psi_k^{\alpha} \rangle} {\langle \psi_k^{\alpha} | \psi^{\alpha}(0) \rangle}
= \sum_{j}^N A_{j}^{\alpha}(\tau) {\, | j_\alpha \rangle} . \label{EigstExp}$$ Note that the matrix in Eq. (\[Ham1ealpha\]) has the form of the tridiagonal Jacobi matrix. It is natural to first consider the case of equal tunneling rates between the dots: $t_j = t$. Assuming equal energies ${\varepsilon}_j = {\varepsilon}$ and making the transformation $A_j^{\alpha}\to A_j^{\alpha} e^{i {\varepsilon}\tau}$, which is equivalent to the interaction picture, we find that the determinant $\mathcal{D}_N({\lambda}) \equiv \det(H_{\rm 1e}^{\alpha} - {\lambda}\mathbb{I})$ is identical to the Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind, which can be expressed as $\mathcal{D}_N({\lambda}) = \Pi_{k=1}^{N} ({\lambda}-{\lambda}_k)$. The eigenenergies of the system are then given by the roots of this polynomial, namely $${\lambda}_k = 2 t \cos \left( \frac{k \pi}{N+1}\right) ,$$ while the corresponding eigenvectors are $${\, | \psi_k^{\alpha} \rangle} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{N+1}} \sum_{j}^N
\sin\left( \frac{j k \pi}{N+1}\right) {\, | j_{\alpha} \rangle} .$$ Using Eq. (\[EigstExp\]) and the initial conditions $A_1 = 1$ and $A_j = 0$ for $j=2,3,\ldots N$, we obtain the solutions for the amplitudes as, $$\begin{aligned}
A_j^{\alpha} &=& \frac{2}{N+1} \sum_{k=1}^{N}
\exp \left[-\mathrm{i} 2 t \tau \cos \left( \frac{k \pi}{N+1}\right)\right]
\nonumber \\
& & \times \sin\left( \frac{j k \pi}{N+1}\right)
\sin\left( \frac{k \pi}{N+1}\right).\end{aligned}$$ It is thus evident that the eigenstates of the coupled system oscillate with incommensurate frequencies corresponding to the roots ${\lambda}_k$ of $\mathcal{D}_N$, which in fact become increasingly densely spaced with increasing $N$. As a consequence, the system never revives fully to its initial state, as is illustrated in Fig. \[qdc\_1e\_St\](a).
{width="11cm"}
Clearly, it is highly desirable to tailor the parameters of the system so as to achieve a non-dispersive transfer of the single-electron wavepacket between the two ends of the chain. Recall from the theory of angular momentum that a spin-$J$ particle subject to a constant magnetic field exhibits Larmor precession about the field direction. In particular, if one chooses the quantization direction along an axis perpendicular to the magnetic field direction and prepares the particle in its lowest spin eigenstate ${\, | J,M=-J \rangle}$, it will oscillate between this initial and the final state ${\, | J,M=J \rangle}$ in a perfectly periodic way. The matrix elements for the transitions ${\, | J,M \rangle} {\leftrightarrow}{\, | J,M+1 \rangle}$ between the neighboring states are proportional to $\sqrt{(J-M)(J+M+1)}$. It is therefore clear that with the appropriate choice of the interdot tunneling matrix elements, the dynamics of the single-electron in a chain of QDs can mimic that of a spin-$J$ in a magnetic field. Indeed, if we formally set $N = 2J+1$ and $j = J+ M +1$, the tunneling rates $t_j$ should be arranged according to $t_j=t \sqrt{(N-j)j}$ for $j=1,...,N-1$. Then again, by exploring the properties of the Jacobi polynomials, we find equally spaced eigenenergies of the system, $${\lambda}_k = t (2k-N-1) ,$$ while the corresponding eigenvectors can be expressed through the rotation matrices commonly used in the representation theory of angular momentum. With the initial conditions $A_1 = 1$ and $A_j = 0$ for $j=2,3,\ldots N$, for the amplitudes of the state-vector (\[wfunct\]), we then obtain simple analytic expressions given by the binomial form $$A_j^{\alpha} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
N-1 \\ j-1 \end{array} \right)^{1/2}
[-\mathrm{i} \sin{(t \tau)}]^{(j-1)} \cos{(t \tau)}^{(N-j)} .$$ Since the eigenstates of the system have commensurate energies ${\lambda}_k$, the electron wavepacket oscillates in a perfectly periodic way between the first and the last dots, whose occupation probabilities are given, respectively, by $|A_1^{\alpha}|^2 = \cos{(t \tau)}^{2(N-1)}$ and $|A_N^{\alpha}|^2 = \sin{(t \tau)}^{2(N-1)}$, which is illustrated in Fig. \[qdc\_1e\_St\](b). In particular, if at time $\tau = \pi /(2 t)$ the tunneling rates are suddenly switched off, we obtain $|A_1^{\alpha}|^2 = 0$ and $|A_N^{\alpha}|^2 = 1$, i.e. complete population transfer from the initial to the final state of the system. In a somewhat abstract sense, the behavior of the system is thus similar to that of a two-level system subject to a $\pi$ pulse. Let us note at this point that the population transfer between the two ends of the chain can be achieved most straightforwardly by sequentially pulsing the tunneling rates between the first and second dots for time $\tau_1 = \pi/(2 t_1)$, then the second and third dots for time $\tau_2 = \pi/(2 t_2)$, etc till reaching the $N$th dot, which is equivalent to applying a sequence of $\pi$ pulses in a multistate atomic system. In the scheme described above, however, all the interdot tunnelings are switched on and then off simultaneously, realizing thereby a fast and efficient transfer of the electron from the first to the last QD.
Adiabatic population transfer between the two end states {#sec:stirap}
========================================================
While the above tunneling schemes, involving a sequence of $\pi$ pulses or an effective collective $\pi$ pulse, require both, careful control of the individual tunneling rates and their timing, in this Section we describe a robust adiabatic method for population transfer which is not very sensitive to small uncertainties in the interdot tunneling rates. Recall that a three-level atom interacting with two laser fields, under the condition of two-photon (Raman) resonance, possesses a coherent population trapping (CPT) state, which is decoupled from both laser fields [@stirap-rev]. Equivalently, for a chain of three tunnel-coupled quantum dots, assuming equal energies ${\varepsilon}_j = {\varepsilon}$, the eigenstate of Hamiltonian (\[Ham1ealpha\]) with zero eigenvalue, ${\lambda}_0=0$, is given by $${\, | \psi_0^{\alpha} \rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{N}_0}}
[t_2 {\, | 1_{\alpha} \rangle} - t_1 {\, | 3_{\alpha} \rangle}], \qquad
\mathcal{N}_0 = t_1^2 + t_2^2 \label{CPT3l}.$$ This is a CPT state that does not contain a contribution from the intermediate state ${\, | 2_{\alpha} \rangle}$. The other two eigenstates $$\begin{aligned}
{\, | \psi_{\pm}^{\alpha} \rangle} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{N}_{\pm}}}
[t_1{\, | 1_{\alpha} \rangle} - {\lambda}_{\pm} {\, | 2_{\alpha} \rangle} + t_2 {\, | 3_{\alpha} \rangle}], \\
& & \mathcal{N}_{\pm} = t_1^2 + {\lambda}_{\pm}^2 + t_2^2 = 2 \mathcal{N}_0 ,\end{aligned}$$ with corresponding eigenvalues ${\lambda}_{\pm} = \pm \sqrt{t_1^2 + t_2^2}$, contain all three states ${\, | j_{\alpha} \rangle}$. If for a given coupling strengths $t_1$ and $t_2$ the system is prepared in the CPT state (\[CPT3l\]), it will remain in this state as long as the couplings are constant in time. But even for time-dependent couplings, the system initially prepared in the CPT state can adiabatically follow this state, provided the tunneling rates change slowly enough. More quantitatively, the nonadiabatic coupling between the eigenstates of Hamiltonian (\[Ham1ealpha\]) is small, if during the evolution the transition amplitude ${\langle \psi_{\pm}^{\alpha} | \dot{\psi}_0^{\alpha} \rangle}$ remains much smaller than the energy separation between the corresponding eigenstates [@stirap-rev], $$|{\langle \psi_{\pm}^{\alpha} | \dot{\psi}_0^{\alpha} \rangle}| \ll |{\lambda}_{\pm} - {\lambda}_0|.
\label{adiabat}$$ Our objective is to transfer the electron from the first to the last QD using the time-dependent (pulsed) tunnel-couplings. From Eq. (\[CPT3l\]) one can see that if at an early time the tunnel coupling $t_2$ is switched on while $t_1 \ll t_2$, the CPT state coincides with the initial state ${\, | 1_{\alpha} \rangle}$. One then slowly (adiabatically) decreases $t_2$ while increasing $t_1$, so that at a later time $t_1 \gg t_2$ and the CPT state coincides with the final state ${\, | 3_{\alpha} \rangle}$. Assuming that $t_2$ and $t_1$ are represented by partially overlapping pulses, each having temporal width $\tau_{\rm w}$, the adiabaticity condition (\[adiabat\]) requires $t_{1,2}^{\rm max} \tau_{\rm w} \gg 1$.
{width="12cm"}
In the field of atomic/molecular physics, this technique, involving the so-called counterintuitive sequence of pulses, is known as the stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) that is commonly used for coherent population transfer in three-state systems [@stirap-rev]. We note that the solid-state implementations of the CPT and STIRAP in a pair of coupled quantum dots driven by two electromagnetic fields has been proposed in [@QDsOptCPT]. The single electron transfer in a chain of three QDs via counterintuitive pulsing of tunnel-couplings as discussed above has been studied by Greentree et al. in [@GCHH], where it was termed coherent tunneling by adiabatic passage (CTAP). These authors also considered the extension of CTAP to multidot systems employing the so-called straddling scheme of [@stirapN-DT]. Other schemes for adiabatic electron transport in tunnel-coupled QDs have been discussed in [@ETrAdabat].
Another extension of the STIRAP technique to systems containing more than just three states has been given in [@stirapNsqLs]. This scheme can easily be adapted to our system, as described below. We thus consider a chain of $N$ sequentially coupled QDs and assume that the individual tunnel couplings can selectively and independently be manipulated. When $N$ is odd, i.e. $N=3,5,7,\ldots$, the Hamiltonian (\[Ham1ealpha\]) has a CPT eigenstate $$\begin{aligned}
{\, | \psi_0^{\alpha} \rangle} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{N}_0}}
[t_2 t_4 \ldots t_{N-1} {\, | 1_{\alpha} \rangle} +
(-1) t_1 t_4 \ldots t_{N-1} {\, | 3_{\alpha} \rangle}
\nonumber \\ & & \quad + \ldots
+ (-1)^J t_1 t_3 \ldots t_{N-2} {\, | N_{\alpha} \rangle}], \label{CPTNl} \\
& & J \equiv \frac{1}{2} (N-1) , \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with eigenvalue ${\lambda}_0 =0$. Thus the amplitude of the initial state ${\, | 1_{\alpha} \rangle}$ is proportional to the product of all the even-numbered tunnel-couplings, while the amplitude of state ${\, | N_{\alpha} \rangle}$ is given by the product of all odd-numbered tunnel-couplings, divided by the normalization parameter $\mathcal{N}_0 = (t_2 t_4 \ldots t_{N-1})^2
+ \ldots + (t_1 t_3 \ldots t_{N-2})^2$. Therefore, if all the even-numbered tunnel-couplings are pulsed together first, the CPT state (\[CPTNl\]) would coincide with the initial state ${\, | 1_{\alpha} \rangle}$. This is then followed by switching-on all the odd-numbered tunnel-couplings, while the even-numbered ones decrease, which will result in a complete transfer of electron wavepacket to the state ${\, | N_{\alpha} \rangle}$. If we assume that these two families of pulses are described by common shape functions, $t_2, t_4, \ldots , t_{N-1} = t_{\rm even}$ and $t_1, t_3, \ldots , t_{N-2} = t_{\rm odd}$, Eq. (\[CPTNl\]) takes a compact form $$\begin{aligned}
{\, | \psi_0^{\alpha} \rangle} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathcal{N}_0}}
\sum_{n=0}^{J} (-t_{\rm odd})^n \,
t_{\rm even}^{J-n} \, {\, | (2n+1)_{\alpha} \rangle}, \label{CPTNlcmp} \\
& & \mathcal{N}_0 = \sum_{n=0}^{J} t_{\rm odd}^{2n} \,
t_{\rm even}^{2(J-n)} , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ which makes the above discussion more transparent. In particular, complete population transfer from the initial state ${\, | 1_{\alpha} \rangle}$ to the final state ${\, | N_{\alpha} \rangle}$ can be achieved by applying first the $t_{\rm even}$ pulses and then the $t_{\rm odd}$ pulses, the two sets of pulses partially overlapping in time, as shown in Fig. \[qdc\_1e\_Dyn\].
In order to minimize the nonadiabatic coupling of the CPT state to other eigenstates of the system, the rate of change of $t_{\rm even}$ and $t_{\rm odd}$, given approximately by the inverse pulse-width $\tau_{\rm w}^{-1}$, should be small compared to corresponding eigenenergies $|{\lambda}| \sim |t_{\rm even} + t_{\rm odd}|$, which yields the same condition as above, $t_{\rm even, odd}^{\rm max} \tau_{\rm w} \gg 1$. One can see from the results in Fig. \[qdc\_1e\_Dyn\](a), which were obtained precisely for this reason, that when this condition is not very well satisfied, the population transfer is incomplete. As expected, when the tunneling rates are pulsed for longer times, or, equivalently, have larger amplitudes, the adiabaticity condition is satisfied better, resulting in the complete population transfer from the initial to the final dot of the chain, as seen in Fig. \[qdc\_1e\_Dyn\](b). The remarkable advantage of this method over the one described in the previous Section is that as long as the two sets of partially overlapping pulses are strong enough, the adiabatic transfer of population is expected to be robust with respect to small uncertainties and fluctuations of tunneling rates, just like its atomic/molecular counterpart in Refs. [@stirap3ls; @stirap-rev; @stirapNsqLs]. On the other hand, the electron transfer via effective collective $\pi$ pulse can be achieved with smaller tunneling rates and/or reduced interaction times, provided a precise control of the tunneling amplitudes and timings is possible. Depending on the characteristics of the particular system, one or the other method may prove to be more practical.
Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===========
In the above Sections, we have studied the dynamics of a single-electron transport in a linear array of tunnel coupled quantum dots. We have identified two regimes under which a complete coherent transfer of electron wavepacket between the two ends of the array can be achieved. Our results could be used for reliable information exchange between distant parts of an integrated quantum computer. As already noted in the Introduction, one of the difficulties with the existing proposals for integrated QD based QCs [@LDV; @QDQCdsgn] is that the qubits (electron spins) interact with the nearest neighbors only, and there is no efficient way of transferring the information between distant qubits. As a way around such difficulties, one can envision an integrated quantum register composed of a large number of sub-registers, each containing two or more adjacent qubits, represented by spins of single electrons in individual QDs. The sub-registers are embedded in a two-dimensional array of empty QDs. As we have shown in an earlier publication [@weNPL], through the mechanism of transient Heisenberg coupling, combined with the control of tunnel-coupling between the dots studied in this paper, this two-dimensional grid could realize a flexible quantum channel, capable of connecting any pair of qubits within the register. Thus, to transfer the information, one connects distant sub-registers by a chain of empty QDs and applies one of the protocols described in the previous Sections to achieve a non-dispersive transfer of the qubit, followed by its controlled entanglement with a target qubit [@LDV]. Note that this scheme is analogous to a proposal for an integrated ion trap based QC [@ingrIT], where, in order to circumvent the difficulties associated with a single large ion trap quantum register, it has been proposed to use many small sub-registers, each containing only a few ions, and connect these sub-registers to each other via controlled qubit (ion) transfer to the interaction region (entangler) represented by yet another ion trap.
We should note that the coherent electron dynamics in arrays of tunnel-coupled QDs bears many analogies with spin-wave dynamics in spin chains [@EckBose] or electromagnetic field dynamics in periodic photonic crystals [@mher; @wgarray], where some of the effects described above should be observable. With an unprecedented control over system parameters, arrays of QDs doped with more than one electron allow for studies of numerous coherence and correlation effects in many-body physics.
This work is an outgrowth of earlier collaborative work with Dr. G.M. Nikolopoulos which we gratefully acknowledge.
[99]{}
B.W. Shore, [*The Theory of Coherent Atomic Excitation*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1990).
J. H. Eberly, B.W. Shore, Z. Bialynicka-Birula and I. Bialynicki-Birula, Phys. Rev. A [**16**]{} (1977) 2038; Z. Bialynicka-Birula, I. Bialynicki-Birula, J.H. Eberly and B.W. Shore, Phys. Rev. A [**16**]{} (1977) 2048.
R. Cook and B.W. Shore, Phys. Rev. A [**20**]{} (1979) 539.
B.W. Shore and R. Cook, Phys. Rev. A [**20**]{} (1979) 1958; B.W. Shore, Phys. Rev. A [**29**]{} (1984) 1578.
J. Oreg, F.T. Hioe and J.H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. A [**29**]{} (1984) 690; J.R. Kuklinski, U. Gaubatz, F.T. Hioe and K. Bergmann, Phys. Rev. A [**40**]{} (1989) 6741; U. Gaubatz, P. Rudecki, S. Schiemann and K. Bergmann, J. Chem. Phys. [**92**]{} (1990) 5363.
G. Alzetta, A. Gozzini, L. Moi and G. Orriols, Nuovo Cimento [**36B**]{} (1976) 5; E. Arimondo and G. Orriols, Lett. Nuovo Cimento [**17**]{} (1976) 333.
K. Bergmann, H. Theuer and B.W. Shore, Coherent population transfer among quantum states of atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{} (1998) 1003.
Y.B. Band and P.S. Julienne, J. Chem. Phys. [**95**]{} (1991) 5681; J. Oreg, K. Bergmann, B.W. Shore and S. Rosenwaks, Phys. Rev. A [**45**]{} (1992) 4888.
V.S. Malinovsky and D.J. Tannor, Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{} (1997) 4929; N.V. Vitanov, B.W. Shore and K. Bergmann, Eur. Phys. J. D [**4**]{} (1998) 15.
B.W. Shore, K. Bergmann, J. Oreg and S. Rosenwaks, Phys. Rev. A [**44**]{} (1991) 7442.
L.P. Kouwenhoven, F.W.J. Hekking, B.J. van Wees, C.J.P.M. Harmans, C.E. Timmering and C.T. Foxon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{} (1990) 361; F.R. Waugh, M.J. Berry, D.J. Mar, R.M. Westervelt, K.L. Campman and A.C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} (1995) 705; D.S. Duncan, M.A. Topinka, R.M. Westervelt, K.D. Maranowski and A.C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{} (2001) 045311.
C.A. Stafford and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{} (1994) 3590; R. Kotlyar, C.A. Stafford and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{} (1998) R1746; C.A. Stafford, R. Kotlyar and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{} (1998) 7091.
M.R. Wegewijs and Y.V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{} (1999) 14318.
A.D. Greentree, J.H. Cole, A.R. Hamilton and L.C.L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{} (2004) 235317.
L.P. Kouwenhoven, C.M. Marcus, P.L. McEuen, S. Tarucha, R.M. Westervelt and N.S. Wingreen, Electron transport in quantum dots, in: L.L. Sohn, L.P. Kouwenhoven and G. Sch[ö]{}n, eds., [*Mesoscopic Electron Transport: Series E: Applied Sciences*]{} vol. [**345**]{} (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1997) 105-214; S.M. Reimann and M. Manninen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{} (2002) 1283; W.G. van der Wiel, S.D. Franceschi, J.M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa, S. Tarucha and L.P. Kouwenhoven, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**75**]{} (2003) 1.
M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
D. Loss and D.P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{} (1998) 120.
L.M.K. Vandersypen, R. Hanson, L.H.[Willems van Beveren]{}, J.M. Elzerman, J.S. Greidanus, S. [De Franceschi]{} and L.P. Kouwenhoven, [*Quantum computing with electron spins in quantum dots*]{}, in [*Quantum Computing and Quantum Bits in Mesoscopic Systems*]{} (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2002); M. Friesen, P. Rugheimer, D.E. Savage, M.G. Lagally, D.W. [van der Weide]{}, R. Joynt and M.A. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{} (2003) 121301(R).
P. Zanardi and F. Rossi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 4752.
G.M. Nikolopoulos, D. Petrosyan and P. Lambropoulos Europhys. Lett. [**65**]{} (2004) 297; J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**16**]{} (2004) 4991.
Typically, in $\sim 50$ nm size GaAs/AlGaAs QDs, separated from each other by $\sim 100$ nm, one has $t_j \sim 0.05$ meV, ${\Delta}{\varepsilon}\sim 0.4$ meV, $U \sim 10$ meV, and at dilution-refrigerator temperatures $T \sim 2-10$ mK the thermal energy is $k_{\rm B} T \sim 0.2-1$ $\mu$eV [@QDrev].
T. Takagahara, J. Lumin. [**70**]{} (1996), 129.
A.C. Johnson, J.R. Petta, J.M. Taylor, A. Yacoby, M.D. Lukin, C.M. Marcus, M.P. Hanson and A.C. Gossard, Nature [**435**]{} (2005) 925; S. Sasaki, T. Fujisawa, T. Hayashi, and Y. Hirayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{} (2005) 056803.
T. Brandes and F. Renzoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 4148; U. Hohenester, F. Troiani, E. Molinari, G. Panzarini and C. Macchiavello, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**77**]{} (2000) 1864.
F. Renzoni and T. Brandes, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{} (2001) 245301; A.D. Greentree, A.R. Hamilton and F. Green, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{} (2004) 041305(R).
D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe and D.J. Wineland, Nature [**417**]{} (2002) 709.
M. Christandl, N. Datta, A. Ekert and A.J. Landahl, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} (2004) 187902; M. Christandl, N. Datta, T.C. Dorlas, A. Ekert, A. Kay and A.J. Landahl, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{} (2005) 032312; S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003) 207901.
R. Sapienza, P. Costantino, D. Wiersma, M. Ghulinyan, C.J. Oton and L. Pavesi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003) 263902; M. Ghulinyan, C.J. Oton, Z. Gaburro, L. Pavesi, C. Toninelli and D.S. Wiersma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} (2005) 127401.
D.N. Christodoulides, F. Lederer and Y. Silberberg, Nature [**424**]{} (2003) 817.
[^1]: This paper is dedicated to Bruce W. Shore on the occasion of his 70th birthday.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study four families of consequences of Ramsey’s Theorems from a viewpoint of reverse mathematics. The first, what we call Achromatic Ramsey Theorems, is from a partition relation introduced by Erdős, Hajnal and Rado: $\omega \to [\omega]^r_{c,\leq d}$, which asserts that for every $f: [\omega]^r \to c$ there exists an infinite $H$ with $|f([H]^r)| \leq d$. The second and third are Free Set Theorems and Thin Set Theorems, which are introduced by Harvey Friedman. And the last is Rainbow Ramsey Theorems. We show that, most theorems from these families are quite weak, i.e., they are strictly weaker than ${\operatorname{ACA}_0}$. Interestingly, these families turn out to be closely related. We establish the weakness of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems by an induction of exponents, then use this weakness and a similar induction to obtain weakness of Free Set Theorems, and derive weakness of Thin Set Theorems and Rainbow Ramsey Theorems as consequences.'
address: 'Institute of Logic and Cognition and Department of Philosophy, Sun Yat-sen University, 135 Xingang Xi Road, Guangzhou 510275, P.R. China'
author:
- Wei Wang
bibliography:
- '../bib/computability.bib'
title: Some logically weak Ramseyan Theorems
---
[^1]
Introduction {#s:Introduction}
============
Reverse mathematics of Ramsey theory has been an active subject for computability theorists for years, in which Ramsey’s Theorem for pairs (${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$) has enjoyed being the focus, perhaps since the work of Jockusch [@Jockusch:1972.Ramsey]. To facilitate following discussions of Ramsey theory, let us recall some terms. If $X$ is a set and $0 < r < \omega$, then $[X]^r$ is the set of $r$-element subsets of $X$; when we write $[X]^r$, $r$ is always a positive integer. A function $f$ is also called a *coloring* or a *partition*, and its values are natural numbers called *colors*. A *finite coloring* or *$c$-coloring* is a function with finite range or with range contained by $c = \{0,1,\ldots,c-1\}$ where $c$ is a positive integer. For a finite coloring $f: [\omega]^r \to c$, a set $H$ is *homogeneous for $f$* if $f$ is constant on $[H]^r$.
Every $f: [\omega]^r \to c$ where $c$ and $r$ are positive integers, admits an infinite homogeneous set.
For fixed $r$ and $c$, ${\operatorname{RT}}^r_c$ is the instance of Ramsey’s Theorem for all $f: [\omega]^r \to c$.
In [@Jockusch:1972.Ramsey], Jockusch conjectured that computable two colorings of pairs may have all infinite homogeneous sets computing the halting problem. Speaking in reverse mathematics, we may formulate Jockusch’s conjecture as: ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}+ {\operatorname{RT}}^2_2 \vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$. This conjecture was later refuted by Seetapun [@Seetapun.Slaman:1995.Ramsey]. In his ingenious proof, Seetapun exploited the power of $\Pi^0_1$ classes in controlling complexity, which is encapsulated in a theorem of Jockusch and Soare [@Jockusch.Soare:1972.TAMS]. Seetapun’s proof was later analyzed by Cholak, Jockusch and Slaman [@Cholak.Jockusch.ea:2001.Ramsey]. In [@Seetapun.Slaman:1995.Ramsey; @Cholak.Jockusch.ea:2001.Ramsey], several questions were raised: whether ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ implies ${\operatorname{WKL}_0}$; whether Ramsey’s Theorem for stable $2$-colorings of pairs (${\operatorname{SRT}}^2_2$) is equivalent to ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$; and whether ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ implies $I\Sigma_2$. Of course, all these questions are based on ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}$, which is a base theory for most works in reverse mathematics. These had been major open questions in reverse mathematics of Ramsey theory. The first two have been negatively answered by Jiayi Liu [@Liu:2012] and Chong, Slaman and Yang in [@Chong.Slaman.ea:2013.SRT] respectively. More recently, Chong, Slaman and Yang announced a negative answer to the third question.
Besides these major open questions, people have also studied consequences of Ramsey’s Theorems, mostly of ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$. Many consequences of ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ have been shown to be strict weaker; and relations between these consequences give rise to a complicated picture, which fits the tradition of computability theory quite well. For example, Hirschfeldt and Shore [@Hirschfeldt.Shore:2007] proved that the Ascending and Descending Sequences principle (${\operatorname{ADS}}$) and the Chain and Antichain principle (${\operatorname{CAC}}$) are both strictly weaker than ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$; Csima and Mileti [@Csima.Mileti:2009.rainbow] proved that Rainbow Ramsey Theorem for pairs (${\operatorname{RRT}}^2_2$) does not imply ${\operatorname{ADS}}$, and thus is also strictly weaker than ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$.
Now we turn to Ramsey theory of general exponents, which seems desiring more attention from computability theorists. But we do know something, in particular, about complexity bounds. The pioneering work of Jockusch [@Jockusch:1972.Ramsey] gave some influential answers.
\[thm:Jo.bounds\] Every computable finite coloring of $[\omega]^r$ admits an infinite homogeneous set in $\Pi^0_{r}$. On the other hand, for each $r > 1$, there are computable $2$-colorings of $[\omega]^r$ which admit no infinite homogeneous sets in $\Sigma^0_r$.
People have found that the complexity bounds above also appear in various consequences of ${\operatorname{RT}}^r_2$. Cholak, Guisto, Hirst and Jockusch [@Cholak.Giusto.ea:2005.freeset] showed that the $\Pi^0_r/\Sigma^0_r$ bounds apply for Free Set Theorems and Thin Set Theorems; by Csima and Mileti [@Csima.Mileti:2009.rainbow], these bounds apply for Rainbow Ramsey Theorems; and by Chubb, Hirst and McNicholl [@Chubb.Hirst.ea:2009], same bounds apply for a binary tree version of Ramsey’s Theorems.
Concerning provability, we also have a few results. By Jockusch [@Jockusch:1972.Ramsey], we learn that ${\operatorname{RT}}^3_2$ is equivalent to ${\operatorname{ACA}_0}$ over ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}$. Recently, the author has proved that ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}+ {\operatorname{RRT}}^3_2 \not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$ in [@Wang:RRT]; and later in [@Wang:2013.COH.RRT] obtained some strengthening that ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}+ {\operatorname{RRT}}^3_2 \not\vdash {\operatorname{WKL}_0}$ and ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}+ {\operatorname{RRT}}^3_2 \not\vdash {\operatorname{RRT}}^4_2$.
The aim of this paper is to study Ramsey theory of larger exponents, mainly from provability viewpoint. We consider several families of consequences of Ramsey’s Theorems. As usual, we take ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}$ as the base theory and may assume it without explicit reference.
The first family is introduced by Erdős, Hajnal and Rado [@ErdHos.Hajnal.ea:1965.partition]: $$\omega \to [\omega]^r_{c, < d}$$ if and only if for every $c$-coloring $f$ of $[\omega]^r$, there exists an infinite $H$ such that $|f([H]^r)| < d$. We call these partition relations *Achromatic Ramsey Theorems* (${\operatorname{ART}}$), and write ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c, d}$ for $\omega \to [\omega]^r_{c, < d + 1}$ and ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty, d}$ for $\forall c {\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,d}$.
The second and third families are *Free Set Theorems* and *Thin Set Theorems*, which are introduced by Harvey Friedman when he developed Boolean Relation Theory (see [@Friedman:BRT]). For a function $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$, a set $H$ is *free* if $f(x_0,\ldots,x_{r-1}) \not\in H - \{x_0,\ldots,x_{r-1}\}$ for all $(x_0,\ldots,x_{r-1}) \in [H]^r$; and a set $S$ is *thin for $f$* if $f([S]^r) \neq \omega$. Free Set Theorems (${\operatorname{FS}}$) assert that every $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$ admits an infinite free set, and Thin Set Theorems (${\operatorname{TS}}$) assert that every $f$ as above admits an infinite thin set. ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ and ${\operatorname{TS}}^r$ are instances of ${\operatorname{FS}}$ and ${\operatorname{TS}}$ for fixed exponent $r$ respectively. Cholak et al. [@Cholak.Giusto.ea:2005.freeset] proved that ${\operatorname{RT}}^r_2$ implies ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ and ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ implies ${\operatorname{TS}}^r$.
The last family is *Rainbow Ramsey Theorems*. Rainbow Ramsey Theorems concern bounded colorings: a coloring $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$ is *$b$-bounded*, if $|f^{-1}(c)| \leq b$ for all $c$. A *rainbow* for a coloring $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$ is a set $H$ such that $f$ is injective on $[H]^r$. Rainbow Ramsey Theorems (${\operatorname{RRT}}$) assert that for every pair of positive integers $b$ and $r$, every $b$-bounded coloring of $[\omega]^r$ admits an infinite rainbow, and ${\operatorname{RRT}}^r_b$ is the instance of Rainbow Ramsey Theorem for fixed exponent $r$ and bound $b$. Galvin gave an easy proof of ${\operatorname{RRT}}^r_2$ from ${\operatorname{RT}}^r_2$ (see [@Csima.Mileti:2009.rainbow]), which can be easily translated to yield ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}\vdash \forall r({\operatorname{RT}}^r_2 \to {\operatorname{RRT}}^r_2)$.
It turns out that these families are closely related and share same weakness. We show that, for positive integers $r$ and sufficiently large $d$, neither ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{< \infty,d}$ nor ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ implies ${\operatorname{ACA}_0}$. Thus ${\operatorname{TS}}\not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$. Moreover, we show that ${\operatorname{FS}}^r \vdash {\operatorname{RRT}}^r_2$ and consequently ${\operatorname{RRT}}\not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$. So, we negatively answer Question 7.6 in [@Cholak.Giusto.ea:2005.freeset] and Question 5.15 in [@Csima.Mileti:2009.rainbow].
As one can predict, we establish weakness of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems and Free Set Theorems by proving some cone avoiding theorems and then building Turing ideals which do not contain the halting problem. From a viewpoint of model theory, it may be slightly more natural to read this common method as building a model which omits certain second order types.
\[def:Omitting\] Suppose that $\mathcal{C}$ is a subset of reals, and $\Phi = \forall X \exists Y \varphi(X,Y)$ is a $\Pi^1_2$ sentence, where $\varphi$ is an arithmetic formula with second order parameters.
1. For a fixed $X$, a set $Y$ with $\varphi(X,Y)$ is called a *solution* (of $\Phi$ with respect to $X$).
2. If for every $X$ which computes no real in $\mathcal{C}$, there exists a solution $Y$ such that $X \oplus Y$ computes no real in $\mathcal{C}$ either, then we say that $\Phi$ admits *$\mathcal{C}$-omitting*.
3. If for any $X$ (in $\mathcal{C}$ or not) there exists a solution $Y$ such that $Y$ computes no real in $\mathcal{C}$, then we say that $\Phi$ admits *strong $\mathcal{C}$-omitting*.
4. Suppose that $\Phi$ admits (strong) $\mathcal{C}$-omitting for all $A \not\leq_T B$ and $\mathcal{C} = \{Z: A \leq_T B \oplus Z\}$, then $\Phi$ has *(strong) cone avoidance property*.
Suppose that $p$ is a second order type which can not be satisfied by computable reals. If $\Phi$ admits omitting for the set of reals satisfying $p$, then we can build a countable $\omega$-model of ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}+ \Phi$ omitting $p$. So, cone avoidance property is sufficient for proving $\Phi \not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$. But, most theorems in the four families enjoy strong cone avoidance property. To be precise, for each $r$, ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{< \infty,d}$ has strong cone avoidance property for sufficiently large $d$; and ${\operatorname{FS}}^r, {\operatorname{TS}}^r$ and ${\operatorname{RRT}}^r_2$ all have strong cone avoidance property. Actually, strong cone avoidance property is a key factor, which allows us to establish cone avoidance by inductions on exponents for Achromatic Ramsey Theorems and Free Set Theorems. Interestingly, these inductions follow a zig-zag pattern. For example, the induction for ${\operatorname{FS}}$ goes like: from induction hypothesis that strong cone avoidance property holds for ${\operatorname{FS}}^{< r}$, we obtain cone avoidance property for ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$; and apply this weaker property to get strong cone avoidance property for ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$.
The proofs of strong cone avoidance property for Achromatic Ramsey Theorems and Free Set Theorems share some other common features. Both proofs follow the analysis of Seetapun’s theorem by Cholak, Jockusch and Slaman [@Cholak.Jockusch.ea:2001.Ramsey]: we obtain some cone avoiding set which has some property like cohesiveness; then build a desired set as a subset of this cohesive-like set. And in both proofs, we use Mathias forcing and exploit the power of $\Pi^0_1$ classes in controlling complexity of certain Mathias generics, as Seetapun did in his celebrated proof.
Besides these similarities, the proof of strong cone avoidance for Free Set Theorems heavily depends of strong cone avoidance property of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems. So, all clues here suggest that there are some deeper relations, perhaps metamathematical relations, between Achromatic Ramsey Theorems and Free Set Theorems. However, at this moment we know nothing. We put relating questions in the last section.
Below, we briefly introduce the remaining sections:
- In §\[s:Preliminaries\], we introduce some conventions to facilitate technical formulations, and also some basic properties of Mathias forcing.
- In §\[s:WRT.sca\], we establish strong cone avoidance property of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems and Thin Set Theorems, and also weakness of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems and Thin Set Theorems.
- In §\[s:FS.sca\], we establish strong cone avoidance property and weakness of Free Set Theorems. In addition, we reduce Rainbow Ramsey Theorems to Free Set Theorems, and thus obtain strong cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{RRT}}$.
- In §\[s:Questions\], we raise some questions.
Preliminaries {#s:Preliminaries}
=============
In this section, we setup some conventions and recall some notions and known results which are useful for our purposes. For more background knowledge in computability and reverse mathematics, we refer readers to [@Lerman:83] and [@Simpson:1999.SOSOA]. We also need some elementary algorithmic randomness, which could be found in [@Nies:2010.book].
Sequences
---------
If $s$ and $t$ are two finite sequences, then we write $st$ for the concatenation of $s$ and $t$. If $x$ is a single symbol, then ${\langle}x{\rangle}$ is the finite sequence with only one symbol $x$. The length of a finite sequence $s$ is denoted by $|s|$. If $l < |s|$ then $s {\upharpoonright}l$ is the initial segment of $s$ of length $l$. For $X \subseteq \omega$, $X {\upharpoonright}l$ is interpreted as an initial segment of the characteristic function of $X$ in the obvious way.
Recall that $[X]^r$ for $0 < r < \omega$ is the set of $r$-element subsets of $X$. We also write $[X]^\omega$ for the set of countable subsets of $X$; $[X]^{< r}, [X]^{\leq r}, [X]^{< \omega}, [X]^{\leq \omega}$ are interpreted naturally. If $X \subseteq \omega$, then elements of $[X]^{\leq \omega}$ are identified with strictly increasing sequences. We use $\sigma, \tau, \ldots$ for elements of $[\omega]^{< \omega}$. Under the above convention, we may perform both sequence operations and set operations on elements of $[\omega]^{<\omega}$. For example, we can write $\sigma\tau$ for $\sigma \cup \tau$, if $\max \sigma < \min \tau$; $\sigma \subseteq \tau$ if $\sigma$ is a subset of $\tau$; and $\sigma - \tau = \{x \in \sigma: x \not\in \tau\}$. We extend this convention to infinite subsets of $\omega$, so we write $\sigma X$ for $\sigma \cup X$, if $\max \sigma < \min X$ and $X \in [\omega]^{\leq \omega}$.
Trees
-----
We work with trees which are subsets of $\omega^{<\omega}$. If $T$ is a finite tree, then $$[T] = \{\sigma \in T: \forall x(\sigma{\langle}x{\rangle}\not\in T)\};$$ if $T$ is an infinite tree, then $[T]$ denote the set of infinite sequences whose initial segments are always in $T$.
When we use finite trees for measure theoretic arguments, we define a function $m_T$ for each finite tree $T$ by induction: $m_T(\emptyset) = 1$, if $\sigma{\langle}x{\rangle}\in T$ then $$m_T(\sigma{\langle}x{\rangle}) = \frac{m_T(\sigma)}{|\{y: \sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}\in T\}|}.$$ We should consider $m_T$ as a probability measure associated to $T$. So, we can naturally extend the domain of $m_T$ to include certain subsets of $T$, and denote the resulting function by $m_T$ too: if $S \subseteq T$ is *prefix-free* (i.e., if $S$ contains $\sigma$ then $S$ contains *no* proper initial segment of $\sigma$), typically $S \subseteq [T]$, then $$m_T S = \sum_{\sigma \in S} m_T(\sigma).$$
Computations
------------
For a finite sequence $\sigma$, we write $\Phi_e(\sigma; x) \downarrow$ if $\Phi_e(\sigma; x)$ converges in $|\sigma|$ many steps. We write $\Phi_e(\sigma; x) \uparrow$ for $\neg (\Phi_e(\sigma; x) \downarrow)$.
For a set $B$ and a finite sequence $\sigma$, we write $\Phi_e^B(\sigma; x) \downarrow$ if $\Phi_e((B {\upharpoonright}|\sigma|) \oplus \sigma; x) \downarrow$. Notations, like $\Phi_e^B(\sigma; x) \uparrow$ and $\Phi_e^B(X)$, are interpreted in similar way.
To force a non-computability statement like $\Phi_e^B(H) \neq A$, splitting computations are usually helpful. A pair $(\eta_0,\eta_1) \in [\omega]^{<\omega} \times [\omega]^{<\omega}$ is *$(e,B)$-splitting over $\sigma \in [\omega]^{<\omega}$*, if $\max \sigma < \min \eta_i$ for $i < 2$ and $\Phi_e^B(\sigma \eta_0; x) \downarrow \neq \Phi_e^B(\sigma \eta_1; x) \downarrow$ for some $x$.
Some useful known results
-------------------------
We list some useful results here, but formulate some of them in terms of Definition \[def:Omitting\]
\[thm:JoSo\] ${\operatorname{WKL}_0}$ has cone avoidance property.
Theorem \[thm:JoSo\] reflects the power of $\Pi^0_1$ classes in controlling complexity, and plays an important role in Seetapun’s proof of the following theorem.
\[thm:Seetapun\] ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ has cone avoidance property
Dzhafarov and Jockusch discovered a neglected feature of Seetapun’s proof that the proof works for finite partitions of $\omega$ of arbitrary complexity.
\[thm:DzJo\] Infinite pigeonhole principle has strong cone avoidance property.
For Free Set Theorems, we need the following theorem.
\[thm:CGHJ\] For each $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$, there exists $g: [\omega]^r \to 2r + 2$ such that $g \leq_T f$ and $g \oplus H$ computes an infinite $f$-free set for every infinite $g$-homogeneous $H$. Moreover, if $f(\sigma) \leq \max \sigma$ for all $\sigma \in [\omega]^r$ then every $g$-homogeneous set is $f$-free.
Note that, combining Theorems \[thm:CGHJ\] and \[thm:DzJo\], if we restrict Free Set Theorems for $f: \omega \to \omega$ such that $f(x) \leq x$ for all $x \in \omega$, then we have strong cone avoidance property.
Mathias forcing
---------------
Here we include some well-known computability theoretic property of Mathias forcing and also an easy corollary of this property that ${\operatorname{COH}}$ has strong cone avoidance property.
\[def:M-forcing\] A *Mathias condition* is a pair $(\sigma,X) \in [\omega]^{<\omega} \times [\omega]^\omega$ such that $\max \sigma < \min X$. We identify a Mathias condition $(\sigma,X)$ with the set below: $$\{Y \in [\omega]^\omega: \sigma \subset Y \subseteq \sigma \cup X\}.$$
For two Mathias conditions $(\sigma,X)$ and $(\tau,Y)$, $(\tau,Y) \leq_M (\sigma,X)$ if and only if $(\tau,Y) \subseteq (\sigma,X)$ under the above convention.
\[lem:M-forcing.ca\] For each $e$ and a Mathias condition $(\sigma,X)$ with $A \not\leq_T B \oplus X$, there exists a Mathias condition $(\tau,Y) \leq_M (\sigma,X)$, such that $A \not\leq_T B \oplus Y$ and $\Phi_e^B(Z) \neq A$ for every $Z \in (\tau,Y)$.
There are two cases.
*Case 1:* $X$ contains a pair $(\eta_0,\eta_1)$ which $(e,B)$-spits over $\sigma$.
Fix $i < 2$ and $x$ such that $\Phi^B_e(\sigma\eta_i; x) \downarrow \neq A(x)$. Let $\tau = \sigma\eta_i$ and $Y = X \cap (\max \eta_i, \infty)$. Then $(\tau,Y)$ is as desired.
*Case 2:* $X$ contains no pair $(e,B)$-splitting over $\sigma$.
If $Z \in [X]^\omega$ and $\Phi^B(Z)$ is total then $\Phi^B(Z) \leq_T B \oplus X$, and thus $\Phi^B(Z) \neq A$, since $A \not\leq_T B \oplus X$. So we can simply let $(\tau,Y) = (\sigma,X)$.
The following theorem is an easy corollary of the above lemma and Theorem \[thm:DzJo\]. Recall that an infinite set $C$ is *cohesive* for a sequence $\vec{R} = (R_n: n < \omega)$, if and only if for each $n$ either $C \cap R_n$ or $C - R_n$ is finite. ${\operatorname{COH}}$, a consequence of ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ introduced by Cholak, Jockusch and Slaman [@Cholak.Jockusch.ea:2001.Ramsey], asserts that every sequence admits a cohesive set.
\[thm:COH.sca\] ${\operatorname{COH}}$ has strong cone avoidance property.
Achromatic Ramsey Theorems {#s:WRT.sca}
==========================
In this section, we prove that ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d}$ has strong cone avoidance property for appropriate $d$.
\[thm:WRT.sca\] For each $r > 0$, there exists $d$ such that ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d}$ has strong cone avoidance property. Hence, ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d} \not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$ for sufficiently large $d$.
Clearly, the second part of Theorem \[thm:WRT.sca\] is a consequence of the first part. Before proving the first part of Theorem \[thm:WRT.sca\], we present some easy corollaries.
\[thm:TS\] ${\operatorname{TS}}$ has strong cone avoidance property. Thus ${\operatorname{TS}}\not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$.
Fix $X \not\leq_T Y$ and $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$ with $r > 0$. By strong cone avoidance of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems, let $d$ be such that ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{d+1,d}$ has strong cone avoidance property. For each $\sigma \in [\omega]^r$, let $g(\sigma) = \min\{d,f(\sigma)\}$. So, $g: [\omega]^r \to d+1$. Pick $Z \in [\omega]^\omega$ such that $X \not\leq Y \oplus Z$ and $|g([Z]^r)| \leq d$. Then $Z$ is clearly thin for $f$. So, ${\operatorname{TS}}$ has strong cone avoidance property.
Hence, ${\operatorname{TS}}\not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$.
As many other consequences of Ramsey’s Theorems, Achromatic Ramsey Theorems also obey the bounds of Jockusch in Theorem \[thm:Jo.bounds\].
\[prp:WRT.bounds\] Fix $r \geq 2$, $c \geq 2$ and $d > 0$.
1. For each computable $f: [\omega]^r \to c$, there exists an infinite $H \in \Pi^0_r$ such that $|f([H]^r)| \leq d$.
2. There exists a computable $g: [\omega]^r \to d+1$, such that no infinite $H \in \Sigma^0_r$ can have $|f([H]^r)| \leq d$.
\(1) follows easily from Theorem \[thm:Jo.bounds\].
On the other hand, Cholak et al. [@Cholak.Giusto.ea:2005.freeset] define a computable $h: [\omega]^r \to \omega$ which admits no infinite thin sets in $\Sigma^0_r$. So (2) follows from this known bound and the proof of Theorem \[thm:TS\].
For $r > 2$ and $c > d > 0$, ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2 \not\vdash {\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,d}$. Consequently, ${\operatorname{ART}}^3_{4,3}$ is strictly between ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ and ${\operatorname{RT}}^3_2$ and ${\operatorname{ART}}^3_{3,2}$ is strictly between ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_{<\infty}$ and ${\operatorname{RT}}^3_2$, where ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_{<\infty}$ is $\forall n {\operatorname{RT}}^2_n$.
By relativizing Theorem 3.1 of Cholak, Jockusch and Slaman [@Cholak.Jockusch.ea:2001.Ramsey], there exists an $\omega$-model $\mathcal{M}$ of ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}+ {\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ containing only $\Delta^0_3$ sets. By Proposition \[prp:WRT.bounds\](2), $\mathcal{M} \not\models {\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,d}$.
The above $\omega$-model is also a model of ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_{<\infty}$. On the other hand, Dorais et al. [@Dorais.Dzhafarov.ea:2013 §5] prove that ${\operatorname{ART}}^3_{4,3} \vdash {\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ and ${\operatorname{ART}}^3_{3,2} \vdash {\operatorname{RT}}^2_{<\infty}$.
We prove the first part of Theorem \[thm:WRT.sca\] by induction on $r$, that ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d}$ has strong cone avoidance property for sufficiently large $d$. The induction goes in a zig-zag way:
1. As infinite pigeonhole principle has strong cone avoidance property, we get strong cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{ART}}^1_{<\infty, 1}$.
2. Fix $(d_k: 0 < k < r)$, such that ${\operatorname{ART}}^k_{<\infty,d_k}$ has strong cone avoidance property, for each $k \in (0,r)$. Firstly we prove that ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d_{r-1}}$ has cone avoidance property.
3. Then we prove that ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d}$ has *strong* cone avoidance property for $$d = d_{r-1} + \sum_{0 < k < r} d_k d_{r-k}.$$
(A1) is done. (A2) is accomplished by the lemma below.
\[lem:WRT.ca\] If ${\operatorname{ART}}^n_{c,e}$ has strong cone avoidance property, then ${\operatorname{ART}}^{n+1}_{c,e}$ has cone avoidance property.
Fix $X, Y$ and $g: [\omega]^{n+1} \to c$ such that $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g$.
For each $\sigma \in [\omega]^n$ and $k < c$, let $R_{\sigma,k} = \{x: g(\sigma{\langle}x{\rangle}) = k\}$. By cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{COH}}$, pick $Z$ such that $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g \oplus Z$ and $Z$ is cohesive for $(R_{\sigma,k}: \sigma \in [\omega]^n, k < c)$. For each $\sigma \in [\omega]^n$, let $\bar{g}(\sigma) = \lim_{x \in Z} g(\sigma{\langle}x{\rangle})$, which is defined by cohesiveness of $Z$. By strong cone avoidance of ${\operatorname{ART}}^n_{c,e}$, pick $W \in [Z]^\omega$ such that $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g \oplus W$ and $|\bar{g}([W]^n)| \leq e$. Let $\theta = \bar{g}([W]^n)$.
We build a strictly increasing sequence $(\sigma_s \in [W]^{<\omega}: s < \omega)$ by induction. Let $\sigma_0 = \emptyset$. Suppose that $\sigma_s \in [W]^{<\omega}$ and $g([\sigma_s]^{n+1}) \subseteq \theta$. As $\bar{g}([\sigma_s]^n) \subseteq \theta$, $g(\rho {\langle}x{\rangle}) = \bar{g}(\rho) = \lim_{s \in W} g(\rho {\langle}s{\rangle}) \in \theta$ for all $\rho \in [\sigma_s]^n$ and sufficiently large $x \in W$. So, in a $g \oplus W$-computable way, we can pick $$x_s = \min \{x \in W: x > \max \sigma_s \wedge \forall \rho \in [\sigma_s]^n(g(\rho{\langle}x{\rangle}) \in \theta)\}.$$ Let $\sigma_{s+1} = \sigma_s {\langle}x{\rangle}$.
So, $V = \bigcup_s \sigma_s$ is $g \oplus W$-computable and infinite, and $g([V]^{n+1}) \subseteq \theta$. Moreover, $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g \oplus V$, as $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g \oplus W$.
The remaining part of this section is devoted to (A3). Fix $A \not\leq_T B$ and $f: [\omega]^r \to c$ where $c < \omega$. For each $k < r$ and $\rho \in [\omega]^{k}$, let $f_\rho(\tau) = f(\rho\tau)$ for $\tau \in [\omega]^{r-k}$ with $\max \rho < \min \tau$. In this section, we say that a set $X$ is *cone avoiding* if $A \not\leq_T B \oplus X$; and a Mathias condition $(\sigma,X)$ is *cone avoiding*, if $X$ is cone avoiding.
We need a cone avoiding infinite $H$ such that $|f([H]^r)| \leq d$. We build such an $H$ in several steps:
1. By the induction hypothesis and Mathias forcing, we build a cone avoiding $D \in [\omega]^\omega$ and a sequence $(\Theta_k: 0 < k < r)$, such that
1. each $\Theta_k$ is a set of at most $d_k$ many sets of colors, and $|\theta| \leq d_{r-k}$ for each $\theta \in \Theta_k$;
2. if $0 < k < r$ and $\rho \in [D]^k$, then there exist $\theta_\rho \in \Theta_k$ and $b$, so that $f_\rho(\tau) \in \theta_\rho$ for all $\tau \in [D \cap (b,\infty)]^{r-k}$.
2. By a Seetapun-style Mathias forcing, we build a cone avoiding $G \in [D]^\omega$ as the union of some $(\xi_n \in [D]^{<\omega}: n < \omega)$, such that
1. $|f([\xi_n]^r)| \leq d_{r-1}$ and $\max \xi_n < \min \xi_{n+1}$;
2. $f_\rho(\tau) \in \theta_\rho \in \Theta_k$, for $k \in (0,r)$, $\rho \in [\bigcup_{i < n} \xi_i]^k$ and $\tau \in [\bigcup_{i \geq n} \xi_i]^{r - k}$.
3. By strong cone avoidance of infinite pigeonhole principle, we build $H$ as a subset of $G$.
The construction of $D$ {#ss:WRT.sca.D}
-----------------------
Firstly, we build a cone avoiding $C \in [\omega]^\omega$ and a sequence $(\theta_\rho: 0 < |\rho| < r)$, such that for each $k \in (0,r)$ and $\rho \in [\omega]^k$,
1. $\theta_\rho$ is a subset of $c$ with at most $d_{r-k}$ many elements;
2. $f_\rho(\tau) \in \theta_\rho$ for all $\tau \in [C]^{r-k}$ with $\min \tau$ sufficiently large.
Note that, (C2) implies that $C$ has some kind of cohesiveness. Thus, it is not surprising that the construction of $C$ looks like a construction of cohesive sets.
Suppose that $0 < k < r$ and $\rho \in [\omega]^k$. Then every cone avoiding Mathias condition $(\sigma,X)$ can be extended to another cone avoiding $(\sigma,Y)$ such that $\max \rho < \min Y$ and $|f_\rho([Y]^{r-k})| \leq d_{r-k}$.
As ${\operatorname{ART}}^{r-k}_{c,d_{r-k}}$ has strong cone avoidance property, we can pick a cone avoiding $Y \in [X]^\omega$ such that $\max \rho < \min Y$ and $|f_\rho([Y]^{r-k})| \leq d_{r-k}$.
With the above lemma and Lemma \[lem:M-forcing.ca\], we can obtain a descending sequence of cone avoiding Mathias conditions $((\sigma_n, X_n): n < \omega)$ and a sequence $(\theta_\rho: 0 < |\rho| < r)$, satisfying the following properties:
1. If $k \in (0,r)$ and $\rho \in [\omega]^k$, then $\theta_\rho \in [c]^{\leq d_{r-k}}$ and there exist $n$ and such that $f_\rho([X_n]^{r-k}) = \theta_\rho$;
2. For each $n$, $|\sigma_n| < |\sigma_{n+1}|$ and $\Phi^B_n(Z) \neq A$ for all $Z \in (\sigma_n,X_n)$.
So (C1) and (C2) hold for $C = \bigcup_n \sigma_n$ and $(\theta_\rho: 0 < |\rho| < r)$, and $C$ is cone avoiding.
Secondly, we build a desired $D \in [C]^\omega$. For each $k \in (0, r)$, define $F_k(\rho) = \theta_\rho$ for $\rho \in [C]^k$. As ${\operatorname{ART}}^k_{<\infty, d_k}$ has strong cone avoidance property for each $k \in (0, r)$, we can obtain a sequence $(D_k: k < r)$, such that
1. $D_0 = C$ and $D_{k+1} \in [D_k]^\omega$ is cone avoiding for each $k < r - 1$.
2. $|F_k([D_{k}]^k)| \leq d_k$ if $0 < k < r$.
Let $D = D_{r-1}$. For each $k \in (0, r)$, let $\Theta_k = F_k([D]^k)$. It follows that
- if $0 < k < r$ and $\rho \in [D]^k$, then $f(\rho\tau) \in \theta_\rho \in \Theta_k$ for all $\tau \in [D]^{r-k}$ with $\min \tau$ sufficiently large.
The construction of $G$ {#ss:WRT.sca.G}
-----------------------
In this subsection, we start with $D$ from §\[ss:WRT.sca.D\] and build a sequence $(\xi_n \in [D]^{<\omega}: n < \omega)$, such that
1. $G = \bigcup_n \xi_n$ is infinite and cone avoiding;
2. $|f([\xi_n]^r)| \leq d_{r-1}$ and $\max \xi_n < \min \xi_{n+1}$;
3. For each $k \in (0,r)$ and $\rho \in [\bigcup_{i < n} \xi_i]^k$, $f_\rho(\tau) = f(\rho\tau) \in \theta_\rho$ for all $\tau \in [\bigcup_{i \geq n} \xi_i]^{r - k}$.
Note that, if we ignore (G1) then we can easily get some $(\eta_n \in [D]^{<\omega}: n < \omega)$ satisfying (G2) and (G3) in places of $(\xi_n: n < \omega)$. We start with $(\sigma_0, X_0) = (\emptyset, D)$, and extend $(\sigma_n, X_n)$ to $(\sigma_n, Y_{n+1})$, so that $f_\rho(\tau) = f(\rho\tau) \in \theta_\rho$ for $k \in (0,r)$, $\rho \in [\sigma_n]^k$ and $\tau \in [Y_{n+1}]^{r-k}$, then we extend $(\sigma_n, Y_{n+1})$ to $(\sigma_{n+1}, X_{n+1})$ with $\sigma_{n+1} = \sigma_n \eta_n$ for some $\eta_n$ of length $1$. By (D), we can even make $X_{n+1} = X_n \cap (b,\infty)$ for some $b$. However, in general we need $(f \oplus D)'$ to find such a lower bound $b$, thus we can not ensure that $\bigcup_n \eta_n$ is cone avoiding. So, the non-trivial job is to satisfy (G2, G3) and (G1) simultaneously. To this end, we follow Seetapun’s celebrated proof in [@Seetapun.Slaman:1995.Ramsey].
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of all $c$-colorings of $[\omega]^r$. Then $f \in \mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{C}$ is a $\Pi^0_1$ class.
\[lem:WRT.sca.G.ext\] For each $e$ and a cone avoiding Mathias condition $(\sigma,X)$, there exists a cone avoiding $(\sigma\xi,Y) \leq_M (\sigma,X)$ such that $|f([\xi]^{r})| \leq d_{r-1}$ and $\Phi^B_e(Z) \neq A$ for all $Z \in (\sigma\xi,Y)$.
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be the set of $g \in \mathcal{C}$, such that if $\tau \in [X]^{<\omega}$ and $|g([\tau]^{r})| \leq d_{r-1}$ then $\tau$ contains *no* pair $(e,B)$-splitting over $\sigma$. So, $\mathcal{U}$ is $\Pi^0_1$ in $B \oplus X$.
*Case 1:* $\mathcal{U} = \emptyset$. In particular, $f \not\in \mathcal{U}$.
By the definition of $\mathcal{U}$, we can pick $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$ from $[X]^{<\omega}$ and $x$, so that $|f([\xi_i]^r)| \leq d_{r-1}$ for $i < 2$ and $\Phi^B_e(\sigma\xi_0; x) \downarrow \neq \Phi^B_e(\sigma\xi_1; x) \downarrow$. Fix $i < 2$ such that $\Phi^B_e(\sigma\xi_i; x) \neq A(x)$ and let $\xi = \xi_i$. So, $(\sigma\xi, X \cap (\max \xi_i, \infty))$ is a cone avoiding extension as desired.
*Case 2:* $\mathcal{U} \neq \emptyset$.
As $X$ is cone avoiding, by cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{WKL}_0}$ (Theorem \[thm:JoSo\]) there exists $g \in \mathcal{U}$ with $X \oplus g$ cone avoiding. By Lemma \[lem:WRT.ca\] and the induction hypothesis that ${\operatorname{ART}}^{r-1}_{c,d_{r-1}}$ has strong cone avoidance property, pick $Y \in [X]^\omega$ such that $Y$ is cone avoiding and $|g([Y]^r)| \leq d_{r-1}$. As $g \in \mathcal{U}$, $Y$ contains no pair $(e,B)$-splitting over $\sigma$. So, if $Z \in (\sigma, Y)$ and $\Phi^B_e(Z)$ is total then $\Phi^B_e(Z) \leq_T B \oplus Y$ and thus $\Phi^B_e(Z) \neq A$. Thus, $(\sigma,Y)$ is a desired extension.
By the construction of $C$, every Mathias condition $(\sigma,X)$ with $X \subseteq C$ can be extended to some $(\tau,Y) = (\sigma, X \cap (b,\infty))$, such that $f_\rho(\upsilon) \in \theta_\rho$ for all non-empty $\rho \in [\tau]^{< r}$ and $\upsilon \in [Y]^{r - |\rho|}$.
By the above remark and Lemma \[lem:WRT.sca.G.ext\], we can build a descending sequence of cone avoiding Mathias conditions $((\sigma_n, X_n): n < \omega)$, such that
1. $(\sigma_0, X_0) = (\emptyset, D)$;
2. $f_\rho(\tau) \in \theta_\rho$ for all non-empty $\rho \in [\sigma_n]^{< r}$ and $\tau \in [X_n]^{r - |\rho|}$;
3. $\sigma_{n+1} = \sigma_n \xi_n$ for some non-empty $\xi_n$ with $|f([\xi_n]^r)| \leq d_{r-1}$;
4. $\Phi^B_n(Z) \neq A$ for all $Z \in (\sigma_{n+1},X_{n+1})$.
Let $G = \bigcup_n \xi_n = \bigcup_n \sigma_n$. Then (G1-3) are satisfied.
The construction of $H$ {#ss:WRT.sca.H}
-----------------------
For each $n$, let $\alpha_n = f([\xi_n]^r)$. Then $\alpha_n$ is a subset of $c$ with at most $d_{r-1}$ many elements. For each $\alpha \in [c]^{\leq d_{r-1}}$, let $$G_\alpha = \{x \in G: \exists n (x \in \xi_n \wedge \alpha_n = \alpha)\}.$$ By strong cone avoidance property of infinite pigeonhole principle (Theorem \[thm:DzJo\]), there exist $\alpha \in [c]^{\leq d_{r-1}}$ and a cone avoiding $H \in [G_\alpha]^\omega$.
$|f([H]^r)| \leq d$.
Let $\sigma = (x_0,\ldots,x_{r-1}) \in [H]^r$ be arbitrary. If $\sigma \subseteq \xi_n$ for some $n$, then $f(\sigma) \in \alpha_n = \alpha$ by the definition of $H$. Suppose that $x_{k-1} \in \xi_n$ and $x_{k} > \max \xi_n$ for some $k \in (0, r)$ and $n$. Let $\rho = (x_0,\ldots,x_{k-1})$ and $\tau = (x_k, \ldots, x_{r-1})$. By (G3), $f(\sigma) = f_\rho(\tau) \in \theta_\rho$; by (D), $\theta_\rho \in \Theta_k$. So, $f(\sigma)$ is in $$\alpha \cup \{i < c: \exists k \in (0,r), \theta \in \Theta_k (i \in \theta)\}.$$ So, $|f([H]^r)| \leq d_{r-1} + \sum_{0 < k < r} d_k d_{r-k} = d$.
This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:WRT.sca\].
Free Set Theorems {#s:FS.sca}
=================
In this section, we establish the strong cone avoidance property for Free Set Theorems of arbitrary finite exponent.
\[thm:FS.sca\] ${\operatorname{FS}}$ has strong cone avoidance property. Hence, ${\operatorname{FS}}\not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$.
Before proving Theorem \[thm:FS.sca\], we apply it to obtain similar results for Rainbow Ramsey Theorems.
\[thm:RRT\] For each $n > 0$ and a $2$-bounded function $f$ on $[\omega]^n$, there exists a uniformly $f$-computable $g: [\omega]^n \to \omega$ such that every $g$-free set is an $f$-rainbow.
Hence, ${\operatorname{RRT}}$ has strong cone avoidance property, ${\operatorname{RCA}_0}\vdash \forall n > 0({\operatorname{FS}}^n \to {\operatorname{RRT}}^n_k)$ for every $k < \omega$ and ${\operatorname{RRT}}\not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$.
By THeorem \[thm:FS.sca\], it suffices to prove the first half.
Fix a computable bijection $\ulcorner \cdot \urcorner: [\omega]^n \to \omega$. Let $f: [\omega]^n \to \omega$ be $2$-bounded. For each $\sigma \in [\omega]^n$, let $$g(\sigma) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\min (\tau - \sigma), & \exists \tau (\ulcorner \tau \urcorner < \ulcorner \sigma \urcorner \wedge f(\sigma) = f(\tau)); \\
0, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ As $f$ is $2$-bounded, if $\tau$ in the definition of $g(\sigma)$ exists then it is unique. As $\tau$ and $\sigma$ are two distinct finite sets of same size, $\tau - \sigma \neq \emptyset$. Thus $g$ is well defined and total. By ${\operatorname{FS}}^n$, let $X \in [\omega]^\omega$ be $g$-free.
We claim that $X$ is a rainbow for $f$. Assume that $f(\sigma) = f(\tau)$ for distinct $\sigma,\tau \in [X]^n$. Without loss of generality, assume that $\ulcorner \tau \urcorner < \ulcorner \sigma \urcorner$. Then, $g(\sigma) \in \tau - \sigma \subset X - \sigma$, and we have a desired contradiction.
Below, we prove Theorem \[thm:FS.sca\]. Clearly, the second part is a consequence of the first part. To prove the first part, the overall plan is to establish strong cone avoidance property for ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ by induction on the exponent $r$:
- Firstly we prove that ${\operatorname{FS}}^1$ has strong cone avoidance property;
- Then we establish cone avoidance property for ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ with $r > 1$, with the induction hypothesis that ${\operatorname{FS}}^{r-1}$ has strong cone avoidance property;
- Finally we prove that ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ has *strong* cone avoidance property for $r > 1$, with the full induction hypothesis for all lesser exponents.
A key idea to accomplish (F1) and (F3) is to reduce ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ to ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ for functions behaving tamely. We establish this reduction in Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.trapped\] below.
For $r > 0$, each $\sigma \in [\omega]^r$ induces a finite sequence of *traps* (i.e., intervals) $(I^\sigma_k: k \leq r)$, where $$\begin{gathered}
I^\sigma_0 = [0, \sigma(0)], \\
I^\sigma_k = [\sigma(k-1), \sigma(k)] \text{ if } 0 < k < r, \\
I^\sigma_r = (\sigma(r-1),\infty).\end{gathered}$$ For $k \leq r$ and a function $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$, we say that $f$ is *$k$-trapped* if $f(\sigma) \in I^\sigma_k$ for all $\sigma \in [\omega]^r$; and $f$ is *trapped* if it is $k$-trapped for some $k$. ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ can be restricted to a certain class of functions, so we may say *${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ for $k$-trapped functions*, etc.
\[lem:FS.sca.trapped\] If ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ for trapped functions has (strong) cone avoidance property, then ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ has (strong) cone avoidance property.
We prove the lemma for strong cone avoidance property. The proof for cone avoidance is similar and thus omitted.
Fix $A, B$ and $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$ such that $A \not\leq_T B$. For each $\sigma \in [\omega]^r$, let $$\begin{gathered}
f_0(\sigma) = \min \{\sigma(0), f(\sigma)\}; \\
f_k(\sigma) = \min\{\sigma(k), \max\{\sigma(k-1), f(\sigma)\}\} \text{ if } 0 < k < r; \\ f_r(\sigma) = \max \{\sigma(r-1) + 1, f(\sigma)\}.\end{gathered}$$ By the assumption, we get $(H_k: k \leq r)$ such that
1. $H_0 \in [\omega]^\omega$ and $H_k \in [H_{k-1}]^\omega$ if $k > 0$;
2. $A \not\leq_T B \oplus H_k$;
3. $H_k$ is free for $f_0, \ldots, f_k$.
We claim that $H_r$ is free for $f$. Let $\sigma \in [H_r]^r$ be arbitrary. Then $f(\sigma) \in I^\sigma_k$ for some $k \leq r$ and thus $f(\sigma) = f_k(\sigma)$. As $H_r$ is free for $f_k$, $f(\sigma) \not\in H_r - \sigma$.
So, it suffices to deal with ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ for trapped functions. Among all trapped functions, $r$-trapped functions are the most easy going.
\[lem:FS.sca.r-trapped\] If $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$ is $r$-trapped and $X$ is Martin-Löf random in $f$, then there exists an infinite $X$-computable $f$-free set.
Hence, ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ for $r$-trapped functions has strong cone avoidance property.
Fix $A, X$ and $f$ as in the assumption. We define a computable sequence of consecutive intervals as following. Let $J_k = [a_k, b_k] = [k,k]$ for $k < r$. Given $J_k = [a_k, b_k]$ defined and $k+1 \geq r$, let $a_{k+1} = b_k + 1$, $$b_{k + 1} = \min \{b_k + 2^c: 2^c \geq 2^{k + 3} \binom{k+1}{r}\}$$ and $J_{k+1} = [a_{k+1}, b_{k+1}]$. Let $c_k$ be such that $b_k - a_k = 2^{c_k} - 1$.
Let $T = \bigcup_{l < \omega} \prod_{k \leq l} J_k$. Then $T$ is a computably bounded computable subtree of $[\omega]^{< \omega}$. Moreover, $[T]$ can be computably mapped to $2^\omega$: the string $\sigma$ of length $r$ such that $\sigma(k) = k$ for all $k < r$, is mapped to the empty string; if $\sigma \in T$ of length $k > r$ is mapped to $\mu \in 2^{<\omega}$ and $x = a_k + i \leq b_k$, then $\sigma{\langle}x{\rangle}$ is mapped to $\mu\nu$ where $\nu$ is the $i$-th element of $2^{c_k}$ under some computable enumeration of $2^{<\omega}$.
If $\sigma \in T \cap [\omega]^k$ is $f$-free, then $$\{x \in J_{k}: \sigma{\langle}x{\rangle}\text{ is \emph{not} free for } f\} \subseteq \{f(\rho): \rho \in [\sigma]^r\},$$ as $f$ is $r$-trapped. So, for each $l$, $$m_{T \cap [\omega]^{\leq l}} \{\sigma \in T \cap [\omega]^l: \sigma \text{ is free for } f\} > 2^{-1}.$$ Let $S = \{\sigma \in T: \sigma \text{ is free for } f\}$. Under the above computable isomorphism between $[T]$ and $2^\omega$, $[S]$ is computably isomorphic to a $\Pi^f_1$ class of Cantor space of positive measure. By the relativization of a result of Kucera (the corollary of Lemma 3 in [@Kucera:85], see also [@Nies:2010.book Proposition 3.2.24]), $X$ computes an infinite path $Y \in [S]$ which is clearly free for $f$.
For the strong cone avoidance property, fix $A \not\leq_T B$. Then $A \not\leq_T B \oplus X$ almost everywhere in Cantor space. So we can pick $X$ and $Y$ such that $A \not\leq_T B \oplus X$, $X$ is Martin-Löf random in $f$, $Y$ is an infinite $f$-free set computable in $X$.
Now, we can finish (F1).
\[cor:FS.sca.1\] ${\operatorname{FS}}^1$ has strong cone avoidance property.
By Lemmata \[lem:FS.sca.trapped\] and \[lem:FS.sca.r-trapped\], we just need strong cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{FS}}^1$ for $0$-trapped functions, which follows easily from Theorems \[thm:DzJo\] and \[thm:CGHJ\].
Assume that $r > 1$ and ${\operatorname{FS}}^k$ for $k < r$ has strong cone avoidance property. With these assumptions, we establish cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ and thus accomplish (F2).
\[lem:FS.sca.ca\] ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ has cone avoidance property.
Let $X, Y$ and $g: [\omega]^r \to \omega$ be such that $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g$.
For each $\sigma \in [\omega]^{r-1}$ and $x$, let $R_{\sigma,x} = \{y > \max \sigma: g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}) = x\}$. By strong cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{COH}}$, let $C \in [\omega]^\omega$ be such that $C$ is cohesive for $(R_{\sigma,x}: \sigma \in [\omega]^{r-1}, x < \omega)$ and $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g \oplus C$. Thus, the following function is total: $$\bar{g}(\sigma) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\lim_{y \in C} g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}), & \lim_{y \in C} g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}) \hbox{ exists;} \\
\max \sigma, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ By the induction hypothesis that ${\operatorname{FS}}^{r-1}$ has strong cone avoidance property, let $D \in [C]^\omega$ be such that $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g \oplus C \oplus D$ and $D$ is $\bar{g}$-free.
We define a desired $g$-free $H$ as a subset of $D$ by induction. Let $\xi_0 = \emptyset$. Suppose that $\xi_s \in [D]^{<\omega}$ is defined and free for $g$. By the cohesiveness of $C$, if $\sigma \in [\xi_s]^{r-1}$ and $y \in C$ is sufficiently large, then either $g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}) = \lim_{y \in C} g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}) = \bar{g}(\sigma)$, or $g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}) > \max \xi_s$. As $\xi_s$ is a $\bar{g}$-free, if $\sigma \in [\xi_s]^{r-1}$ and $y \in C$ is sufficiently large, then either $g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}) = \bar{g}(\sigma) \not\in \xi_s - \sigma = \xi_s {\langle}y{\rangle}- \sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}$, or $g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}) > \max \xi_s$ and thus $g(\sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}) \not\in \xi_s {\langle}y{\rangle}- \sigma{\langle}y{\rangle}$ too. So the following number is defined: $$x_s = \min \{y \in D: y > \max \xi_s \wedge \xi_s {\langle}y{\rangle}\text{ is free for } g\}.$$ Let $\xi_{s+1} = \xi_s {\langle}x_s{\rangle}$. Finally, let $H = \bigcup_s \xi_s$. Then $H$ is $g$-free. Moreover, $H \leq_T g \oplus D$ and thus $X \not\leq_T Y \oplus g \oplus H$.
Below, we work on (F3): to prove strong cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$. By Lemmata \[lem:FS.sca.trapped\] and \[lem:FS.sca.r-trapped\], it suffices to prove the following restriction of Theorem \[thm:FS.sca\].
\[lem:FS.sca.k-trapped\] For $k < r$, ${\operatorname{FS}}^r$ for $k$-trapped functions has strong cone avoidance property.
From now on, we fix $k < r$, $A \not\leq_T B$ and a $k$-trapped function $f: [\omega]^r \to \omega$. If $A \not\leq_T B \oplus X$, then $X$ is *cone avoiding*; a Mathias condition $(\sigma,X)$ is *cone avoiding* if $X$ is cone avoiding.
We prove Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.k-trapped\] by constructing a cone avoiding infinite $f$-free set $G$. We build $G$ in two steps:
1. We apply strong cone avoidance property of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems and of ${\operatorname{FS}}^q$ ($q < r$) to build a cone avoiding $E \in [\omega]^\omega$, such that
1. for each $\rho \in [E]^{< \omega}$ with $k < |\rho| < r$, there exists $b$ such that $f(\rho\tau) \not\in E - \rho$ for all $\tau \in [E \cap (b,\infty)]^{r - |\rho|}$.
2. By a Seetapun-style Mathias forcing, we build a cone avoiding $f$-free $G \in [E]^\omega$. In this step, we need some measure theoretic argument, which could be taken as an application of probabilistic method and is similar to that in Csima and Mileti [@Csima.Mileti:2009.rainbow]. The measure theoretic argument also needs strong cone avoidance property of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems.
To facilitate the construction, for each $\sigma \in [\omega]^{<r}$, let $f_\sigma: [\omega]^{r - |\sigma|} \to \omega$ be such that $f_\sigma(\tau) = f(\sigma\tau)$. In particular, $f_\emptyset = f$. Moreover, fix $(d_n: n > 0)$, so that ${\operatorname{ART}}^n_{<\infty,d_n}$ has strong cone avoidance property.
The construction of $E$
-----------------------
We build a desired $E$ from a cone avoiding $D$, which is sufficiently generic for Mathias forcing and has some nice properties.
For each $\rho \in [\omega]^{<\omega}$ with $k < |\rho| < r$ and a cone avoiding $X \in [\omega]^\omega$, there exist $\theta \in [I^\rho_k]^{\leq d_{r-|\rho|}}$ and a cone avoiding $Y \in [X]^\omega$ such that $f_\rho([Y]^{r-|\rho|}) = \theta$.
As $f$ is $k$-trapped and $|\rho| > k$, $f_\rho$ is a finite coloring with range contained by $I^\rho_k$. So the lemma follows from strong cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{ART}}^{r - |\rho|}_{<\infty, d_{r - |\rho|}}$.
By the above lemma and Lemma \[lem:M-forcing.ca\], we can build a descending sequence of cone avoiding Mathias conditions $((\sigma_n, X_n): n < \omega)$ and a sequence of finite sets $(\theta_\rho: k < |\rho| < r)$, which satisfy the following properties:
1. for each $n$, $|\sigma_n| < |\sigma_{n+1}|$;
2. for each $e$, there exists $n$ with $\Phi^B_e(Z) \neq A$ for all $Z \in (\sigma_n,X_n)$;
and also
- if $k < |\rho| < r$, then $\theta_\rho \in [I^\rho_k]^{\leq d_{r-|\rho|}}$ and $f_\rho([X_n]^{r-|\rho|}) = \theta_\rho$ for some $n$.
Let $D = \bigcup_n \sigma_n$. Then $D$ is infinite and cone avoiding.
For each $l \in (k, r)$ and $i < d_{r-l}$, let $F_{l, i}: [\omega]^{l} \to \omega$ be such that $$F_{l,i}(\rho) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\theta_\rho(i), & i < |\theta_\rho|; \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ By the induction hypothesis that ${\operatorname{FS}}^l$ for $l < r$ has strong cone avoidance property, we can obtain a cone avoiding $E \in [D]^\omega$, which is $F_{l,i}$-free for all $l \in (k,r)$ and $i < d_{r-l}$.
$E$ satisfies (E).
Fix an arbitrary $\rho \in [E]^{<\omega}$ with $l = |\rho| \in (k,r)$. As $E$ is $F_{l,i}$-free for all $i < d_{r-l}$, $\theta_\rho \cap (E - \rho) = \emptyset$. By (E’), there exists $b$ such that if $\tau \in [E \cap (b,\infty)]^{r-l}$ then $f_\rho(\tau) \in \theta_\rho$ and thus $f(\rho\tau) = f_\rho(\tau) \not\in E - \rho$. So $E$ satisfies (E).
The construction of $G$ {#the-construction-of-g}
-----------------------
We build a desired $f$-free set $G$ as a subset of $E$, by Mathias forcing.
We work with a specific subset of Mathias conditions. A Mathias condition $(\sigma,X)$ is *admissible*, if $\sigma X \subseteq E$, $X$ is cone avoiding and $\sigma\tau$ is $f$-free for all $\tau \in [X]^{r-k}$. $(\emptyset,E)$ is trivially an admissible condition.
If $(\sigma,X)$ is admissible, then let $\mathcal{F}_{\sigma,X}$ be the set of all $k$-trapped $g: [\omega]^r \to \omega$, such that $\sigma\tau$ is $g$-free for all $\tau \in [X]^{r-k}$. By the definition of admissibility, $f \in \mathcal{F}_{\sigma,X}$. As each $k$-trapped $g$ satisfies $g(\rho) \leq \max \rho$ for all $\rho \in [\omega]^r$, $\mathcal{F}_{\sigma,X}$ can be identified with a $\Pi^X_1$ class in Cantor space.
By the lemma below, admissible conditions always capture some free sets.
\[lem:FS.sca.M-condition\] If $(\sigma,X)$ is an admissible Mathias condition and $g \in \mathcal{F}_{\sigma,X}$, then there exists $Y \in [X]^\omega$ such that $\sigma Y$ is $g$-free. Moreover, if $g$ is cone avoiding then $Y$ can also be cone avoiding.
For each $\rho \in [\sigma]^{< r}$, let $g_\rho$ be such that $g_\rho(\tau) = g(\rho\tau)$ for all $\tau \in [\omega]^{r - |\rho|}$ with $\min \tau > \max \rho$. By Free Set Theorems, pick $Y \in [X]^\omega$ which is $g_\rho$-free for all $\rho \in [\sigma]^{< r}$; if $g$ is cone avoiding then $Y$ can be also cone avoiding, by Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.ca\].
To show that $\sigma Y$ is $g$-free, fix an arbitrary $\xi \in [\sigma Y]^r$. Let $\rho = \xi \cap \sigma$ and $\tau = \xi \cap Y$.
We claim that $g(\xi) \not\in \sigma - \rho$. If $|\rho| < k$, then $g(\xi) \geq \xi(k-1) > \max \sigma$ as $g$ is $k$-trapped. Suppose that $|\rho| \geq k$. Then $\tau$ is contained by some $\tau' \in [X]^{r-k}$ and $\xi = \rho\tau \subseteq \sigma\tau'$. As $\sigma\tau'$ is $g$-free, $g(\xi) \not\in \sigma\tau' - \xi \supseteq \sigma - \rho$.
On the other hand, $g(\xi) \not\in Y - \tau$ as $Y$ is $g_\rho$-free and $g(\xi) = g_\rho(\tau)$.
So, $\sigma Y$ is free for $g$.
We introduce some conventions to facilitate a measure theoretic argument.
We fix $d = d_{r-k}$ and $c$ such that $2^{c-1} > d$.
A finite tree $T \subset [\omega]^{<\omega}$ is *fast growing at order $n$*, if for each $\tau \in T - [T]$, $$|\{x: \tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\in T\}| \geq 2^{|\tau| + c + 2} \binom{n+|\tau|}{k}.$$ If $(\sigma,X)$ is admissible and $g \in \mathcal{F}_{\sigma,X}$, then let $\mathcal{T}(\sigma,X,g)$ be the set of all finite tree $T \subset [X]^{<\omega}$, such that $T$ is fast growing at order $|\sigma|$ and $\sigma\tau$ is $g$-free for each $\tau \in T$.
According to the following two lemmata, it is promising to find finite sequences on a fast growing tree to extend an admissible condition.
\[lem:FS.sca.fgt.cnt\] Suppose that $(\sigma,X)$ is admissible and $T \in \mathcal{T}(\sigma,X,f)$. Then there exists $b$, such that if $\tau \in T$, $\xi \in [E \cap (b,\infty)]^{r-k}$ and $\sigma\tau\xi$ is $f$-free then $$|\{\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\in T: \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi \text{ is \emph{not} free for } f\}| \leq \binom{|\sigma\tau|}{k}.$$
Let $a < \omega$ be a strict upper bound of all numbers occurring in $\sigma$ and $T$. By (E), pick $b > a$, such that for all $\rho \subseteq a$ and $\upsilon \subset E \cap (b,\infty)$, if $k < |\rho| < r$ and $|\rho\upsilon| = r$ then $f(\rho\upsilon) \not\in E - \rho$.
Fix $\tau \in T$ and $\xi \in [E \cap (b,\infty)]^{r-k}$ such that $\sigma\tau\xi$ is $f$-free.
If $\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\in T$ and $\zeta = \rho{\langle}x{\rangle}\upsilon \in [\sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi]^r$, then $f(\zeta) \not\in \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi - \zeta$.
If $\upsilon = \emptyset$, then $f(\zeta) = f(\rho{\langle}x{\rangle}) \leq \zeta(k) \leq x$ and $f(\rho{\langle}x{\rangle}) \not\in \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}- \rho{\langle}x{\rangle}$, as $f$ is $k$-trapped, $k < r$ and $\sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}$ is $f$-free. So, $f(\zeta) = f(\rho{\langle}x{\rangle}) \not\in \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi - \zeta$.
If $\upsilon \neq \emptyset$ and $\upsilon \neq \xi$, then $|\upsilon| < r - k$ and $|\rho{\langle}x{\rangle}| > k$. As $\upsilon \subset E \cap (b,\infty)$, $f(\zeta) = f(\rho{\langle}x{\rangle}\upsilon) \not\in E - \rho{\langle}x{\rangle}$. As $f$ is $k$-trapped, $f(\zeta) \leq \zeta(k) \leq x$. Thus $f(\zeta) \not\in E - \zeta \supset \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi - \zeta$.
If $\upsilon = \xi$ then $|\rho{\langle}x{\rangle}| = k$. As $f$ is $k$-trapped, $f(\zeta) \geq \zeta(k-1) = x$. So, $f(\zeta) \not\in \sigma\tau \supseteq \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi - \zeta$.
By the above claim, if $\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\in T$ and $\sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi$ is *not* free for $f$, then $f(\zeta) \in \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi - \zeta$ for some $\zeta \in [\sigma\tau\xi]^r$. As $\sigma\tau\xi$ is $f$-free, $f(\zeta) \not\in \sigma\tau\xi - \zeta$. Thus $f(\zeta) = x$. As $f$ is $k$-trapped and $\max \sigma\tau < x < \min \xi$, $\zeta \cap \xi = \xi$. Hence, $$\{x: \tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\in T \wedge \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi \text{ is not free for } f\} \subseteq \{f(\rho\xi): \rho \in [\sigma\tau]^k\}.$$ The lemma follows immediately.
\[lem:FS.sca.fgt\] Suppose that $(\sigma,X)$ is admissible and $T \in \mathcal{T}(\sigma,X,f)$. Then there exists $b$, so that if $\xi \in [E \cap (b,\infty)]^{r-k}$ and $\sigma\xi$ is $f$-free then $$m_T \{\tau \in [T]: \sigma\tau\xi \text{ is \emph{not} free for } f\} \leq 2^{-c-1}.$$
By the above lemma, for sufficiently large $b$, if $\xi \in [E \cap (b,\infty)]^{r-k}$, $\tau \in T - [T]$ and $\sigma\tau\xi$ is $f$-free, then $$m_T \{\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\in T: \sigma\tau{\langle}x{\rangle}\xi \text{ is \emph{not} free for } f\} \leq 2^{-|\tau| -c-2} m_T(\tau).$$ The lemma follows immediately from the above inequality.
Now, we can extend an admissible condition to force a cone avoiding requirement.
\[lem:FS.sca.Seetapun\] For each $e$ and an admissible $(\sigma,X)$, there exists an admissible $(\tau,Y) \leq_M (\sigma,X)$ such that $\Phi^B_e(Z) \neq A$ for all $Z \in (\tau,Y)$.
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be the set of $g \in \mathcal{F}_{\sigma,X}$, such that for every $T \in \mathcal{T}(\sigma,X,g)$, $$m_T \{\upsilon \in [T]: \upsilon \text{ contains an $(e,B)$-splitting pair over } \sigma)\} < 2^{-1}.$$ So, $\mathcal{U}$ is a $\Pi^{B \oplus X}_1$ subset of $\mathcal{F}_{\sigma,X}$.
*Case 1:* $\mathcal{U} = \emptyset$. In particular, $f \in \mathcal{F}_{\sigma,X} - \mathcal{U}$.
Fix $T \in \mathcal{T}(\sigma,X,f)$ such that $$m_T \{\upsilon \in [T]: \upsilon \text{ contains an $(e,B)$-splitting pair over } \sigma)\} \geq 2^{-1}.$$ Let $b$ be as in Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.fgt\] for $(\sigma,X)$ and $T$, and let $Y_0 = X \cap (b,\infty)$.
For each $\xi \in [Y_0]^{r-k}$, let $$h(\xi) = \{\upsilon \in [T]: \sigma\upsilon\xi \text{ is \emph{not} free for } f\}.$$ So, $h$ is a finite coloring of $[Y_0]^{r-k}$. By Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.fgt\], each $h(\xi)$ is a subset of $[T]$ and $m_T h(\xi) \leq 2^{-c-1}$. By strong cone avoidance property of Achromatic Ramsey Theorems, there exist $\theta$ and $Y \in [Y_0]^\omega$, such that $|\theta| \leq d = d_{r-k}$, $Y$ is cone avoiding and $h(\xi) \in \theta$ for each $\xi \in [Y]^{r-k}$. Thus, $$m_T \{\upsilon \in [T]: \exists S \in \theta (\upsilon \in S)\} \leq 2^{-c-1} d < 2^{-c-1} 2^{c-1} = 2^{-2}.$$ Let $P = \{\upsilon \in [T]: \forall S \in \theta(\upsilon \not\in S)\}$. By the definition of $h$, $$P = \{\upsilon \in [T]: \forall \xi \in [Y]^{r-k}(\sigma\upsilon\xi \text{ is free for } f)\};$$ by the above inequality, $m_T P > 2^{-2} 3$.
So, we can pick $\upsilon \in [T]$, such that $\upsilon$ contains an $(e,B)$-splitting pair over $\sigma$ and $\sigma\upsilon\xi$ is $f$-free for all $\xi \in [Y]^{r-k}$. Fix $x$ and $\eta \subseteq \upsilon$ such that $\Phi^B_e(\eta; x) \downarrow \neq A(x)$. Let $\tau = \sigma\eta$. Then $(\tau,Y)$ is a desired admissible condition.
*Case 2:* $\mathcal{U} \neq \emptyset$.
By Jockusch-Soare’s Theorem \[thm:JoSo\], pick a cone avoiding $g \in \mathcal{U}$. By Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.M-condition\], let $Y_0 \in [X]^\omega$ be such that $Y_0$ is cone avoiding and $\sigma Y_0$ is $g$-free. We define a $Y_0$-computable sequence of consecutive intervals by induction:
- $J_0 = [a_0, b_0]$, where $a_0 = 0$ and $|Y_0 \cap J_0| = 2^{n_0}$ for some $2^{n_0} \geq 2^{c+2} \binom{|\sigma|}{k}$.
- if $J_l = [a_l, b_l]$ is defined, then $J_{l+1} = [a_{l+1}, b_{l+1}]$, where $a_{l+1} = b_l + 1$ and $|Y_0 \cap J_{l+1}| = 2^{n_{l+1}}$ for some $2^{n_{l+1}} \geq 2^{l+c+3} \binom{|\sigma|+l+1}{k}$.
For each $l$, let $T_l$ be the set of all $\upsilon \in [\omega]^{\leq l}$ such that $\upsilon(i) \in Y_0 \cap J_i$ for all $i < |\upsilon|$. Trivially, $T_l \in \mathcal{T}(\sigma,X,g)$. We can $Y_0$-computably map infinite paths of $\bigcup_l T_l$ to $2^\omega$: the empty string is mapped to the empty string; if $\sigma \in [T_l]$ is mapped to $\mu \in 2^{<\omega}$ and $x$ is the $i$-th element in $Y_0 \cap J_{l}$, then $\sigma{\langle}x{\rangle}$ is mapped to $\mu \nu$ such that $\nu$ is the $i$-th element in $2^{n_{l}}$ (under some computable enumeration of $2^{<\omega}$).
As $g \in \mathcal{U}$, for each $l$, $$m_{T_l} \{\upsilon \in [T_l]: \upsilon \text{ contains an $(e,B)$-splitting pair over } \sigma)\} < 2^{-1}.$$ Let $$T = \{\upsilon \in \bigcup_l T_l: \upsilon \text{ contains \emph{no} $(e,B)$-splitting pair over } \sigma)\}.$$ Then under the above mapping, $T$ is $Y_0$-computably isomorphic to a $\Pi^{B \oplus Y_0}_1$ subset of Cantor space with positive measure. So, we can pick some $R$, such that $R$ is Martin-Löf random in $B \oplus Y_0$, $A \not\leq_T B \oplus Y_0 \oplus R$ and $Y_0 \oplus R$ computes some $Y \in [T]$. Then $Y$ is cone avoiding and contains no $(e,B)$-splitting pair over $\sigma$. It follows that $\Phi^B_e(Z) \neq A$ for all $Z \in (\sigma,Y)$. Hence, $(\tau,Y)$ is as desired.
By an argument similar to Case 1 in the proof of Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.Seetapun\], we can extend the finite head of an admissible condition.
\[lem:FS.sca.finite-ext\] Each admissible condition $(\sigma,X)$ admits an admissible extension $(\tau,Y)$ with $|\tau| > |\sigma|$.
Let $n = 2^{c+2} \binom{|\sigma|}{k}$ and $(x_i: i < n)$ be a strictly increasing sequence from $X$. Let $T$ be a finite tree, consisting of exactly $\emptyset$ and ${\langle}x_i{\rangle}$ for $i < n$. Trivially, $T \in \mathcal{T}(\sigma,X,f)$. Let $b$ be as in Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.fgt.cnt\] for $(\sigma,X)$ and $T$. For $\xi \in [X \cap (b,\infty)]^{r-k}$, let $$h(\xi) = \{i: \sigma{\langle}x_i{\rangle}\xi \text{ is \emph{not} free for } f\}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.fgt.cnt\], $h(\xi)$ is a subset of $n$ with no more than $\binom{|\sigma|}{k}$ elements. By strong cone avoidance property of ${\operatorname{ART}}$, fix $\theta$ and $Y \in [X \cap (b,\infty)]^\omega$, such that $|\theta| \leq d$, $Y$ is cone avoiding and $h([Y]^{r-k}) = \theta$. By the definition of $h$, $i \in S \in \theta$ if and only if $\sigma{\langle}x_i{\rangle}\xi$ is not $f$-free for some $\xi \in [Y]^{r-k}$. So, $$\{i < n: \forall S \in \theta(i \not\in S)\} = \{i < n: \forall \xi \in [Y]^{r-k}(\sigma{\langle}x_i{\rangle}\xi \text{ is free for } f)\}.$$ Let $N$ denote the set above. Then $$|N| \geq n - |\theta| \binom{|\sigma|}{k} \geq (2^{c+2} - d) \binom{|\sigma|}{k} > 0.$$ So, we can pick $i \in N$ and let $\tau = \sigma{\langle}x_i{\rangle}$. Then $(\tau,Y)$ is as desired.
With Lemmata \[lem:FS.sca.Seetapun\] and \[lem:FS.sca.finite-ext\], we can get a descending of admissible Mathias conditions $((\sigma_n, X_n): n < \omega)$ such that
1. $(\sigma_0,X_0) = (\emptyset, E)$;
2. $|\sigma_n| < |\sigma_{n+1}|$ for each $n$;
3. for each $n$ and $Z \in (\sigma_{n+1},X_{n+1})$, $\Phi_n^B(Z) \neq A$.
Let $G = \bigcup_n \sigma_n$. By admissibility, $G$ is $f$-free; by the above properties, $G$ is infinite and cone avoiding.
So, we prove Lemma \[lem:FS.sca.k-trapped\] and thus also Theorem \[thm:FS.sca\].
Remarks and Questions {#s:Questions}
=====================
As Jockusch’s bounds apply for most theorems in the four families, if $\Phi$ and $\Psi$ are theorems from same family for exponents $2$ and $3$ respectively, then usually $\Phi \not\vdash \Psi$. Naturally, we expect to generalize this relation to larger exponents. In other words, we can ask whether any of the four families gives rise to a proper hierarchy of combinatorial principles below ${\operatorname{ACA}_0}$. Actually, this question has been asked in [@Cholak.Giusto.ea:2005.freeset; @Csima.Mileti:2009.rainbow] for ${\operatorname{FS}}$, ${\operatorname{TS}}$ and ${\operatorname{RRT}}$ respectively. In [@Wang:2013.COH.RRT], it is shown that ${\operatorname{RRT}}^3_2 \not\vdash {\operatorname{RRT}}^4_2$. Here we state the parallel question for ${\operatorname{ART}}$.
\[q:hierarchy\] Fix $(d_k: 0 < k < \omega)$ as in §\[s:WRT.sca\]. Does ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,d_r} \vdash {\operatorname{ART}}^{r+1}_{e,d_{r+1}}$ for any $r > 1$ and reasonable $c,e$?
A possible approach to answer the above questions would be to construct relating solutions with humble iterated jumps, as the author did in [@Wang:2013.COH.RRT]. Recall that a set $X$ is *${\operatorname{low}}_n$* if $X^{(n)} \equiv_T \emptyset^{(n)}$; otherwise, $X$ is *non-${\operatorname{low}}_n$*. By Cholak, Jockusch and Slaman [@Cholak.Jockusch.ea:2001.Ramsey], ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$ admits non-${\operatorname{low}}_2$-omitting, and so do all $\Phi$ in the four families for exponent $2$, as they are consequences of ${\operatorname{RT}}^2_2$; by [@Wang:2013.COH.RRT], ${\operatorname{RRT}}^3_2$ admits non-${\operatorname{low}}_3$-omitting. But in general, we do not know much.
Given $\Phi$ which is a statement in the four families with exponent $r > 2$, does it admit non-${\operatorname{low}}_r$-omitting?
For ${\operatorname{ART}}$, we can ask finer questions. Clearly, for fixed $r$ and $c$, if $d \leq e$ then ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,d} \vdash {\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,e}$. Dorais et al. [@Dorais.Dzhafarov.ea:2013] have established some implications between different instances of ${\operatorname{ART}}$, e.g., ${\operatorname{ART}}^{mn+1}_{k^n, k^n - 1} \vdash {\operatorname{ART}}^{m+1}_{k,k-1}$ ([@Dorais.Dzhafarov.ea:2013 Proposition 5.3]), although they use a less artistic name for some instances of ${\operatorname{ART}}$ here. But in general, relations between distinct instances of ${\operatorname{ART}}$ are unkown.
Compare distinct instances of ${\operatorname{ART}}$, e.g., ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,d}$ and ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,d+1}$.
Note that, if $c < \infty$ then ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{c,d}$ is equivalent to ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{d+1,d}$. However, the obvious proof for this equivalence can not be generalized to yield ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{d+1,d} \vdash {\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d}$, even if $d$ is a standard positive integer.
Compare ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{d+1,d}$ and ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d}$.
Another kind of metamathematical questions is about the relations between the four families. Recently, Xiaojun Kang [@Kang:2013] proves that ${\operatorname{RRT}}^2_2 \not\vdash {\operatorname{TS}}^2$ and thus ${\operatorname{RRT}}^2_2$ is strictly weaker than ${\operatorname{FS}}^2$. The general picture is yet to be discovered.
Compare theorems between different families.
People may also be interested in the integer series $(d_k: 0 < k < \omega)$ in §\[s:WRT.sca\]. By the proof of Theorem \[thm:WRT.sca\], we can take the series (with offset 1) to be the Schröder numbers (see [@Weisstein:Schroder.number]): $$S_0 = 1, \ S_n = S_{n-1} + \sum_{k < n} S_k S_{n-k-1}.$$
Are Schröder numbers optimal bounds for Achromatic Ramsey Theorems to have strong cone avoidance property? Or just for ${\operatorname{ART}}^r_{<\infty,d} \not\vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$?
Dorais et al. [@Dorais.Dzhafarov.ea:2013 Proposition 5.5] have shown that ${\operatorname{ART}}^{r+1}_{2^r, 2^r - 1} \vdash {\operatorname{ACA}_0}$. But the gap between $2^r - 1$ and $S_r$ is quite large, as $S_r > 2^{2r-2}$.
[^1]: This research is partially supported by NSF Grant 11001281 of China and an NCET grant from the Ministry of Education of China. The author thanks Carl Jockusch and Chitat Chong for their comments on some details in an earlier version.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Theoretical Physics and Quantum Technology Department, NUST “MISIS”, 119049 Moscow, Russia'
author:
- 'S.I. Mukhin[^1], B.B. Kheyfets'
title: Pore formation phase diagrams for lipid membranes
---
The purpose of the present work is calculation and comparison of the phase diagrams of porous fluid lipid membranes under lateral stretch deformation using different microscopic models developed recently [@mubao; @mukhey]. We approach the problem of understanding the relatively high robustness of bolalipid membranes as compared with their monopolar lipid counterparts by considering distinction in their inter-chains entropic repulsion. Namely, the hydrocarbon chains of the monopolar lipid molecules are modeled by fluctuating semi-flexible strings (beams), and their bolalipid counterparts are modeled with straight rods, assuming the limit of higher bending (flexural) modulus. The models have been used to calculate the lateral pressure profiles and compressibility moduli of the monopolar lipid (see Fig. \[1\], *A*) and bolalipid membranes (see Fig. \[2\], *B*). The main outcome of the present derivation is analytical expressions for the critical lateral pressures that cause formation of finite radius pores in the monopolar lipid and bolalipid membranes. It is demonstrated that high chains flexural rigidity leads to a significant enhancement of the critical lateral area-stretching tension (lateral pressure), at which the membrane acquires a pore. Simultaneously, the radius of the critical pore is decreased by the stiffening of the chains (assuming pore edge energy stays approximately the same). The Helmholtz free energy ($NVT$ - ensemble) is used in the derivations.
There is a phenomenological theory [@litster] of the pore formation under the constant tension and temperature. However in this theory a number of lipids doesn’t hold, and the theory doesn’t allow stable pore: $$\Delta F = 2 \pi R \cdot \gamma_R - \pi R^2 \cdot \tilde{\gamma}
\label{eq:pt}$$ Here $ \Delta F $ is the free enrgey change due to formation of a pore of radius $R$, $\gamma_R$ is the line tension of the pore edge, $\tilde{\gamma}$ is an effective surface tension of the membrane that includes the tension $\gamma$ at the membrane’s hydrophilic-hydrophobic interface, as well as applied lateral tension that stretches the membrane. The first term describes energy of the pore edge, and the second term in Eq. (\[eq:pt\]) describes gain in the elastic deformation energy due to pore formation. Once the radius $R$ of a pore becomes greater than $\gamma_R/\tilde{\gamma}$, the pore grows infinitely large. Hence, there are no stable pores, and one can’t get critical pressure at which the smallest possible (meta)stable pore first appears.
Alternatively, we consider the Helmholtz free energy change of the $NVT$ ensemble of lipids (constituting the membrane), being the sum of the energy of the line tension of the pore edge and of the elastic deformation of the membrane at a given lateral area stretch [@farago_water-free_2003; @tolpekina_simulations_2004], which then developes minima at finite values of the pore radius $R$: $$\Delta F = \frac{\pi K_a}{2} \frac{\left ( {R_\parallel}^{2} - {R_0}^{2} - R^2\right )^2}{{R_0}^{2}} + 2 \pi R \cdot \gamma_R
\label{eq:nvt}$$ Here $K_a$ is the lateral stretch/compression modulus of the membrane, $R_\parallel$ is the radius of the outer circle that delimits the membrane with or without pore, $R_0$ is the radius of the membrane without pore under zero external lateral pressure, $\gamma_R$ is the line tension of the pore edge.
Below we derive Eq. (\[eq:nvt\]) from a microscopic flexible strings model [@mubao; @mukhey], and then calculate the phase diagram of the membrane considering bilayer of semi-flexible strings as a model of the lipid bilayer (formed by monopolar lipids), and monolayer of rigid rods as a model of the bolalipid membrane (see Fig.1). We write the Helmholtz free energy functional of a membrane as: $$F = N \cdot F_t(A_p) + 2 \gamma \cdot \pi (R_\parallel^2 - R^2) + 2 \pi R \cdot \gamma_R \;.
\label{eq:helm-fsm}$$ Here $N$ is number of hydrocarbon tails, $F_t(A_p)$ is the free energy of a tail, that sweeps an area $A_p$ in the membrane’s plane. The energy $F_t(A_p)$ allows for tail bending fluctuations and its collisions with the neighbors under the external lateral stretching stress. Also $\gamma$ is coefficient of the surface energy defined at hydrophilic-hydrophobic interface that usually separates lipid heads from hydrocarbon tails in the membrane. This surface tension is balanced by the entropic repulsion of the tails, resulting in zero overall tension of the self-assembled membrane: $$P_t - 2 \gamma = 0 \;.
\label{eq:equ}$$ Here and also in the Eq. (\[eq:helm-fsm\]) factor $2$ is due to the two surfaces of the membrane.
The lateral increase of the membrane area $\pi (R_\parallel^2 - R_0^2 - R^2)$ equals:
$$\pi (R_\parallel^2 - R_0^2 - R^2) = N \cdot \delta A \;.
\label{eq:sur}$$
where $\delta A$ is the increase of the area $A$ per single lipid. Since lipid membrane is in the liquid crystalline phase the external lateral pressure is taken to be homogeneous across the membrane. Substituting $\pi (R_\parallel^2 - R^2) = N \cdot \delta A +\pi R_0^2$ into (\[eq:helm-fsm\]) and assuming change of area per lipid to be small: $A_p = A + \delta A$ one finds: $$\begin{aligned}
F =& N \left \lbrace F_t(A) + \delta A \cdot \frac{\partial F_t}{\partial A}(A) + \frac{\left (\delta A \right )^2}{2} \frac{\partial ^2F_t}{\partial A^2}(A) \right \rbrace + \nonumber \\
& + 2 \gamma (N \cdot \delta A + \pi R_0^2) + 2 \pi R \cdot \gamma_R \;,
\label{eq:F-series}\end{aligned}$$ here $A$ is an area per lipid in a membrane with no pore under zero external pressure. Recalling the equilibrium condition Eq. (\[eq:equ\]) and noting that $$P_t = - \dfrac{\partial F_t}{\partial A}
\label{eq:P_t}$$ we find that: $$\frac{\partial F_t}{\partial A}(A) + 2 \gamma = 0 \;.
\label{eq:A}$$
Now introducing the energy of the membrane without pore under zero external lateral pressure: $$F_0 = N \cdot F_t(A) + 2 \gamma \cdot \pi R_0^2 \, ,
\label{eq:E_0}$$ and using Eqs. (\[eq:A\]), (\[eq:E\_0\]) and definition of $R_0$: $\pi R_0^2 = N \cdot A$, we can rewrite (\[eq:F-series\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta F= &F - F_0 = N \cdot \dfrac{\left (\delta A \right )^2}{2} \dfrac{\partial ^2F_t}{\partial A^2} (A) + 2 \pi R \cdot \gamma _R \\
& =\dfrac{\pi K_a}{2} \dfrac{\left ( {R_\parallel}^{2} - {R_0}^{2} - R^2\right )^2}{{R_0}^{2}} + 2 \pi R \cdot \gamma_R \;,
\label{eq:F_s}\end{aligned}$$ where $$K_{a} = A \cdot \frac{\partial^2 F_t}{\partial A^2}(A)\, ,
\label{eq:K_a}$$ is the area stretch/compressibility modulus calculated analytically in [@mubao; @mukhey]. Hence, Eqs. (\[eq:F\_s\]) and (\[eq:K\_a\]) link free energy functional of the membrane with a pore with a microscopic theory for area compressibility modulus $K_a$ developed earlier in [@mubao; @mukhey].
Next, following derivation of [@tolpekina_simulations_2004], we extremize free energy given in Eq. (\[eq:F\_s\]) with respect to the pore radius $R$ : $${K_a} \left( R^3 - R\Delta \right) + \gamma_R {R_0^2}= 0
\label{eq:der}$$ where $\Delta = R_\parallel^2 - R_0^2$ is introduced for convenience. Then, the radius of the pore, that minimizes the free energy of the membrane [@smirnov_course_1964; @tolpekina_simulations_2004] is : $$R_m = 2 \sqrt{\dfrac{\Delta}{3}} \cos \frac{\phi}{3}
\label{eq:R_m}$$ where $\cos \phi = - \dfrac{\gamma_R R_0^2}{2 K_a} \left ( \dfrac{3}{\Delta} \right )^{3/2}$. The real valued solution $R_m$ exists, provided the discriminant of (\[eq:der\]) is negative: $$\frac{\gamma_R^2 R_0^4}{4 K_a^2} - \frac{\Delta^3}{27} < 0
\label{eq:D<0}$$ The area stretching tension $ P_{m}$ applied to a membrane with this pore is obtained by differentiation of Eq. (\[eq:F\_s\]) under the condition (\[eq:der\]): $$P_{m} = -\frac{\partial (F - F_0)}{\pi \partial \Delta} = \frac{\gamma_R}{R_{m}}
\label{eq:P_m}$$
To create a pore in the pore-free membrane one applies a critical area stretching pressure $P_c$ by producing a critical area stretch $\pi \Delta_c$, at which free energy $F - F_0$ in Eq. (\[eq:F\_s\]) develops an inflection point as a function of $R$ at $R = R_c$ (“critical pore’s radius”). Hence, $\Delta_c$ could be found by equating a discriminant of the Eq. (\[eq:der\]) to zero: $$\frac{\gamma_R^2 R_0^4}{4 K_a^2} - \frac{{\Delta_c}^3}{27}=0
\label{eq:D=0}$$ Using then Eqs. (\[eq:R\_m\]) and (\[eq:P\_m\]) we find consecutively all the critical parametrs [@tolpekina_simulations_2004]: $$\Delta_c = \frac{3}{2^{2/3}} \left ( \frac{\gamma_R R_0^2}{K_a} \right )^{2/3}, \; R_c = \left ( \frac{\gamma_R R_0^2}{2K_a} \right )^{1/3} \,,
\label{eq:D_c}$$ and $$P_c = \frac{\gamma_R}{R_c}= \left ( \frac{2\gamma_R^2 K_a}{R_0^2} \right )^{1/3}
\label{eq:P_c}$$ But the critical pore is metastable. A smallest stable pore arises from it with the greater radius $R_e =2^{2/3}R_c$, at which the free energy of the membrane equals the free energy of the membrane without pore: $$\dfrac{\pi K_a}{2} \dfrac{\Delta^2}{{R_0}^{2}} = \dfrac{\pi K_a}{2} \dfrac{\left ( {\Delta} - R^2\right )^2}{{R_0}^{2}}+ 2 \pi R \cdot \gamma_R \;.
\label{eq:stable}$$ Solving Eqs. (\[eq:stable\]) and (\[eq:der\]) simultaneously one finds parameters of the smallest possible stable pore: $$P_e = \dfrac{1}{2^{2/3}}P_c, \; R_e ={2^{2/3}}R_c,\; \Delta_e = {2^{1/3}}\Delta_c\,.
\label{eq:D_e}$$ Hence, Eq. (\[eq:D\_e\]) indicates that critical pressure exceeds the equilibrium pressure corresponding to the stable pore. Once a critical pore of the radius $R_c$ appears its radius increases up to $R_e$ until the area stretching pressure drops from the critical $P_c$ to the equilibrium value $P_e$. Simultaneously, the outer radius of the membrane increases monotonically. Now we link these phenomenological results with a microscopic models of lipid membrane by analytical derivation of the area stretching/compression modulus $K_a$. To follow this derivation we review some results of the flexible strings theory obtained previously [@mubao; @mukhey].
In the semi-flexible strings model hydrophobic chain is treated as a string (beam) of a finite cross-section area $A_0$ (see Fig.1) and bending modulus $K_f$. Its deviations from a straight line along axis $z$ are considered as being small and the energy functional of the string is an integral over $z$: $$E_t = \int\limits_0^L \left [ \frac{\rho \dot{\mathbf{R}}^2 (z)}{2} + \frac{K_f}{2} \left ( \frac{\mathrm{d}^2 \mathbf{R}}{\mathrm{d} z^2} \right )^2 + \frac{B \mathbf{R}^2}{2} \right ] {\, \mathrm{d} z}
\label{eq:liq}$$ The first term here is kinetic energy, the second term is bending energy and the last one models interaction between neighboring chains via entropic repulsion.
The characteristic parameters of the string are: length, $L$ (for bolalipids we use $2 L$); number $N$ of $\mathrm{CH_2}$ groups of mass $m(\mathrm{CH_2})$.
The membrane is characterized by the hydrophobic surface tension $\gamma$ (see Eq. (\[eq:equ\])).
As the typical quantities for monopolar lipids we take $L = 15 \AA$, $A_0 = 10 \AA^2$, $N = 18$, $\gamma = 30$ erg/cm^2^ and $T = 300$ K for a temperature.
We estimate $K_f = k_B T L / 3$ [@mubao] using the Flory’s formula for the bending rigidity of a polymer chain at room temperature. The chain density per unit of length is estimated as: $\rho = m(\mathrm{CH_2}) N / L$. The self-consistent solution for parameter $B$ characterizing the entropic repulsion between chains in (\[eq:liq\]), at a particular average area $A$ swept by a lipid tail, is [@mubao; @mukhey] : $$b = \frac{1}{4 \nu^{3/4} (\sqrt{a} - 1)^{8/3}}
\label{eq:bm}$$ where dimensionless variables are introduced: $$a = \frac{A}{A_0}, ~~ b = B \cdot \frac{L^4}{K_f}, ~~ \nu = \frac{K_f A_0}{\pi k_B T L^3} \;,
\label{eq:abn}$$ and the limit $b\gg1$ is assumed. The lateral pressure of a monolayer of the hydrocarbon chains is found by a substitution of (\[eq:bm\]) into (\[eq:liq\]) and differentiation of the free energy $F_t$ according to (\[eq:P\_t\]) [@mubao] : $$\label{eq:P}
P_t = \frac{k_B T}{3A_0 \nu^{1/3} \sqrt{a} (\sqrt{a} - 1)^{5/3}} \;.$$ Using the balance equation for the monolayer: $P - \gamma = 0$, we find [@mubao; @mukhey]: $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{a} (\sqrt{a} - 1)^{5/3}} = {3 \nu^{1/3}} \frac{A_0 \gamma}{k_B T}\equiv g.
\label{eq:g}$$ The typical lipid chain parameters lead to an estimate: $\nu\approx 0.01$ and $g\approx 0.4$. Since we consider monopolar lipid membrane in a liquid state, i.e. $A\gg A_0$ or equivalently $a\gg 1$, we choose $g \ll 1$ limit to obtain analytical expressions, and thus find from above: $$a = g^{-3/4}\,.
\label{eq:am1}$$ Now we derive $K_a$ defined in (\[eq:K\_a\]), using (\[eq:P\_t\]), (\[eq:P\]) and (\[eq:g\]), (\[eq:am1\]): $$K_{a\gg1}=-2A \frac{{\partial}P_t}{{\partial} A} = \frac{8 k_B T}{9 A_0 \nu^{1/3} (\sqrt{a} - 1)^{8/3}}\approx \frac{8\gamma}{3}
\label{eq:d2Fa_gg1}$$
To study the opposite limit, $a\rightarrow 1$, we consider an ultimate case of tightly packed hydrocarbon chains ($a\rightarrow 1+0$) using model of rigid rods, $K_f = \infty$. Then, curved conformations of the chains have infinite energy and therefore drop out from the energy functional: $$E_t = \int\limits_0^{2 L} \left [ \frac{\rho \dot{\mathbf{R}}^2 (z)}{2} + \frac{B \mathbf{R}^2}{2} \right ] {\, \mathrm{d} z}\,.
\label{eq:E_b}$$ Here $2L$ is thickness of the hydrocarbon part of the membrane. Despite the rod is rigid, a deviation $\mathbf{R}(z)$ might not be zero, since it also includes movements of the rod as a whole in the lateral directions. Then, operator of the potential energy, $\hat H \equiv B$, has only single (constant) eigenfunction, which we normalize: $$\int_0^{2L} R_0^2 (z) {\, \mathrm{d} z} = 1 ~~ \Rightarrow ~~ R_0(z) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2L}}
\label{eq:R_0}$$ All the formalism of the flexible strings model holds [@mubao; @mukhey] and one finds: $$B(a) = \frac{k_B T \pi}{2 L A_0 (\sqrt{a} - 1)^2}\,,
\label{eq:Bb}$$ that gives: $$P_t = \frac{k_B T}{A_0} \frac{1}{\sqrt{a} (\sqrt{a} - 1)}
\label{eq:Ptb}$$ Using balance equation (\[eq:equ\]) we obtain instead of (\[eq:am1\]): $$a = 1 + \frac{\epsilon}{2};\; \epsilon\equiv \frac{k_B T}{A_0 \gamma}\ll 1\,,
\label{eq:Ba0}$$ where the limit $\epsilon \ll 1$ has to be assumed for $a\rightarrow 1$ to be true [^2]. We then calculate ${{\partial}^2 F_t}/{\mathrm{\partial} A^2}$ in order to obtain $K_a$ from (\[eq:K\_a\]) : $$K_{a\approx 1}=-a\frac{{\partial}P_t}{{\partial}a} = 8\gamma \frac{A_0 \gamma}{k_B T}\equiv\frac{8\gamma}{\epsilon} \;(\gg \gamma).
\label{eq:d2F-bola}$$ This result is remarkable, since direct comparison with Eq. (\[eq:d2Fa\_gg1\]) indicates that in the limit $a\rightarrow 1$ , due to $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, the lateral compressibility coefficient $K_a$ is enhanced by $1/\epsilon\gg1$ times with respect to the case $a\gg 1$ at $\epsilon\geq 1$ .
Finally, we substitute the microscopic theory results (\[eq:d2Fa\_gg1\]), (\[eq:d2F-bola\]) into the general relations (\[eq:D\_c\]), (\[eq:P\_c\]) and (\[eq:D\_e\]) and find parameters characterizing critical (and equilibrium pores, see relations in Eq. (\[eq:D\_e\])) in “liquid disordered” ($a\gg 1$) and “liquid ordered” ($a\rightarrow 1$)[^3] membranes: $$\begin{aligned}
P_c^{a\gg 1}&=&\left( \frac{16\gamma\gamma_R^{2}}{3R_0^2}\right)^{1/3}= \left(\dfrac{\epsilon}{3} \right)^{1/3}P_c^{a\approx 1} ;
\\ R_c ^{a\gg1}&=&\left( \frac{3\gamma_RR_0^2}{16\gamma}\right)^{1/3}= \left(\dfrac{\epsilon}{3} \right)^{-1/3}R_c^{a\approx 1};
\label{eq:be}\end{aligned}$$ and $\Delta_c = 3R_c^2$, and $\epsilon\ll 1$ is defined in (\[eq:Ba0\]). These results indicate, that stiffening of the lipid chains would lead to enhancement of the critical stretching tension (pressure) for pore formation, but simultaneously, would decrease the radius of the thus formed pore. Hence, the membrane becomes more robust to external mechanical lateral stress. The phase diagram of the membranes in the “liquid disordered” and “liquid ordered” limits (i.e. in $a\ll1$ and $a\rightarrow 1$ states, correspondingly) is plotted in Fig. 2 in the form $P=P_m(\Delta)$ using Eqs. (\[eq:D<0\]) and (\[eq:P\_m\]).
To summarize, we had calculated critical lateral tensions and corresponding pore radii for monopolar lipid and bolalipid membranes. Our results for two distinct microscopic models of hydrophobic lipid chains: semi-flexible strings and rigid rods suggest that stiffening the chains leads to enhancement of membrane lateral robustness.
We acknowledge partial support by the RFFI-KOMFI grant Nr. 130440327N and NUST MISIS infrastructure grant.
![Fig. 1. A: Monopolar lipid molecule; B: Bolalipid molecule; C: Flexible string model of lipid chains in the hydrophobic part of bilayer membrane: effecitve string has incompressible area $A_0$, arbitrary conformation of fluctuating string is described by function $\mathbf{R}(z)$ — deviation from the straight line across the membrane thickness with coordinate $z$. []{data-label="1"}](Lipids_FSM.ps){width="\linewidth"}
![Fig. 2. Phase diagram of membrane with pore formation: P is lateral tension (pressure) in the membrane; $\Delta/R_0^2$ is area stretch of the membrane under external tension normalized with the initial undeformed membrane area. The dashed lines correspond to metastable states of the pore; higher pressure/slope curves - rigid rods; lower pressure/slope curves - flexible strings. Input parameters: membrane initial radius $R_0 = 95$ nm, $\gamma = 30$ erg/cm^2^, $\gamma_R=20$ pN, $T = 300$ K; monopolar lipids: $N = 134200$ strings (in monolayer), $A_0 = 10~\AA^2$; bolalipids: $N = 80000$ rods, $A_0 = 27~\AA^2$.[]{data-label="2"}](P_D.ps){width="\linewidth"}
[99]{} Sergei I. Mukhin and Svetlana Baoukina, Phys. Rev. [**[E 71]{}**]{}, 061918 (2005).
Sergei I. Mukhin and Boris B. Kheyfets, Phys. Rev. [**[E 82]{}**]{}, 051901 (2010).
Litster, Phys. Lett. [**[A 53]{}**]{}, 193 (1975).
Oded Farago, Journ. Chem. Phys. [**[119]{}**]{}, 596 (2003).
T. V. Tolpekina, W. K. den Otter, and W. J. Briels, Journ. Chem. Phys. [**[121]{}**]{}, 8014 (2004).
M. De Rosa, A. Gambacorta, and A. Gliozzi, Microbiological Reviews [**[50]{}**]{}, 70 (1986).
V. I. Smirnov, [*A Course of Higher Mathematics: Elementary calculus*]{}, vol. 1, Pergamon Press, 1964.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: This inequality could arise e.g. due to morphology of the particular bolalipid molecules built with ether linkages [@rosa_structure_1986] unlike monopolar lipids, that are built with ester linkages.
[^3]: These names are of course rather tentative
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the emergence and disappearance of defect states in the complex Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (cSSH) model, a non-Hermitian one-dimensional lattice model containing gain and loss on alternating sites. Previous studies of this model have focused on the existence of a non-Hermitian defect state that is localized to the interface between two cSSH domains, and is continuable to the topologically protected defect state of the Hermitian Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model. For large gain/loss magnitudes, we find that these defect states can disappear into the continuum, or undergo pairwise spontaneous breaking of a composite sublattice/time-reversal symmetry. The symmetry-breaking transition gives rise to a pair of defect states continuable to non-topologically-protected defect states of the SSH model. We discuss the phase diagram for the defect states, and its implications for non-Hermitian defect states.'
author:
- 'Li-Jun Lang'
- You Wang
- Hailong Wang
- 'Y. D. Chong'
title: 'Effects of Non-Hermiticity on Su-Schrieffer-Heeger Defect States'
---
Introduction
============
The complex Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (cSSH) model [@171007-1] is a non-Hermitian extension of the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (SSH) model [@130704-1], the simplest one-dimensional (1D) Hermitian lattice exhibiting topological defect states [@111222-1]. It has been the subject of recent interest in experiments [@171212-2; @171207-7; @180409-2; @180419-3; @180402-1] as a simple testing-ground for the interaction of topological states with *non-Hermiticity*—i.e., the presence of loss and/or gain in the underlying medium [@101224-1; @110707-1]. The standard topological invariants used to characterize topological states of matter [@120316-1; @111222-1], including the SSH model, assume Hermiticity; for instance, Hermiticity guarantees the existence of a well-defined inner product, which is used to calculate the Zak phases [@130107-1] for characterizing the SSH model. Non-Hermitian generalizations of topological concepts, such as the bulk-edge correspondence principle, are thus of significant theoretical interest [@180720-9; @171012-1; @180720-8; @180720-7; @180720-3; @180720-4; @180720-5; @180720-6; @180720-2]. Moreover, non-Hermitian variants of topological states may have applications in photonics, where topological protection can be implemented by lattice engineering [@tpreview2014; @tpreview2017; @tpreview2018; @hailong1; @hailong2], and non-Hermiticity can be introduced by introducing optical loss and/or gain to the optical medium [@180501-3; @180501-1]. The robustness of topological modes may be usefully exploited in amplifiers [@liang2013; @Peano2016], lasers [@171007-1; @180719-1; @180719-2; @180719-2; @180419-3; @180402-1; @180720-9; @180720-10], and other non-Hermitian photonic devices.
Previous studies of the cSSH model, starting with the work of Schomerus [@171007-1], have focused on the existence of a defect state that is exponentially localized to an interface between different cSSH domains. In the Hermitian limit (no gain or loss), this defect state is explicitly continuable to the well-known topological mid-gap defect state of the SSH model [@130704-1]. In the non-Hermitian case (gain and loss on alternating lattice sites), the energy of the defect state can acquire a nonzero imaginary part, but the real part remains pinned to the mid-gap value. If the defect configuration is chosen appropriately, the defect state can have a larger amplification rate than any of the bulk states [@171007-1]; this has been demonstrated using microwave resonators [@171212-2] and lasers [@180402-1; @180419-3]. Alternatively, if the gain and loss are distributed in a parity/time-reversal ($\mathcal{PT}$) symmetric pattern [@101224-1], the bulk and defect state energies can be purely real [@171207-7; @180409-2].
These studies did not, however, look into whether SSH defect states always have a counterpart in the cSSH model, and, conversely, whether the defect states of the cSSH model are always SSH-like. This is a noteworthy omission because non-Hermitian states are known to be able to exhibit behaviors that have no Hermitian analogue. $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric dimer eigenstates, for example, can exhibit spontaneous $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry breaking [@180501-2], while some non-Hermitian lattices have been shown to support defect states that seem to be topological but have no evident Hermitian counterpart [@171009-1; @180306-1; @180322-1; @180613-1; @180720-8].
In this paper, we analyze the effect of non-Hermiticity on cSSH defect states. We find that two interesting things can happen to the SSH-like defect state as the gain and loss magnitude is increased. First, the defect state can disappear via a divergence in its localization length, which corresponds to the merging of the defect state energy into the complex continuum of bulk energies. Second, the SSH-like defect state can interact with a second defect state that emerges from the continuum. Both of these states satisfy a composite sublattice/time-reversal ($\mathcal{ST}$) symmetry, which pins the real parts of their energies to zero, and is the non-Hermitian counterpart of the $\mathcal{S}$ symmetry that pins the energy of the SSH mid-gap defect state to zero. The two states can coalesce in a spontaneous $\mathcal{ST}$-breaking transition (an exceptional point [@110707-1]), breaking apart into two $\mathcal{ST}$-broken defect states. The latter are continuable to the *non*-topologically-protected defect states of the SSH model, which have hitherto been ignored but can exist as well in the cSSH model. Both methods of destabilizing the SSH-like “mid-gap” defect state require $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry to be spontaneously broken in the bulk bandstructure.
We thus find that the cSSH chain has two anomalous defect state phases not present in the SSH model: (i) a phase with two “mid-gap” states localized to the domain wall, rather than one, and (ii) a phase with two “non-mid-gap” states but no “mid-gap” state. Phase (ii) includes the special case where the inter-site couplings are uniform (so that the cSSH lattice reduces to a lattice of gain/loss dimers with a defect in the gain/loss pattern); in this limit, the two “non-mid-gap” states appear abruptly when the gain/loss magnitude is increased above a certain nonzero threshold, similar to the “intrinsically non-Hermitian” defect states that have previously been seen in other non-Hermitian lattice models [@171009-1; @180306-1; @180613-1; @180720-8].
The complex Su-Schrieffer-Heeger (cSSH) model {#bulk}
=============================================
![(a) The bulk cSSH chain. Sites with gain ($i\gamma$) and loss ($-i\gamma$) are respectively indicated by red and blue circles, and couplings $1+ \delta$ and $1-\delta$ are indicated by double and single horizontal lines. (b) Phase diagram of the bulk cSSH chain, which contains a $\mathcal{PT}$-unbroken phase where all Bloch state energies are real (yellow), an intermediate phase with both real and imaginary energies (white), and an $\mathcal{ST}$-unbroken phase with purely imaginary energies (blue). (c)–(e) Complex bulk band structures for the cSSH chain, for the parameters indicated in (b) by the points labelled $c$, $d$, and $e$ respectively: $\delta = 0.5$ and (c) $\gamma =0$, (d) $\gamma = 1.5$, and (e) $\gamma = 2.5$. Solid (dashed) curves show the real (imaginary) part of the eigenenergy $E$. (f)–(h) cSSH chains with different lattice defects (vertical dashes). (f) $\mathcal{P}$-preserving defect. (g) $\mathcal{PT}$-preserving and $\mathcal{P}$-breaking defect. (h) A defect that breaks both $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{PT}$, while reversing $\gamma$ and $\delta$ across the interface. []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
The bulk cSSH lattice, depicted in Fig. \[fig1\](a), consists of a chain of dimers with alternating coupling strengths $t \pm \delta$ between adjacent $a$ and $b$ sites, and alternating on-site gain/loss represented by imaginary on-site potentials $\pm i \gamma$. The gain/loss averages to zero over the lattice. The bulk Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal H}_{\mathrm{bulk}}
&= \sum_n \Big[(t+\delta)\ket{a_n}\bra{b_n}+(t-\delta)\ket{a_n}\bra{b_{n-1}}
+\text{h.c.}\Big] \nonumber\\
&\quad + \sum_n\Big[i\gamma\ket{a_n}\bra{a_n}-i\gamma\ket{b_n}\bra{b_n}\Big],
\label{Ham_real}\end{aligned}$$ where $\ket{a_n}$ and $\ket{b_n}$ denotes the state on site $a$ and $b$, respectively, in the $n$-th unit cell. The parameters $t$, $\delta$, and $\gamma$ are all real; we set $t=1$ as the energy unit. When $\gamma = 0$, ${\cal H}_{\mathrm{bulk}}$ reduces to the SSH Hamiltonian [@130704-1]. Performing a Fourier decomposition yields the reduced Hamiltonian $$H_k= \begin{pmatrix} i\gamma & W_k \\ W_{-k} & -i\gamma \end{pmatrix},
\label{Ham_k}$$ where $W_k=(1+\delta)+(1-\delta)e^{-ik}$ and $k$ is the crystal momentum, with the unit of length chosen so that the lattice constant is unity. The resulting eigenvalue spectrum, $$E_{k,\pm}=\pm\sqrt{2(1+\delta^2)+2(1-\delta^2)\cos k-\gamma^2},
\label{disp_rel_1}$$ is shown in Fig. \[fig1\](c)–(e) for different values of $\gamma$.
In the bulk, the SSH lattice has parity ($\mathcal{P}$), time-reversal ($\mathcal{T}$), and sublattice ($\mathcal{S}$) symmetries. These symmetries are described in detail in Appendix \[a-proof\]. For $\gamma \ne 0$, the cSSH model breaks $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{S}$, and $\mathcal{T}$ individually, but retains two composite symmetries. First, it is $\mathcal{ST}$ symmetric [@171007-1; @180402-1; @171207-7], which implies that if $E_k$ is an eigenvalue, $-E_{-k}^*$ is also an eigenvalue [@180322-1; @180306-1]; as discussed in Appendix \[a-proof\], this symmetry is responsible for the flatness of the real part of the spectrum in the $\mathcal{ST}$-unbroken regime [@180322-1; @180306-1; @180720-1]. Second, it is $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetric, which implies that if $E_k$ is an eigenvalue, $E^*_k$ is also an eigenvalue [@101224-1; @180501-3; @180501-1]. The phase diagram for the cSSH chain’s bulk bandstructure is shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b). It is divided into three parts: (i) a $\mathcal{PT}$-unbroken phase where the Bloch states have real energies for all $k$, (ii) an intermediate phase where the energies are real for some ranges of $k$ and imaginary elsewhere, and (iii) an $\mathcal{ST}$-unbroken phase where the energies are purely imaginary for all $k$.
It is well known that when the SSH model ($\gamma = 0$) is gapped ($\delta \ne 0$), connecting two domains with opposite signs of $\delta$ leads to the emergence of a topological mid-gap defect state localized at the domain wall. The energy of the defect state is pinned to exactly zero by the $\mathcal{S}$ symmetry [@130704-1]. In a similar vein, we can consider putting domain walls or defects in the cSSH model ($\gamma \ne 0$). However, due to the presence of both alternating coupling strengths and alternating gain/loss in the cSSH model, there is some leeway in how the defect is defined. Schomerus’ original study of the cSSH model [@171007-1] used the configuration shown in Fig. \[fig1\](f), with gain applied to the defect site. In this case, the defect site can also be regarded as a domain wall, and the lattice is symmetric under a $\mathcal{P}$ operation across the defect site, whereas $\mathcal{PT}$ is broken [@171007-1; @171212-2; @180402-1]. (Henceforth, we will let the bulk lattices on the two sides of the defect have the same values of $\delta$ and $\gamma$.) This configuration has the notable feature that the bulk lattices on the two sides are “incompatible”: they have different patterns of alternating $\delta$ and $\gamma$, and are related to each other by a swap of either $\delta$ or $\gamma$. Subsequent studies [@171207-7; @180409-2; @sshlaser1; @180419-3] have also considered the configuration shown in Fig. \[fig1\](g); without gain or loss at the defect site, the overall lattice preserves $\mathcal{PT}$, although $\mathcal{P}$ is broken. The lattices on either side of the defect are “compatible”, in the sense that this configuration could be generated by inserting an additional site and link into a uniform cSSH lattice (similar to the original SSH case).
We will consider a third defect configuration, shown in Fig. \[fig1\](h). This has also been employed in a recent study by Yuce [@180614-1]. Unlike the previous two cases, the domain wall can be regarded as lying between two lattice sites; this defect configuration can be generated by inserting an additional gain site and link with coupling strength 1 into a uniform cSSH lattice, similar to the defect of Fig. \[fig1\](g) or the SSH model. The motivation for studying this configuration is that in the $\delta \rightarrow 0$ limit, the lattice takes the form of a gain/loss dimer lattice [@180322-1] with a missing-site defect, which can also be regarded as a domain wall lying across a link. Such a lattice supports “non-Hermiticity-induced” defect states, the implications of which will be discussed later. As indicated in Fig. \[fig1\](h), we label the unit cells by $n = 1, 2, \dots$ to the right of the defect, and $n = -1, -2, \dots$ to the left. The cSSH sublattices on the two sides are related by a simultaneous swap of $\delta$ and $\gamma$. The defect breaks both $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{PT}$, but the $\mathcal{ST}$ symmetry of the underlying cSSH lattice is preserved. Consequently, eigenstates of the lattice must be either $\mathcal{ST}$ symmetric, or form pairs with eigenenergies $(E_D,-E_D^*)$. For details, refer to Appendix \[a-proof\]. In the following, we focus on the case of $\gamma\ge 0$; the $\gamma\le 0$ case is just the time-reversed counterpart, with complex conjugated eigenenergies.
Defect states
=============
We look for states that are exponentially localized to the defect, having the form $$\ket{\psi_D} = \sum_{\pm} \sum_{n > 0} \lambda^{n}
\Big(\alpha_\pm |a_{\pm n}\rangle + \beta_\pm |b_{\pm n}\rangle\Big),
\label{trial}$$ with undetermined complex constants $\lambda$, $\alpha_\pm$, and $\beta_\pm$, constrained by $|\lambda| < 1$. The lattice is assumed to be infinite, so the sum over $n$ extends to infinity. The energy of the defect state is related to $\lambda$ by $$E_D^2+\gamma^2=2(1+\delta^2)+(1-\delta^2)(\lambda+\lambda^{-1}).
\label{disp_2}$$ This ansatz is applied to the lattice configuration shown in Fig. \[fig1\](h), with coupling strength 1 on the defect link. The solution is detailed in Appendix \[a-derive\]. The resulting phase diagram for the defect states is shown in Fig. \[fig2\](a). (As previously discussed, we consider only $\gamma\ge0$.)
. In the white regions (I), the lattice has one defect state, in the green regions (III) it has three defect states, and in the pink (II) and orange regions (IIA) it has two defect states. The defect states in II are $\mathcal{ST}$-broken, and the defect states in IIA are $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric. The points labelled $b$, $c$, $d$, and $e$ indicate the parameters for the spectra plotted in (b)–(e). The gray dashes are the phase boundaries of the bulk lattice bandstructure, corresponding to Fig. \[fig1\](b). The blue dots indicate the critical line segment ($\delta = 0$ and $0\le\gamma\le1$) over which there are no localized defect states. (b)-(e) Complex eigenenergy spectra, calculated numerically for a finite lattice with 75 unit cells on each side of the defect, for (b) $\gamma = 0.5$ and $\delta = 2$, (c) $\gamma = 0.5$ and $\delta = 0.5$, (d) $\gamma = 1.5$ and $\delta = 0.5$, and (e) $\gamma = 2.5$ and $\delta = 0$. Defect states continuable to SSH mid-gap states are shown as triangles, defect states continuable to non-mid-gap states as squares, bulk states as black circles, and edge states (due to the finite lattice size) as grey circles.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
The left edge of this phase diagram ($\gamma = 0$) corresponds to an SSH model with a domain wall through a link, and topologically distinct configurations on either side. This supports *three* distinct defect state solutions. One of them is the mid-gap defect state, which exists for all $\delta \ne 0$ and is pinned to energy $E_D^0 = 0$ by the $\mathcal{S}$ symmetry [@130704-1; @111222-1] and topologically protected by a $\pi$ difference in the Zak phases calculated for two bulk lattices [@130107-1]. The other two defect states, which exist for $0 < |\delta| < \sqrt{2}$, have eigenenergies $$E_D^{\pm} = \pm \sqrt{4+\delta^4},$$ which respectively lie above and below the bulk energy bands. These defect states do not lie in a band gap, and are usually regarded as being topologically trivial in the Hermitian sense, because the Zak phases related to the non-mid-gap states have no difference for the two configurations on both sides of the domain wall. In the limit $\delta = \pm 1$, the three defect states reduce to the eigenstates of a trimer with coupling strengths of 1 and 2 on its two links, whose eigenenergies are 0 and $\pm\sqrt{5}$.
Suppose $0 < |\delta|<\sqrt{2}$, for which the SSH chain has three defect states. As we gradually increase $\gamma$ from zero, all three defect states evolve continuously into exponentially-localized defect states of the non-Hermitian lattice, and their energies $\{E_D^0, E_D^\pm\}$ become complex. The topological mid-gap state becomes an unpaired $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state with imaginary $E_D^0$. The two non-mid-gap states become a pair of defect states that individually break the $\mathcal{ST}$ symmetry, and map to each other under $\mathcal{ST}$, satisfying $E_D^+ = - (E_D^-)^*$. Within the regions labelled III in Fig. \[fig2\](a), the lattice supports three distinct and well-defined defect states. Note that the boundary of these regions lie close to, but outside, the phase boundaries of the bulk bandstructure’s $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase \[Fig. \[fig1\](b)\]. Fig. \[fig2\](c) shows a typical complex energy spectrum in domain III, calculated for a large but finite lattice. (We emphasize, however, that the phase boundaries in Fig. \[fig2\](a) were derived for infinite lattices, with and without the domain wall.) Note that the two $\mathcal{ST}$-broken defect states (blue squares) have values of $\mathrm{Re}(E_D^\pm)$ overlapping with the real bulk energy bands, but are nonetheless exponentially localized to the defect. This is reminiscent of the phenomenon of “bound states in the continuum” in Hermitian systems [@180703-2; @180703-1], whose realization in non-Hermitian systems has recently been discussed by several authors [@180703-4; @180703-3; @180703-5].
As $\gamma$ is further increased, the unpaired $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state abruptly disappears. In the domain labelled II in Fig. \[fig2\](a), the system contains only two defect states (the $\mathcal{ST}$-broken pair). The disappearance of the $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state occurs via a divergence in its exponential decay constant (i.e., $|\lambda| \ge 1$ in the solution to the Schrödinger equation with the ansatz ), which coincides with the merging of $E_D^0$ into the continuum of bulk state eigenenergies. Since $E_D^0$ is imaginary, this can only happen outside the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric phase of the bulk bandstructure, where the bulk spectrum is at least partially imaginary—hence the relationship between the defect state phase boundary and bulk phase boundary in Fig. \[fig2\](a). Further details about the disappearance of the $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state are given in Appendix \[a-derive\].
Fig. \[fig2\](d) and (e) shows the complex energy spectra at two points in domain II. In Fig. \[fig2\](d), the bulk is in the intermediate phase, and its energies lie partly on the real line and partly on the imaginary line; the defect state eigenenergies $E_D^\pm$ stand apart from the bulk energies in the complex plane, but their real parts can be embedded in the $\mathrm{Re}(E)$ continuum. In Fig. \[fig2\](e), the bulk is in the $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric phase and all of its energies are imaginary, whereas $\mathrm{Re}(E_D^\pm) \ne 0$.
The case of $\delta = 0$ deserves special attention. For $\gamma = 0$, this is just an undimerized chain, with no defect states. More interestingly, there are no defect states over the finite range $0 \le \gamma \le 1$. Only for $\gamma > 1$ do the pair of $\mathcal{ST}$-broken defect states appear, described by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_- &= \beta_+ = \pm \lambda,\;\;\;
\alpha_+ = \beta_- = 1, \\
\lambda &= \pm \left(\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}-i\gamma\right). \label{d0lambda}\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding eigenenergies are $E_D^\pm =\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}\pm 1$. Within the range $0 \le \gamma \le 1$, Eq. states that $|\lambda| = 1$, so the states are not localized. This results in a critical line segment in the phase diagram, indicated by the blue dots in Fig. \[fig2\](a), on which no localized defect states exist. The end of the line segment (at $\delta = 0,\,\gamma = 1$) is an exceptional point for Eq. .
Malzard, Poli, and Schomerus [@171009-1] have recently drawn attention to a class of intrinsically non-Hermitian defect states that (i) are not present in the Hermitian limit, and (ii) appear when a non-Hermiticity parameter exceeds a certain nonzero magnitude. They argued that such defect states may be considered “topologically protected”, in the sense that they are associated with non-Hermitian spectral phases bounded by exceptional points related to $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry breaking. The defect states of our $\delta = 0$ lattice behave similarly, and in fact we show in Appendix \[a-eqv\] that the $\delta = 0$ lattice is a particular limit of the model in Ref. . However, the present analysis reveals qualifications to regarding these as topological defect states. In the $0 \le \gamma \le 1$ range, the defect states are indeed absent for $\delta = 0$, but instantly re-appear when an infinitesimal $\delta$ is introduced (which causes $|\lambda|$ to drop below 1). Moreover, the defect states themselves are continuable to the non-mid-gap defect states of the SSH lattice, which are not topologically protected in the Hermitian sense.
$\mathcal{ST}$-breaking of defect states
========================================
. The points labelled $b$, $c$, and $d$ indicate the parameters for the spectra plotted in (b)–(d). (b)-(d) Complex eigenenergy spectra, calculated numerically for a finite lattice with 500 unit cells on each side of the defect, for (b) $\gamma = 1.9$ and $\delta = 1.5$, (c) $\gamma = 2.1$ and $\delta = 1.625$, and (d) $\gamma = 2.1$ and $\delta = \sqrt{2}$. The $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect states states are indicated by triangles; the $\mathcal{ST}$-broken defect states are indicated by squares. The arrows in (c) and (d) indicate the direction of motion of the defect state eigenvalues as $\delta$ decreases from point $c$ to point $d$ in (a).[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig3\](a) shows a close-up view of the phase diagram for $\delta \sim \sqrt{2}$. For $|\delta|>\sqrt{2}$ and $\gamma = 0$, the SSH lattice has a single defect state (the mid-gap defect state). As we increase $\gamma$ from zero, keeping $\delta$ fixed, the eigenvalue $E_D^0$ moves up the imaginary axis, as shown in Fig. \[fig3\](b).
As the system enters the region labelled IIA, another $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state emerges from the continuum, as shown in the complex spectrum plotted in Fig. \[fig3\](c). Hence, in this region there are *two* $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric states that are localized to the defect, a phenomenon with no counterpart in the Hermitian SSH model.
As the system moves from region IIA to region II, the two imaginary energies approach each other, meet, then move off the imaginary axis to either side, as shown in Fig. \[fig3\](d). The transition line, shown as a thick brown line in Fig. \[fig3\](a), signifies a $\mathcal{ST}$-breaking transition. In region II, as we have previously discussed, the system has two $\mathcal{ST}$-broken defect states, which are continuable to topologically trivial defect states of the SSH chain.
Thus, there appear to be two distinct ways for the SSH mid-gap defect state to disappear from the non-Hermitian lattice. The first is to merge into the continuum; the second is to undergo a $\mathcal{ST}$-breaking transition with another $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state emerging from the continuum.
; both eigenstates are $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric. The up-pointing triangles show the state that evolved from the SSH mid-gap defect state; the down-pointing triangles show the additional $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state which emerged from the continuum. In (c) and (d), the lattice parameters are $\gamma = 2.1$ and $\delta = \sqrt{2}$, the same as in Fig. \[fig3\](d); both eigenstates are $\mathcal{ST}$-broken, and are related by $\mathcal{ST}$ operation. The filled squares show the state with $\mathrm{Re}(E) > 0$ and the hollow squares show the state with $\mathrm{Re}(E) < 0$. Red (blue) symbols indicate gain (loss) sites. The gauge is fixed by setting the phase of the first site to the right of the domain wall to zero.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig4\] shows the eigenstate magnitudes and phases of the defect states on either side of the $\mathcal{ST}$-breaking transition. On one side of the transition, the two $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric states have different intensity profiles with different localization lengths; moreover, the phases in the gain and loss sites differ by $\pi/2$, which is a characteristic feature of unbroken $\mathcal{ST}$ symmetry (see Appendix \[a-derive\]). On the other side of the transition, the two $\mathcal{ST}$-broken eigenstates have identical intensity profiles, and the phases on the right (left) side of the domain wall are symmetric with respect to $0$ ($\pi/2$) for the gain sites and $-\pi/2$ ($0$) for the loss sites; these features arise from the fact that the two states are related by the $\mathcal{ST}$ operation.
Discussion {#conclude}
==========
The cSSH model may be regarded as the simplest one-dimensional non-Hermitian model with a clear link to Hermitian concepts of band topology. In this paper, we have examined the conditions under which a cSSH lattice supports exponentially localized defect states. Previous papers on the subject have focused on the simplest case of a single non-Hermitian defect state that is $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric, whose energy has exactly zero real part. Such a defect state has a clear connection to the physics of topological states: it is continuable, in the Hermitian limit, to the SSH model’s well-known topological defect state [@171007-1; @171212-2; @171207-7; @180402-1; @180409-1; @180409-2; @180419-3; @180719-2].
Our study has revealed a richer variety of behaviors. In particular, the cSSH model has defect states that are $\mathcal{ST}$-broken, with energies having non-zero real parts. Although these are continuable to the SSH model’s “trivial” defect states, they play an interesting role in the cSSH model. In some parameter regimes, a pair of $\mathcal{ST}$-broken defect states can co-exist with an $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state. Alternatively, an $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state can coalesce with another $\mathcal{ST}$-symmetric defect state emerging out of the continuum, turning into an $\mathcal{ST}$-broken pair. This is an inherently non-Hermitian phenomenon that lacks any analogue in the SSH model.
We have focused on the specific defect configuration of Fig. \[fig1\](h), with coupling strength 1 on the defect link. If the couping strength is not 1, the phase diagram for the defect states is qualitatively similar, though the positions of the phase boundaries are shifted, and the critical line segment at $\delta = 0$ is not present. For the alternative configurations shown in Figs. \[fig1\](f)-(g), there exist similar combinations of $\mathcal{ST}$-broken and $\mathcal{ST}$-unbroken defect states, but the phase diagrams are different. For the configuration of Fig. \[fig1\](f), a single $\mathcal{ST}$-unbroken defect state exists for $\delta > 0$, whereas for $\delta > 0$ there are three defect states (one $\mathcal{ST}$-unbroken and two $\mathcal{ST}$-broken, or three $\mathcal{ST}$-unbroken). For the configuration of Fig. \[fig1\](g), there is a phase with no defect states, similar to the critical line in Fig. \[fig2\](a); since this configuration is also $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetric, its $\mathcal{ST}$-broken defect state pairs have real energies.
We are grateful to H. Schomerus and D. Leykam for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Singapore MOE Academic Research Fund Tier 2 Grant MOE2015-T2-2-008 and the Singapore MOE Academic Research Fund Tier 3 Grant MOE2016-T3-1-006.
Symmetries of cSSH model {#a-proof}
========================
Consider a one-dimensional discrete lattice with unit cells labelled by an integer $n$, and $N_s$ sites in each unit cell. Let $\psi_n$ be a column vector consisting of the $N_s$ annihilation operators in unit cell $n$. In this general context, we can define the time-reversal operator ($\mathcal{T}$), charge-conjugation operator (${\cal C}$, also called the particle-hole operator), sublattice operator (${\cal S}$, also called the chiral operator), and parity operator (${\cal P}$) as follows [@120316-1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
{\cal T}\psi_{n}{\cal T}^{-1} &= U_{\cal T}\psi_{n},
\,~~{\cal C}\psi_{n}{\cal C}^{-1}=U_{\cal C}^{*}\psi_{n}^{\dag}, \\
{\cal S}\psi_{n}{\cal S}^{-1} &= U_{\cal S}\psi_{n},~~{\cal P}\psi_{n}{\cal P}^{-1}=U_{\cal P}\psi_{-n}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $U_{\cal T,C,S,P}$ are unitary matrices, and the parity operation is taken around the origin.
A system is said to be $\mathcal{T}$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\mathcal{S}$ symmetric if its lattice Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}$ satisfies, respectively, $$[\mathcal{T},\mathcal{H}] = 0, \;\;
[\mathcal{P},\mathcal{H}] = 0, \;\;
\{\mathcal{S},\mathcal{H}\} = 0.$$ These definitions apply to translationally invariant lattices as well as lattices with defects.
The bulk SSH model satisfies all three symmetries, with the matrix representations $$U_\mathcal{T}=I, \;\; U_\mathcal{P}=\sigma_x, \;\;
U_\mathcal{S}=\sigma_z. \label{representations}$$ Using these same matrix representations, the bulk cSSH model breaks $\mathcal{T}$, $\mathcal{S}$, and $\mathcal{P}$ individually, but preserves $\mathcal{PT}$ and $\mathcal{ST}$.
For any infinite translationally invariant one-dimensional lattice, the Hamiltonian has the form $${\cal H} =\sum_k(\psi_k^\dag)^T H_k \psi_k,$$ where $\psi_{k}=N^{-1/2} \sum_{k} \exp(-iknd) \psi_{n}$. For simplicity, we set the lattice constant $d$ to unity. In terms of these Bloch-state operators, the above symmetry operators have the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
{\cal T}\psi_{k}{\cal T}^{-1} &= U_{\cal T}\psi_{-k},
~~{\cal C}\psi_{k}{\cal C}^{-1}=U_{\cal C}^{*}\psi_{-k}^{\dag}, \\
{\cal S}\psi_{k}{\cal S}^{-1} &= U_{\cal S}\psi_{k},
\;~~{\cal P}\psi_{k}{\cal P}^{-1}=U_{\cal P}\psi_{-k}.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal T}{\cal H}{\cal T}^{-1} &=\sum_k(\psi_k^\dag)^T (U_{{\cal T}}^\dag H^*_{-k} U_{{\cal T}})\psi_k, \label{THT} \\
{\cal C}{\cal H}{\cal C}^{-1} &= \text{Tr}({\cal H})+\sum_k(\psi_k^\dag)^T (\pm U_{{\cal C}}^\dag H^T_{-k} U_{{\cal C}})\psi_k, \label{CHC}\\
{\cal S}{\cal H}{\cal S}^{-1} &= \sum_k(\psi_k^\dag)^T (U_{{\cal S}}^\dag H_{k} U_{{\cal S}})\psi_k, \\
{\cal P}{\cal H}{\cal P}^{-1} &= \sum_k(\psi_k^\dag)^T (U_{{\cal P}}^\dag H_{-k} U_{{\cal P}})\psi_k. \label{PHP}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. , $\pm$ hold for bosons and fermions respectively. Notably, the relation ${\cal CHC}^{-1}=\text{Tr}(\mathcal{H})\pm {\cal H}$ is always satisfied with $U_{\cal C}=I$ (identity matrix); hence, $H_{-k}^T=H_k$, which implies the general eigenenergy pair $(E_k,E_{-k})$ at each crystal momentum $k$, i.e., the band structure is mirror-symmetric with respect to $k=0$.
For the bulk SSH lattice, Eqs. – lead respectively to the relations $$\begin{aligned}
H_{-k}^* &= H_k \\
\sigma_x H_{-k}\sigma_x &= H_{k} \\
\sigma_z H_{k}\sigma_z &= -H_k.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the eigenenergies appear in pairs, $(E_k,E_{-k})$ and $(E_k,-E_{k})$, for each $k$. The band diagram is mirror-symmetric around both $k=0$ and $E=0$.
In the bulk cSSH lattice, the $\mathcal{PT}$ and $\mathcal{ST}$ symmetries respectively imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_x H^*_k \sigma_x &= H_k \\
\sigma_z H_{-k}^*\sigma_z &= -H_k.\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, if there is a bulk state of energy $E_k$, there must exist a bulk state of energy $E_k^*$ (due to $\mathcal{PT}$), and a bulk state of energy $-E_{-k}^*$ (due to $\mathcal{ST}$). The former ensures that in the $\mathcal{PT}$-unbroken phase, the bands are purely real. The latter can be combined with the definition of $\mathcal{C}$ to yield $\{{\cal H,STC}\}=\mp1$, and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_z H_{k}^\dag \sigma_z=-H_k.\end{aligned}$$ This ensures that if there is a bulk state of energy $E_k$, there must exist a bulk state of energy $-E_k^*$. In the ${\cal ST}$-unbroken phase, the bands are purely imaginary [@180402-1].
For the cSSH chains with domain walls discussed in the main text, the overall ${\cal PT}$ symmetry is broken but ${\cal ST}$ is preserved \[using the representations \]. Hence, defect states must either be $\mathcal{ST}$-unbroken (and hence have purely imaginary eigenenergies), or appear in pairs with eigenenegies $\{E_D,-E_D^*\}$ and eigenstates related to each other by $\mathcal{ST}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H(ST}\ket{\psi_D}) &= -\mathcal{(ST)H}\ket{\psi_D}) \\
&= -E^*_D\mathcal{(ST}\ket{\psi_D}).
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$
Solving for defect states {#a-derive}
=========================
We find defect state solutions by substituting the ansatz into the time-independent Schrödinger equation $(\mathcal{H}_+ + \mathcal{H}_-) \ket{\psi_D}=E_D\ket{\psi_D}$, where $H_+$ and $H_-$ are the Hamiltonians for semi-infinite lattices to the right ($n>0$) and left ($n<0$) of the domain wall. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
H_\pm \psi_\pm &= E_D\psi_\pm, \label{Hpm}\\
(1-\delta)\alpha_-+\alpha_+ &= (E_D-i\gamma)\beta_-, \label{eqset2}\\
(1+\delta)\beta_++\beta_- &= (E_D-i\gamma)\alpha_+, \label{eqset3}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_\pm &= \begin{pmatrix}
\pm i\gamma & W_{\pm\delta}(\lambda^{\mp1}) \\
W_{\pm\delta}(\lambda^{\pm 1}) & \mp i\gamma \end{pmatrix} \\
W_\delta(\lambda) &= (1+\delta)+(1-\delta)\lambda, \\
\psi_{\pm} &= (\alpha_{\pm}, \;\beta_{\pm})^T.\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. , we derive Eq. . Without loss of generality, we can take $$\psi_-= \begin{pmatrix}
E_D-i\gamma\\
W_{-\delta}(\lambda^{-1})
\end{pmatrix},\;\;\;
\psi_+=\eta \begin{pmatrix}
E_D+ i\gamma\\
W_\delta(\lambda)
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{coeff}$$ Eqs. and describe the wave-matching conditions around the domain wall. Substituting Eq. into them, and using Eq. , gives $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
E_D^2+\gamma^2 &= 2(1+\delta^2)+(1-\delta^2)(\lambda+\lambda^{-1}), \\
\lambda &= \frac{(E_D-i\gamma)(1-\delta^2)}{E_D+i\gamma},
\;\;\; \eta=\frac{1}{1-\delta}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eqs_defect}\end{aligned}$$ We then search analytically or numerically for solutions satisfying $|\lambda| < 1$, corresponding to exponentially localized defect states. From , we can see that if $(E_D,\lambda)$ is a solution, $(-E_D^*,\lambda^*)$ is also a solution. Specifically, the $\mathcal{ST}$ couterpart satisfies $$U_\mathcal{S}\mathcal{K}(\psi_\pm\lambda^n)= \sigma_z(\psi_\pm\lambda^n)^*,
\label{ST-coeff}$$ where $\mathcal{K}$ is the complex conjugation operator. This means that if the $\mathcal{ST}$-paired defect states are two distinct solutions, they have the same intensity profiles and the phases are symmetric with respect to $0\,(\pi/2)$ for the left (right) sites in each unit cell, which is precisely the behavior observed in Fig. \[fig4\].
![Variation of $|\lambda|$ with $\gamma$ for (a) $\delta=0.5$ and (b) $\delta=2$.[]{data-label="evolution"}](evolution.pdf){width="0.99\linewidth"}
The number of defect state solutions is determined by the number of solutions with $|\lambda| < 1$. Eliminating $E_D$ in yields a fourth-order polynomial in $\lambda$. In Fig. \[evolution\], we plot $|\lambda|$ versus $\gamma$ for two different values of $\delta$. If a root crosses the $|\lambda| = 1$ line, it corresponds to a defect state appearing out of, or disappearing into, the continuum.
Analytic solutions can be found for some special cases. First, in the Hermitian limit ($\gamma=0$), there is a mid-gap defect state of the form $$\psi_- = \begin{pmatrix} -1\\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \;\;
\psi_+ = \begin{pmatrix} 1-\delta\\ 0 \end{pmatrix}, \;\;
\lambda=-\frac{1+\delta}{1-\delta}
\label{trimer_neg}$$ for $\delta<0$, and $$\psi_- = \begin{pmatrix} 0\\ 1+\delta \end{pmatrix}, \;\;
\psi_+ = \begin{pmatrix} 0\\ -1 \end{pmatrix}, \;\;
\lambda=-\frac{1-\delta}{1+\delta}
\label{trimer_pos}$$ for $\delta>0$. The energy is pinned to $E_D=0$ by the $\mathcal{S}$ symmetry [@130704-1; @111222-1], and the existence of this defect state is tied to the topologically distinct configurations on both sides of the domain wall as characterized by a $\pi$ difference in Zak phases [@130107-1]. Additionally, when $0<|\delta|<\sqrt{2}$, there are two non-mid-gap defect state solutions: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_- &= \begin{pmatrix}
\pm(1-\delta)\sqrt{4+\delta^4}\\
2-2\delta+\delta^2
\end{pmatrix}, \;\;\;
\psi_+ = \begin{pmatrix}
\pm\sqrt{4+\delta^4}\\
2-\delta^2+\delta^3
\end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
\lambda &= 1-\delta^2,~~E_D=\pm \sqrt{4+\delta^4}.\end{aligned}$$
Another analytic solution can be obtained when the inter-site couplings are uniform ($\delta=0$). In this case, there can be a pair of defect state solutions of form $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\psi_- &= \begin{pmatrix} \pm\lambda\\ 1 \end{pmatrix}, \;\;
\psi_+ = \begin{pmatrix} 1\\\pm\lambda \end{pmatrix}, \\
\lambda&=\pm(\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}-i\gamma),~E_D=\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}\pm 1.
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ This is valid only for $\gamma > 1$; for $0 < \gamma < 1$, the defect state is not localized since $|\lambda| = 1$. The two eigenenergies have the same imaginary part and opposite real parts, due to the $\mathcal{ST}$ antisymmetry.
Finally, for $\delta=\pm 1$, there is an isolated trimer at the defect, and we can determine the three eigenvalues $$\begin{aligned}
(E_D+i\gamma)(E_D-i\gamma)^2=5E_D-3i\gamma.\end{aligned}$$ In the Hermitian case, the roots are $E_D= \{0,~\pm\sqrt{5}\}$.
Relation to the model of Ref. [@171009-1] {#a-eqv}
=========================================
In this appendix, we show that the uniform-coupling ($\delta=0$) case of the cSSH lattice in the main text is related to the two-chain model in Ref. [@171009-1].
Let us couple a $\delta=0$ cSSH lattice to its time-reversed counterpart, transversely and site-by-site, to produce a two-chain lattice, as shown in Fig. \[f-Schomerus\](a). The inter-chain coupling is a new parameter denoted by $h$. Next, we exchange the positions of even (odd) sites between two chains, as shown in Fig. \[f-Schomerus\](b). This causes the unit cell to shrink to a single column. We then perform the following pseudo-rotation in each unit cell: $$\begin{pmatrix}
\ket{u'_n}\\
\ket{v'_n}
\end{pmatrix}
= {\cal U}
\begin{pmatrix}
\ket{u_n}\\
\ket{v_n}
\end{pmatrix},$$ where ${\cal U}=e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}\sigma_x}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+i\sigma_x)$, and $\ket{u_n}$ and $\ket{v_n}$ are states localized to sites in the upper and lower chains in the $n$-th unit cell. In this new basis, the model is identical to that of Ref. [@171009-1], as shown in Fig. \[f-Schomerus\](c), with the parameter correspondence $$A=h+\gamma,~~B=h-\gamma,~~W=t,$$ where $\{A,B,W\}$ are the parameters defined in Ref. .
![Mapping between (a) a pair of coupled uniform-coupling ($\delta = 0$) cSSH chains and (c) the two-chain model of Ref. , where the purple (white) sites represent counterclockwise (clockwise) resonator modes, and the red and blue arrows represent asymmetric internal scattering processes.[]{data-label="f-Schomerus"}](schomerus.pdf){width="0.65\linewidth"}
The uniform-coupling model discussed in the main text corresponds to $h=0$, which is the diagonal line in the phase diagram Fig. 2(c) in Ref. [@171009-1] (i.e., $A=-B$).
[46]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.38.001912) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.42.1698) [**](https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=_7r_UqFN0IEC) (, ) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7710) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat4811) [****, ()](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03822-8) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03434-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.5243) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, ) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/12/i=6/a=065010) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.2747) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.133903) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.146402) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.97.052115) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.026808) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/2399-6528/2/i=3/a=035043) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.89.062102) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [“,” ]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.95.184306) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.012119) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.103904) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1515) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-017-0006-2) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/20/i=6/a=063044) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.093902) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.200402) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.093901) @noop [ ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.96.064305) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.042118) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/natrevmats.2016.48) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.223902) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.39.001697) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.43.000575) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.113901)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The supersymmetric extension of the standard model with an additional gauge singlet is analysed in detail in the light of the recent experimental bounds on supersymmetric particles. The useful part of the parameter space and the particle spectrum are displayed. We find that once the recent bounds on the chargino mass are imposed, all other new particles practically satisfy the present experimental limits. Special attention is given to particles to be searched for in the future experiments. The singlet fields tend to decouple and give rise to an effective MSSM, enlarging the validity of many phenomenological analyses based in the minimal field content. However, in some ranges of the parameters the singlino is the lightest neutralino, which modifies the signature for susy particles. Simple analytical approximations are developed that qualitatively explain the numerical results.'
author:
- The Author
date: The Date
title: The Title
---
Orsay LPTHE-96-85 \
Saclay SPhT-T96/050\
Strasbourg LPT-96-21\
.5cm
1.5cm
[**U. Ellwanger**]{}
LPTHE, Université de Paris-Sud, F-91400 Orsay
[**M. Rausch de Traubenberg**]{}
Laboratoire de Physique Théorique, Université Louis Pasteur,
Strasbourg
[**C.A. Savoy**]{}
Service de Physique Théorique, C. E. de Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette
[Introduction]{}
================
The addition of a $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$ gauge singlet supermultiplet to the MSSM (minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model) has been motivated by several issues: (i) the solution of the so-called $\mu $-problem; (ii) the possibility of spontaneous breaking of the CP symmetry; (iii) the upper limits on the Higgs mass that are relatively low in the MSSM could be relaxed; (iv) the neutral particle spectrum is enriched by two scalars and one fermion, which could mix with other Higgs bosons and neutralinos and modify their physical properties; (v) possible deviations from the MSSM could urge to enlarge the experimental searches, which have been centred upon the MSSM. We refer here to the supersymmetric model with a gauge singlet in its simplest version, as defined below, as the (M+1)SSM.
However, according to our analysis, the strong constraints from LEP experiments, when combined with theoretical and phenomenological requirements, select the (M+1)SSM parameters in such a way that the gauge singlet scalars and fermions are basically decoupled and the rest of the spectrum effectively reproduces a restricted class of the MSSM. Because of this similarity, the motivations (ii)-(v) fade out as these issues are excluded or diminished after such a detailed investigation. Nevertheless, this also means that phenomenological analyses of the MSSM apply to a large extent to the (M+1)SSM as well! Still, if supersymmetry is found, one can go further and look for some peculiarites that could distinguish the two kind of models, specially in the case in which the lightest supersymmetric particle is the singlet fermion, or singlino. The (M+1)SSM can also be experimentally tested from the fact that the effective parameters in the equivalent MSSM are very constrained.
The present paper is devoted to a thorough discussion of the model in its version with only dimensionless couplings in its superpotential, and universal boundary conditions for the soft supersymmetric breaking terms at the GUT scale. With these assumptions, the dimensionality of the parameter space of the (M+1)SSM equals that of the MSSM. Our aim is to understand the pattern of the particle spectrum, correlations among the particle masses, and features which are in common with or different from the MSSM. An analysis of the complete parameters space of the model requires numerical methods, as a scanning over the independent parameters at the GUT scale, their subsequent evolution using the RGE down to the weak scale, the minimization of the Higgs potential, the implementation of theoretical and experimental constraints and finally the computation of the particle masses and some mixing angles.
Many phenomenological analyses of the model have appeared before [@Ellis; @ERS1; @King; @King2; @ERS2]. The purpose of the present work is twofold. First, we implement the most recent experimental constraints on sparticles, Higgs and top quark masses from the LEP and the Tevatron [@PDG; @Aleph]. Second, we explain the results of our numerical procedure with the help of analytic approximations and inequalities among the parameters. Once the vacua which break colour, electromagnetism or correspond to $\tan \beta
=\infty$ are forbidden and the experimental constraints are imposed, these formulae allow us to understand the essential features of the bounds on and correlations among some particle masses. Quite a lot of attention is paid to the property found in [@ERS1], namely, that the singlet scalar acquires a v.e.v. which is much larger than the Higgs ones. Indeed, this has the important consequence that the singlet fermion and scalars quite decouple from the the other multiplets as already mentioned.
In section \[sec:properties\] we review the motivations for the model, its essential differences with respect to the MSSM due to the enlargement of Higgs sector and the status of the spontaneous CP violation. The universality assumption for the soft terms and some of its consequences are explained in section \[sec: universal\]. Section \[sec:mass\] contains the minimum conditions for the scalar potential as well as the scalar Higgs masses with the radiative corrections included in an approximation that is generally good, though we use the full expressions [@Elrc] in our numerical calculations. In section \[sec:stability\] we derive some approximate constraints from the stability of the vacuum to understand the pattern of the physical predictions. In section \[sec:inos\] we discuss some correlations in the mass spectrum along the same approximations. Then we summarize our implementation of the experimental and theoretical constraints on the model, in section \[sec:cuts\]. The main results of the careful scanning of the parameter space are displayed in the figures in section \[sec:spectrum\], with some emphasis on the sparticles more likely to be discovered at the colliders, with the exception of the Higgs sector that has been already presented [@ERS2]. The results are summarized in the last section. Some useful solutions of the RGE for the soft terms (with generic boundary conditions, for completeness) are listed in the Appendix.
1truecm
[General properties of the (M+1)SSM]{} {#sec:properties}
======================================
The superpotential of the (M+1)SSM (where family mixing is neglected and irrelevant for the analysis in this paper) is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
W &=&\lambda SH_{1}H_{2}+\frac{\kappa }{3}S^{3}+
h_{t}TH_{2}Q_3+h_{b}BH_{1}Q_3+h_{\tau }EH_{1}L \nonumber \\
&&+\mathrm{(similar\ terms\ for\ the\ lighter\ quarks\ and\ leptons)} \label{A}\end{aligned}$$
where the chiral superfields are denoted as follows: $S$ (singlet), $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ (Higgs doublets), $T$ (antitop), $B$ (antibottom), $E$ (antitau), $Q_3$ (top-bottom doublet), $L$ (tau-neutrino doublet). Let us briefly review the present status of these motivations for the (M+1)SSM.
A supersymmetric mass term $\mu H_{1}\cdot H_{2}$ is added to the MSSM superpotential in order to avoid a potentially dangerous Peccei-Quinn symmetry and to allow for an acceptable minimum of the Higgs potential. The analysis of the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ breaking then requires $\mu $ to be roughly of the same order of magnitude as the soft terms that embody the supersymmetry breaking effects in the two Higgs sectors. This interesting hierarchy problem, the so-called $\mu $-puzzle, has motivated many a suggestion to link the supersymmetric mass $\mu $ to supersymmetry breaking [@Giuma]. In any instance, some kind of new physics is requested and in this sense the MSSM that looks mostly economical at low energies is not necessarily so at the unification $(GUT)$ level. A natural solution [@NSW1] is provided by the addition of a singlet $S.$ Soft terms that break supersymmetry can induce a v.e.v. for $S$ and an effective supersymmetric mass $\mu =\lambda S$ of the right order magnitude. This mechanism asks for the $\kappa S^{3}/3$ self-coupling in the superpotential which also breaks the unwanted Peccei-Quinn symmetry. However, this coupling would be forbidden and the singlet model inoperative if $S$ has non-trivial quantum numbers with respect to broken symmetries beyond those of the Standard Model. This phenomenon is frequently found in superstring compactifications. We take here the pragmatic viewpoint that all the dimension three interactions that preserve the low-energy local and global symmetries are to be included. As we shall discuss later, very low values of the coupling $\kappa $ are consistent with the phenomenological constraints. In this case, it could be a relic of non-renormalizable interactions after the decoupling of, $e.g.,$ extra $U(1)$ gauge symmetries. Actually, the “sliding” singlet v.e.v. compensates for the smallness of the couplings $\kappa $ and $\lambda $ and this considerably reduces the fine-tuning problem of the $\mu $-term. Such a possibility is indeed supported by our analysis.
Supersymmetric mass terms are forbidden by the $\ZZ_{3}$ symmetry of the purely cubic superpotential assumed in (\[A\]). This discrete symmetry also prevents $S$ from getting a large v.e.v. through large radiative corrections to singlet tadpole terms, which invalidate other supersymmetric models with gauge singlets [@Posus; @Elba]. On the other hand, the $\ZZ_3$ symmetry can give rise to cosmological problems in the form of domain walls which are produced during the electroweak phase transition [@Abel]. Possible solutions to this problem have been discussed in [@Abel] and include inflation of the weak scale, embedding of the discrete symmetry into a gauge symmetry at the Planck scale or re-introducing of the $\mu$-term in the superpotential. (In the presence of the singlet, $\mu$ can be orders of magnitudes smaller than the weak scale, in which case our subsequent analysis is not affected; however, the $\mu$-problem was part of the motivations of the model.) In any case, since we concentrate in this paper on the particle physics aspects of the model and do not discuss cosmological issues, our results will be independent of the form of the solutions of the domain wall problem.
The study of spontaneous CP breaking in the (M+1)SSM also differs from the MSSM. Indeed, CP violating vacua can be induced only if there are more than one phase-dependent interaction in the scalar potential. In the MSSM, the only tree-level term is the soft scalar mass term $B\mu H_{1}H_{2}$. Analytic terms of higher dimensions generated at the one loop level can conspirate with the tree-level one to induce spontaneous CP violation. However, this has been shown [@Poma1] to entail a very low upper limit on one of the scalar masses which is inconsistent with present experiments at LEP. The classical scalar potential processes a richer structure in the (M+1)SSM, with three additional complex scalar couplings (one of dimension four, two cubic soft terms, see next section). The conditions for CP spontaneous breaking in this type of models have been shown [@Romao] to imply a negative eigenvalue in the scalar (mass$)^2$ matrix. However, top quark-squark loop corrections could shift this eigenvalue to positive values. Thus spontaneous CP violation would occur for appropriate values of the parameters and one or two light scalars are predicted [@Baba]. This issue certainly deserves a more detailed comparison with phenomenology; it lies outside the purview of the present investigation. Because the very small region in the (M+1)SSM parameter space consistent with spontaneous CP violation and those selected by our CP conserving solutions are apart, we disregard [*ab initio*]{} the question of non-trivial phase vacua.
Upper bounds have been derived for the mass of the lightest Higgs scalar in the MSSM that take into account the large one loop corrections [@Haber] as well as some two-loop effects [@ceqw]. This prediction is of paramount importance in view of the experimental searches of the Higgs scalar in the LEP 200 and the LHC. The (M+1)SSM has an additional contribution $\propto \left| \lambda \right| ^{2}$ to the Higgs (mass$)^2.$ It has been shown [@Ellis; @King; @Bine] that requiring the theory to remain perturbative up to the GUT scale reduces this additional contribution to $<O$(30 GeV). The upper bounds on the lightest Higgs boson mass are considerably lowered if one also imposes all phenomenological constraints needed for the model to be realistic. This has been done in the case of universal supergravity couplings [@ERS1; @King] and also for some special non-universal models [@Brax]. Note that a relatively small increase in the Higgs mass may affect the experimental signatures. Since the predictions of the phenomenologically constrained (M+1)SSM for the Higgs sector has been the subject of a recent publication [@ERS2], we shall only give a short account of this important matter here.
As for the particle spectrum, this model presents several new features as compared to the MSSM. The supermultiplet $S$ consists of two scalars of opposite CP and one Majorana fermion. After the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ breaking, these states get mixed with the neutral states in the Higgs doublet and gauge supermultiplets, leading to a slightly richer spectrum. In particular, since the visibility of physical states depends on their couplings to the gauge bosons and to matter, some particles could be relatively light if they are mainly gauge singlets. Thus, some of the limits on neutral particles obtained at LEP in the MSSM framework do not immediately apply to the alternative (M+1)SSM. The discussion in this paper as well as in our previous ones [@ERS1; @ERS2] is also aimed to persuade experimentalists to analyze their data on a more general basis.
In the $\kappa \rightarrow 0,\lambda \rightarrow 0$ limit, the gauge singlet decouples and the remaining theory looks like the MSSM [@Ellis]. However, this limit leads to a particular version of the MSSM with a strong correlation among the soft parameters, as we shall discuss later on. The singlet scalar takes a very large v.e.v. of $O(m_{3/2}/\kappa)$, but the fermion singlet and both scalar singlets are rather light.
Of course, the large dimension of the scalar field manifold allows for a rich structure in the overall scalar potential and leads to the existence of many local extrema [@Desa]. One has to carefully check that the phenomenologically viable vacuum is favoured with respect to the unwanted ones. Among these there are the usual $SU(3)_{c}\times U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}$ breaking ones, corresponding to vacua with quark and lepton quantum numbers [@Frere], [@Desa], [@Zwi]. In the (M+1)SSM there is the additional possibility of a non-vanishing charged Higgs field vacuum. However, the necessary condition for this particular charge violating classical solution is a relatively large coupling of the Higgses to the singlet [@Pool], so that this situation is quite naturally avoided by a bound on that coupling.Our theoretical and experimental constraints turn out to automatically selected the right region of the parameter space.
Actually, as we shall discuss here below, an acceptable minimum of the potential requires some inequalities among the soft supersymmetry breaking terms which would tend to induce $SU(3)_{c}\times U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}$ breaking vacua as well. The radiative corrections due to the gauge interactions then allow for a compromise while restricting the useful region in the parameter space. Since the electroweak gauge symmetry breaking is induced by radiative corrections involving the top Yukawa coupling – a well-known property in supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model – the existence of a physically acceptable vacuum in the (M+1)SSM is a purely quantum effect.
1truecm
[Soft terms and boundary conditions]{} {#sec: universal}
======================================
The supersymmetric part of the scalar potential is obtained from the superpotential through the well-known expression as a sum of $F$ and $D$ terms. The supersymmetry breaking part of the lagrangian contains all soft terms consistent with the symmetries of the superpotential: gaugino masses, trilinear analytic scalar couplings and scalar mass terms. In the (M+1)SSM they are as follows (with the same notation for the chiral matter supermultiplets and their first component complex scalars) : $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{soft}}=
&&\left( M_{1}\lambda _{1}\lambda _{1}+M_{2}\lambda _{2}\lambda
_{2}+M_{3}\lambda _{3}\lambda _{3}+\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +A_{\lambda }\lambda SH_{1}\cdot H_{2}+
A_{\kappa }\frac{\kappa }{3}S^{3}+A_{t}h_{t}Q_{3}\cdot
H_{2}T^{c}+h.c\right) +\nonumber \\
&&+m_{1}^{2}\left| H_{1}\right| ^{2} +m_{2}^{2}
\left| H_{2}\right| ^{2}
+m_{S}^{2}\left| S\right| ^{2}+m_{Q_3}^{2}\left| Q_3\right|
^{2}+m_{T}^{2}\left| T^{c}\right| ^{2}+\nonumber \\
&& +... \label{B}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},\lambda _{3}$ are the gauginos associated to the $U(1)_{Y},SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$ gauge symmetries. Only the terms involving the top scalars have been retained in (\[B\]), with $%
Q_3=(T,B),$ but similar interactions for all other squarks and sleptons are to be understood. All the parameters are taken to be real (up to irrelevant phases) and flavour mixing is neglected. Notice that these soft terms contain all the dimensionful parameters of the model, which are all naturally related to the supersymmetry breaking scale $M_{\mathrm{susy}}$. In order to study the particle spectrum and $SU(2)\times U(1)$ symmetry breaking in the (M+1)SSM, one should take the parameters in (\[A\]) and (\[B\]) at the relevant scales, the Fermi scale $v=174$ [GeV]{} or $ M_{\mathrm{susy}}.$ Instead, it is natural to fix these parameters at the level of the underlying supergravity theory. We shall consider here the unification scale $\Lambda_{\mathrm{GUT}}\sim 10^{16}$ GeV to define them. This is just a few orders of magnitude below the Planck mass and one can presumable assume an effective renormalizable theory at $\Lambda_{\mathrm{GUT}}.$ Once the parameters are given at $\Lambda_{\mathrm{GUT}},$ their corresponding values at $v$ or $M_{%
\mathrm{susy}}$ are calculated by the integration of the renormalization group equations (RGE) for the (M+1)SSM [@Desa]. We present in the appendix the analytic solutions of the (M+1)SSM RGE in the approximation $h_{t}^{2}\gg \lambda ^{2},\kappa ^{2},$ which turns out to be good for most of the set of parameters that will be selected on a phenomenological basis. However, for the sake of precision, we numerically integrate the RGE in our analysis, the expressions in the Appendix being reserved for analytical discussions of the numerical results. In practice, we renormalize the parameters down to the scale $v$ through the supersymmetric RGE, and then apply the Coleman-Weinberg corrections to the Higgs potential to take into account the decoupling of the stops at $M_{\mathrm{susy}}$.
The important hypothesis to be made in this paper is the so-called “universality” or flavour-independence for the soft-terms in (\[B\]). For the supersymmetry breaking scalar interactions it amounts to assume a common value for all the parameters $A_{i}$ in (\[B\]) $\mathrm{(at\ }%
\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}}\mathrm{)},$
$$A_{\lambda }=A_{\kappa }=A_{t}=A_{b}=A_{\tau }=...=A_0, \label{C}$$
and the same values (at $\Lambda_{\mathrm{GUT}}$) for the scalar masses in (\[B\]),
$$m_{1}^{2}=m_{2}^{2}=m_{S}^{2}=m_{Q_3}^{2}=m_{T}^{2}=...=m_0^2. \label{D}$$
This universality follows if the direction of supersymmetry breaking, characterized by the goldstino components, corresponds to fields with purely gravitational couplings to the relevant chiral superfields (for instance, if it is along the dilaton-axion direction in superstring inspired theories [@BFS]). Of course, it follows in general if the goldstino components have equal couplings to all relevant chiral superfields; an example is given by the “large radius limits” of orbifold compactifications in string theory if supersymmetry breaking occur along the modulus direction [@Iba].
As for gaugino masses, the universality hypothesis at $\Lambda_{\mathrm{GUT}}$ reads
$$M_{1}\left( \Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}}\right) =M_{2}\left( \Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT%
}}\right) =M_{3}\left( \Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}}\right) =M_{0}. \label{E}$$
In grand unified gauge theories many of these relations will be required by the enlarged gauge group at the tree-level. At the one loop level one expects some threshold corrections to the universality of the soft terms already at the reference scale $\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}}.$ The deviations from (\[C\]) - (\[E\]) in the matter sector can be phenomenologically important because of the existent experimental bounds on FCNC effects but they are less relevant to our discussion in this paper.
Deviations from the universality assumption are also possible in the framework of superstring theory, since the moduli sector can couple differently to the various chiral fields. Since the assumptions $A_{\kappa
}(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}})=A_{\tau }(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}})$ and $%
m_{1}^{2}(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}})=m_{2}^{2}(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}%
})=m_{S}^{2}(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}})=m_{E}^{2}(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}%
})=m_{L}^{2}(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}})$ play an important role in our phenomenological analysis, some of our results depend on the universality of the supersymmetry breaking parameters. However a similar analysis of the (M+1)SSM has been published [@Brax] for the case of non-universal soft terms in the framework of an orbifold compactification of the superstring, and these results are quite analogous to those presented here.
The most important consequences of the flavour independence of soft terms concern the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ symmetry breaking. It could be induced by a negative value of $m_{2}^{2}$, but for the potential to be bounded from below and to avoid colour or $e.m.$ symmetry breaking the universal parameter $m_0^2$ has to be positive, so that $m_{2}^{2}(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}})>0$. For this reason, $m_{2}^{2}(v)<0$ has to be enforced by renormalization effects. This is a well-known feature of the MSSM as well, entailing a lower limit on the top Yukawa coupling. In the (M+1)SSM, the sign of $m_{2}^{2}$ could be made to flip by the coupling of the singlet fields even for a light top quark [@Desa]. The experimental value of top quark mass is perfectly consistent, however, with a negative $m_{2}^{2}$ at low energies from the effects of top-stop quantum loops.
Furthermore the cubic soft terms can also induce spontaneous symmetry breaking if the value of the parameter $A$ in (\[C\]) is large enough. Hence large values of $A_{\kappa }$ are preferred to give the singlet scalar a v.e.v.. However, with the universality assumption (\[C\]), the squark and sleptons could also get non-vanishing v.e.v.’s [@Frere; @Desa; @Zwi]. Interestingly enough, the gauge interactions reduce the $A$-parameters for matter fields while preserving the value of $A_{\kappa },$ as can be seen from the expressions in the Appendix. Thus, phenomenologically consistent (M+1)SSM’s with the condition (\[C\]),(\[D\]),(\[E\]), can be build at the price of restricting the space of the supersymmetry breaking parameters. This is the most important restriction imposed on the model by the universality hypothesis, as compared to the MSSM [@ERS1]. Otherwise, the effects of this universality on the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ spontaneous breaking are similar to those in the MSSM.
Another consequence of this assumption is to reduce the number of free bare parameters in the (M+1)SSM to five (before imposing the physical constraints) just like in the MSSM: the dimensionful parameters $B$ and $\mu $ of the latter are replaced in the former by the dimensionless parameters $\lambda $ and $\kappa$.
At low energies, the soft terms as obtained from the RGE depend on the parameters $M_{0},A_{0},m_{0}^{2},$ on the choice of the GUT scale, $\Lambda
_{\mathrm{GUT}},$ through $t=$ $\ln \left(\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}}/v
\right)/\left(16\pi ^2\right) $ (a typical value being $t\simeq .21),$ and on the gauge and Yukawa couplings. This calculation has to be done numerically in general. However, from the dimensionality of these running parameters, they can be generically expressed at low energy in terms of their universal initial values as
$$\begin{aligned}
A_i(t)&=&a_iA_0+b_iM_0 \nonumber \\
m_i^2(t)&=&z_im_0^2+x_iA_0^2+y_iA_0M_0+w_iM_0^2 \label{obvious}\end{aligned}$$
where the coefficients depend on the various gauge and Yukawa couplings. For the simple case where the top Yukawa coupling dominates over the others, the dependence on the latter reduces to simple expressions in terms of the ratio $\rho =h_{t}^{2}(v)/h_{\mathrm{crit}}^{2}$ where $h_{\mathrm{crit}}\simeq 1.1$ is the fixed point value of the top Yukawa coupling. The results of this approximation are presented in the Appendix and are used for the sake of some qualitative understanding of the numerical results. With the recent measurements of the top quark mass, $\rho $ is bounded by $\rho \gtrsim 2/3$ (this is higher than the minimum value required to induce mediative $SU(2)\times U(1)$ breaking). As an example, we list the low energy soft parameters at the fixed point value $\rho =1.$ The coefficients are approximated to a reasonable precision.
$$\begin{aligned}
A_{\kappa }&\simeq &A_{0} \ \ \ \
A_{\lambda } \simeq \frac{1}{2}\left( A_{0}-M_{0}\right) \ \ \ \
A_{t} \simeq 2M_{0} \nonumber \\
m_{1}^{2}&\simeq &m_{0}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}M_{0}^{2} \ \ \ \
m_{2}^{2}\simeq -\frac{m_{0}^{2}}{2}-3M_{0}^{2} \ \ \ \
m_{S}^{2}\simeq m_{0}^{2} \nonumber \\
m_{T}^{2}&\simeq &4M_{0}^{2} \ \ \ \ \ \ \
m_{Q_3}^{2}\simeq \frac{1}{2}m_{0}^{2}+6M_{0}^{2} \label{crit}\end{aligned}$$
1truecm
[Mass spectrum in the Higgs sector and vacuum structure]{} {#sec:mass}
==========================================================
Let us first restrict the discussion to the physically relevant vacua with (real) v.e.v.’s for the field $\left\langle
H_{2}^{0}\right\rangle =h_{2},\left\langle H_{1}^{0}\right\rangle
=h_{1},\left\langle S\right\rangle =s.$ The scalar potential restricted to this sector reads $\left( \overline{g}^{2}=g_{1}^{2}+g_{2}^{2}\right) $
$$\begin{aligned}
V &=&\left( \kappa S^{2}+\lambda H_{1}^{0}H_{2}^{0}\right) ^{2}+\lambda
^{2}\left| S\right| ^{2}\left( \left| H_{1}^{0}\right| ^{2}+\left|
H_{2}^{0}\right| ^{2}\right) + \nonumber \\
&&+\left( A_{\lambda }\lambda SH_{1}^{0}H_{2}^{0}+A\kappa \frac{\kappa }{3}%
S^{3}+h.c.\right) +m_{1}\left| H_{1}^{0}\right| ^{2}+m_{2}^{2}\left|
H_{2}^{0}\right| ^{2}+\nonumber \\
&&+m_{S}^{2}\left| S\right| ^{2}
+\frac{\overline{g}^{2}}{4}\left( \left| H_{1}^{0}\right| ^{2}-\left|
H_{2}^{0}\right| ^{2}\right) ^{2}+V_{\mathrm{rad}} \label{F}\end{aligned}$$
where $V_{\mathrm{rad}}$ is the quantum correction to the effective scalar potential beyond the RGE effects included in the running parameters of (\[F\]). These radiative corrections are important, in particular in the evaluation of the lightest Higgs boson mass. The relevant contribution comes from the top-stop sector because of the relatively large value of the top Yukawa coupling. Hence we only include the top quark and the two stop states, $T_{1}\ \mathrm{and}%
\ T_{2}$ in the usual Coleman-Weinberg expression,
$$V_{\mathrm{rad}}=\frac{1}{64\pi ^{2}}\;STr\;m^{4} \ln \frac{m^{2}}{%
Q^{2}} \label{G}$$
The appropriate mass terms in (\[G\]) are then the top quark mass $m_t^2$ and the stop masses
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{T_{1,2}}^{2} &=&m_{t}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left(
m_{Q_{3}}^{2}+m_{T}^{2}\right) \pm W, \mathrm{where} \nonumber \\
W^{2} &=&\frac{1}{4}\left( m_{Q_{3}}^{2}+m_{T}^{2}\right) +h_{t}^{2}\left|
A_{t}h_{2}+\lambda sh_{1}\right| ^{2}, \nonumber \\
m_{t} &=&h_{t}h_{2}. \label{H}\end{aligned}$$
All the parameters in (\[F\]) and (\[G\]) are to be taken at the scale $%
Q^{2}\sim O\left( h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}\right) .$
These radiative corrections are mostly due to the splitting between the quarks and the squarks. However, even if one starts from universal parameters at $\Lambda_{\mathrm{GUT}},$ the RGE running introduce some asymmetry in the stop sector as can be seen from the formulae in the Appendix. The resulting splitting in $m_{T_{1}}^{2}-m_{T_{2}}^{2}$ produces a sizeable effect in $V_{%
\mathrm{rad}}$ and in the scalar mass spectrum. The full one loop expressions for the mass matrices and the potential minimization are available in the literature. All the numerical calculations in the present paper are performed by using the formulae in [@Elrc]. However, for the sake of the analytic approximations discussed below we use a simple approximation by keeping only the lowest relevant order in the development in terms of the stop splitting, $\left( m_{T_1}^2-m_{T_2}^2\right) /\left( m_{T_1}^2+m_{T_2}^2\right) .$ The minimization of the scalar potential amounts to the following conditions
$$\begin{tabular}{lll}
$h_{1}\left[ m_{1}^{2}+\hat{\mu}^{2}\left( 1+\frac{h_{2}^{2}}{s^{2}}\right) +%
\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}^{2}\left( h_{1}^{2}-h_{2}^{2}\right) +\right. $ & &
\\
& & \\
\multicolumn{1}{r}{$\left. +\hat{B}\hat{\mu}\frac{h_{2}}{h_{1}}+\beta _{t}%
\hat{\mu}^{2}L\right] $} & $=$ & $0$ \\
& & \\
$h_{2}\left[ m_{2}^{2}+\hat{\mu}^{2}\left( 1+\frac{h_{1}^{2}}{s^{2}}\right) -%
\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}^{2}\left( h_{1}^{2}-h_{2}^{2}\right) \right] +$ & &
\\
& & \\
$+\hat{B}\hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}}{h_{2}}+\beta _{t}\left[ \left(
m_{T}^{2}+m_{Q_{3}}^{2}+A_{t}^{2}\right) \left( L+\varepsilon \right)
\right. $ & & \\
& & \\
\multicolumn{1}{r}{$\left. -\left( m_{T}^{2}+m_{Q_{3}}^{2}\right)
+2m_{t}^{2}L\right] $} & $=$ & $0$ \\
& & \\
$s\left[ m_{S}^{2}+\hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}{s^{2}}+2\nu
^{2}+A_{\kappa }\nu +\left( \hat{B}+\nu \right) \hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}h_{2}}{%
s^{2}}+\right. $ & & \\
& & \\
\multicolumn{1}{r}{$\left. +\beta _{t}\hat{\mu}^{2}\left( \frac{h_{2}}{s}%
\right) ^{2}\left( L+\varepsilon \right) \right] $} & $=$ & $0$%
\end{tabular}
\label{I}$$
where
$$\beta _{t} =\frac{3h_{t}^{2}}{16\pi ^{2}}\ ,\ \ \ \ \
\varepsilon =\ln \frac{%
m_{t}^{2}}{Q^{2}}\ ,\ \ \ \ \
L =\ln \frac{m_{T_{1}}m_{T_{2}}}{m_{t}^{2}} \label{J}$$
and the variables
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mu} &=&\lambda s \nonumber \\
\nu &=&\kappa s \nonumber \\
\hat{B} &=&A_{\lambda }+\nu +\beta _{t}A_{t}\left( L+\varepsilon \right)
\label{K}\end{aligned}$$
have been introduced. An one loop term has been conveniently included in the definition of the effective parameter $\hat
B$ (of the MSSM).
The $3\times 3$ mass matrix for the CP even scalars (in the same approximation) has the following matrix elements
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{11}^{2} &=&\overline{g}^{2}h_{1}^{2}-\hat{B}\hat{\mu}\left( \frac{h_{2}}{%
h_{1}}\right) -\beta _{t}\hat{\mu}^{2}\frac{Z^{2}}{3} \nonumber \\
m_{22}^{2} &=&\overline{g}^{2}h_{2}^{2}-\hat{B}\hat{\mu}\left( \frac{h_{1}}{%
h_{2}}\right) +4\beta _{t}m_{t}^{2}L+\beta _{t}A_{t}\left( 2m_{t}Z%
-A_{t}\frac{Z^{2}}{3}\right) \nonumber \\
m_{SS}^{2} &=&\left( A_{\kappa }+4\nu \right) \nu -\left( \hat{B}-\nu
\right) \hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}h_{2}}{s_{2}}-\frac{\hat{\mu}^{2}}{3}\left(
\frac{h_{1}^{2}}{s_{2}}\right) \beta _{t}Z^{2} \nonumber \\
m_{1S}^{2} &=&2\hat{\mu}^{2}\left( \frac{h_{1}}{s}\right) +\left( \hat{B}%
+\nu \right) \hat{\mu}\left( \frac{h_{2}}{s}\right) +\beta _{t}\hat{\mu}%
^{2}\left( \frac{h_{1}}{s}\right) \left( L+\varepsilon -\frac{1}{2}\right)
\nonumber \\
m_{2S}^{2} &=&2\hat{\mu}^{2}\left( \frac{h_{2}}{s}\right) +\left( \hat{B}%
+\nu \right) \hat{\mu}\left( \frac{h_{1}}{s}\right) +\hat{\mu}\left( \frac{%
h_{1}}{s}\right) \beta _{t}\left( m_{t}Z-A_{t}\frac{Z^{2}%
}{3}\right) \nonumber \\
m_{12}^{2} &=&-\overline{g}^{2}h_{1}h_{2}+2\hat{\mu}^{2}\left( \frac{%
h_{1}h_{2}}{s^{2}}\right) +\hat{B}\hat{\mu}+\hat{\mu}\beta _{t}\left( m_{t}%
Z-A_{t}\frac{Z^{2}}{3}\right) \nonumber \\
Z &=&\frac{m_{t}\left( A_{t}+\hat{\mu}\cot \beta \right) }{%
m_{t}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left( m_{Q_{3}}^{2}+m_{T}^{2}\right) } \label{L}\end{aligned}$$
The parameter L characterizes the top-stop mass splitting and can be relatively large, while $\varepsilon $ depends on the low energy scale chosen to define the running parameters — we take $Q^{2}\sim \left( h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}\right) $ in this paper so that $\left| \varepsilon \right| \sim \left| \ln h_{t}^{2}\right| <1.$
The CP odd scalar (mass)$^2$ matrix with the would-be Goldstone boson projected out is as follows,
$$\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
-\hat{B}\hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}{h_{1}h_{2}} & -\left( \hat{B}%
-3\nu \right) \hat{\mu}\frac{\sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}}{s} \\
& \\
-\left( \hat{B}-3\nu \right) \hat{\mu}\frac{\sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}}{s} &
-3A_{\kappa }\nu -\left( \hat{B}+3\nu \right) \hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}h_{2}}{%
s_{2}}
\end{array}
\right) \label{M}$$
The minimization of the potential fixes $\hat{B}\hat{\mu}$ and $ A_{\kappa }\nu $ to be negative, so that the diagonal entries in (\[M\]) are positive. The (mass)$^2$ of the charged scalar reads
$$m_{H^{+}}^{2}=M_{W}^{2}\left( 1-\frac{\lambda ^{2}}{g_{2}^{2}}\right)
+\left| \hat{B}\hat{\mu}\frac{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}{h_{1}h_{2}}\right|
\label{N}$$
The radiative corrections are incorporated into the CP odd neutral and charged scalar masses through the shift of the $\hat{B}$ parameter as defined in (\[K\]) [@Elrc].
Although all the numerical results in this paper are obtained by numerical minimization of the complete one loop potential (\[F\]), (\[G\]) and the numerical determination of the mass eigenvalues, it is interesting to get some insight into the results through simple analytic approximations. Indeed, many features of the particle spectrum of the (M+1)SSM are related to an important property, first noticed in [@ERS1], namely: the only physically acceptable solutions of the vacuum equations (\[I\]) are large singlet solutions: $ s \gtrsim 1\mathrm{TeV}\gg
h_{2},h_{1}.$ Indeed, solutions with $ s \lesssim h_{2}$ lead to one or more light states in the spectrum that are excluded by experiments, specially by LEP experiments. Examples can be found in [@Ellis], where the parameters have been chosen to yield light spectrum. The general character of this feature of the (M+1)SSM has been carefully checked in our numerical analysis. Having settled this fact one can go on to establish several approximate consequences.
\(A) The $S$ v.e.v is approximately obtained from the third equation in (\[I\]) with $h_2=h_1=0$,
$$s \simeq \frac{-A_{\kappa }-\sqrt{A_{\kappa }^{2}-8m_{S}^{2}}}{4\kappa }
\label{O}$$
The potential at this value of $s$ has also to be negative in the allowed region of the parameter space, as discussed in more detail in section \[sec:stability\]. This additional condition requires $$9m_{S}^{2}<A_{\kappa }^{2}
\label{neccon}$$ This approximation turns out to be very accurate. The parameters $A_{\kappa} $ and $m_{S}^{2}$ are only slightly renormalized if $\kappa ,\lambda \ll 1. $ Actually, these relatively low values of the couplings are also required by our numerical study of the model, so that the condition (\[neccon\]) approximately applies to the bare universal parameters $A_{0},m_{0}^{2},$ yielding the strong constraint in the parameter space: $$A_{0}^{2} \gtrsim 9m_{0}^{2}
\label{neccon1}$$
The $S$ v.e.v. in (\[O\]) defines the effective parameters $\hat{B}$ and $\hat{\mu}$ analogous to those often denoted $B$ and $\mu $ in the MSSM. Indeed, up to corrections of $O\left( h_{2}^{2}/s^{2}\right) ,$ the first two equations in (\[I\]) are the same as in the MSSM with the introduction of these parameters. Notice that $\hat{\mu}\sim \lambda A_{\kappa }/2\kappa$ should be of $O\left( m_{3/2}\right) .$ Hence the well–known “fine-tuning” on the MSSM free parameter, $\mu \sim O\left( m_{3/2}\right) ,$ is replaced here by the requirement of no strong hierarchy between the $\lambda $ and $\kappa
$ Yukawa couplings, as the $SU(2)\times U(1)$ invariant scale of the singlet field is dynamically fixed by supersymmetry breaking, accordingly to (\[O\]).
With $\tan \beta =h_2/h_1$ one recovers, in this approximation, the MSSM relation $$\tan ^{2}\beta =\frac{m_{1}^{2}+\beta_{t}\hat{\mu}^{2}L+\hat{\mu}^{2}+
M_{Z}^{2}/2}{m_{2}^{2}+\left(
m_{T_{1}}^{2}+m_{T_{2}}^{2}+A_{t}^{2}\right) \beta_{t}L +\hat{\mu}^{2}+ M_{Z}^{2}/2}
\label{P}$$
Only the dominant terms of the radiative corrections are retained. Because the denominator in (\[P\]) has terms of either sign $\left(
m_{2}^{2}<0\right) $ it is relatively sensitive to radiative corrections which tend to decrease $\tan \beta $ with respect to the tree-level approximation.
\(B) In the neutral scalar mass matrices (\[L\],\[M\]) as well as in the neutralino mass matrices, the mixing of the singlet fields to the others is always proportional to $h_1/s$ and $h_2/s$, hence small. This is the reason why, in most of the allowed points of the parameter space, the singlet sector of the theory, after dynamically producing the effective parameters (\[K\]), is almost decoupled from the rest of the theory that resembles to the MSSM.
\(C) The MSSM is formally obtained in the limit $s\rightarrow \infty $ with $\nu $ and $\hat{\mu}$ fixed $\left( \kappa ,\lambda \ll \overline{g}^{2}\right) .$ In this limit the singlet sector decouples from the doublet Higgs sector, and the singlet masses are: .5 truecm
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}4\sqrt{A_0^2-8m_0^2}\left(\left| A_0\right|
+\sqrt{A_0^2-8m_0^2}\right)
\mathrm{(}CP\mathrm{\ even\ scalar)} & \nonumber \\
& \nonumber \\
\frac {3}{4}\left| A_0\right| \left(\left| A_0\right|
+\sqrt{A_0^2-8m_0^2}\right)
\mathrm{(}CP\mathrm{\ odd\ scalar)} & \\ & \nonumber \\
\left(\left| A_0\right| +\sqrt{A_0^2-8m_0^2}\right) /2 \mathrm{\ (
singlet\ fermion,\ singlino).}& \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
.5 truecm The singlet particles become light in the small $A_{0}$ limit. We argue in section \[sec:stability\] that this limit is always associated to the singlet decoupling limit
$\left( \kappa \rightarrow 0,s^{2}\gg h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}\right) .$ Some of the physical consequences of a light singlino are discussed in section \[sec:inos\].
The neutral and charged Higgs[^1] sector, as well as other neutralinos and charginos follow the MSSM pattern. In this sense the (M+1)SSM reduces to the MSSM in this limit but with an important restriction in the parameter space needed to dynamically implement the physically acceptable vacuum.
1truecm
[Constraints on the parameter space from vacuum stability]{} {#sec:stability}
============================================================
The spontaneous breaking of $SU(2)\times U(1)$ symmetry in the (M+1)SSM restricts even more the $(M_{0},m_{0}^{2},A_{0})$ parameter subspace than in the MSSM under the same assumption of universality. The minimum discussed in section 3 has to be cosmologically flavourless and stable with respect to other possible minima. The first constraint comes from the fact that the $%
S$ v.e.v. is induced through the “$A$-mechanism” [@BFS; @NSW1] with $A_{0}^{2}>9m_{0}^{2},$ as given in (\[neccon1\]). It is well known that large $A_{0}$ values may induce charged and coloured vacua.
In order to avoid slepton v.e.v.’s one has to impose
$$A_{\mathrm{e}}^{2}<3\left( m_{E}^{2}+m_{L}^{2}+m_{1}^{2}\right) \label{R}$$
at a scale $\Lambda \lesssim 0\left( A_{\mathrm{e}}/h_{\mathrm{e}%
}\right) ,$ where $\left( A_{\mathrm{e}}/h_{\mathrm{e}}\right) $ characterizes the scale of the would-be slepton $v.e.v.^{\prime }s.$ From the RGE solutions in the appendix this implies $\left( t_{\mathrm{e}}=\ln \left(
h_{e}\Lambda _{\mathrm{GUT}}/A_{\mathrm{e}}\right) /16\pi ^{2}\right), $ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left( A_{0}+2M_{0}t_{\mathrm{e}}\left( 3g_{2}^{2}+3g_{1}^{2}\right) \right)
\nonumber \\
&<&9\left[ m_{0}^{2}+2g_{2}^{2}t_{\mathrm{e}}\left( 1-g_{2}^{2}t_{\mathrm{e}%
}\right) M_{0}^{2}+2g_{1}^{2}t_{\mathrm{e}}\left( 1-11g_{1}^{2}t_{\mathrm{e}%
}\right) M_{0}^{2}\right]. \label{S}\end{aligned}$$
The most dangerous v.e.v.’s comes from the electron sector with the smallest Yukawa and the largest scale $A_{\mathrm{e}}/h_{\mathrm{e}}\sim 0\left(
10^{8}GeV\right) $, and (\[R\]) at this scale finally becomes
$$\left( A_{0}+.4M_{0}\right) ^{2}<9m_{0}^{2}+2.4M_{0}^{2}. \label{T}$$
This can be combined with the condition $A_{0}^{2}>9m_{0}^{2}$ to obtain restrictions on the ratio $A_{0}/M_{0}.$ For this purpose we introduce a parameter to characterize the fine-tuning of $m_{0}^{2}$ with respect to $A_{0},$
$$\alpha =\frac{A_{0}^{2}-9m_{0}^{2}}{A_{0}^{2}} \label{U}$$
and obtain from (\[T\]) the upper bound on $\alpha$
$$\left| \frac{M_{0}}{A_{0}}\right| >.18\left( \sqrt{14\alpha +1} +
\mathrm{sign}(A_0/M_0) \right) \label{V}$$
For $A_{0}/M_{0}>0,$ (\[T\]) yields the limit
$$M_{0}^{2}>\frac{A_{0}^{2}}{8}>m_{0}^{2} \label{W}$$
For $A_{0}/M_{0}<0,\left| A_{0}\right| $ can become much larger than $M_{0}$ at the price of a fine-tuning of $m_{0}^{2}/A_{0}^{2}$ corresponding to $\alpha $ of $O\left( M_{0}/A\,_{0}\right).$ Though these conditions are only valid under the universality assumption for soft terms, analogous ones can be derived along the same lines for other models (see, $e.g.,$ [@Brax]). (Strictly speaking, (\[T\]) can only be analytically derived [@Desa] if the scalars are relatively degenerate. But recent numerical studies suggest that it is approximatelly valid under more general conditions [@bordner])
The next step is to avoid minima with $\left\langle H_{1}\right\rangle =0,%
\mathrm{i.e.,}$ with $\tan \beta \rightarrow \infty .$ In this analysis the radiative corrections discussed in section 3 can be relevant. Of course, in our numerical analysis they are included, but in order to understand the origin of some of the constraints on the (M+1)SSM parameter space, they are neglected in some of the expressions here below. In the effective two-step minimization of the scalar potential, one finds for the phenomenologically acceptable solution discussed in the previous section the approximate value at the minimum
$$\begin{aligned}
V_{\min } &=& \frac{-A_{\kappa }^{4}}{48\kappa ^{2}}C(\alpha )
-\frac{M_{Z}^{4}}{4\overline{g}^{2}}\cos ^{2}2\beta \nonumber \\
C(\alpha ) &=& \left( \frac{3+\sqrt{1+8\alpha }}{6} \right) ^{3}
\left( \frac{\sqrt{1+8\alpha }-1}{2}\right) \ \label{X}\end{aligned}$$
where the first term comes from the pure singlet sector and the last one from the effective MSSM potential defined with the parameters given by (\[K\]). This physical minimum has to be compared with another one, with $%
\left\langle S\right\rangle =\left\langle H_{1}\right\rangle =0$ and $%
\left\langle H_{2}^{2}\right\rangle =-m_{2}^{2}/2\overline{g}^{2}.$ The potential at this minimum is
$$V_{\min }^{\prime }=-\frac{(m_{2}^{2})^2}{\overline{g}^{2}} \label{Y}$$
In principle one should look for the cosmological formation and stability of the minimum (\[X\]) with respect to (\[Y\]). For simplicity we replace the rigorous constraints by the simpler condition that $V_{\min }<V_{\min
}^{\prime },$ [*i.e.,*]{} that the absolute minimum is the physical one.This stability condition differs from the corresponding one within the MSSM in two respects: (i) the presence of the pure singlet negative term in (\[X\]) favours $V_{\min };$ (ii) in the MSSM, $(-m_{2}^{2})^{2}$ is replaced by $(-m_{2}^{2}+\hat{\mu}^{2})^{2}$ in (\[Y\]), so that $V_{\min
}^{\prime }$ is more dangerous in the (M+1)SSM. The comparison of (\[X\]) and (\[Y\]) leads to the condition (at the scale $v$),
$$\frac{\overline{g}^{2}A_{\kappa }^{4}}{48\kappa ^{2}}
C(\alpha )+\frac{M_Z^{4}}{4}\cos ^{2}2\beta > (m_{2}^{2})^{2}.
\label{Z}$$
On the other hand, from the RGE solution in the appendix one gets
$$-m_{2}^{2}>\left( \frac{3\rho }{2}-1\right) m_{0}^{2}+\left( 4\rho -\frac{1}{%
2}\right) M_{0}^2 \label{A1}$$
and the measured values of the top mass does not allow for small $\rho = h_{t}^{2}/h_{\mathrm{crit}}^{2}$ so that $\rho \gtrsim
2/3$. In addition, in the next section we derive from the experimental limits on the chargino masses a bound on $M_{Z}/M_{0},$
$$\frac{2M_{0}}{\sqrt{5}} >M_Z=\overline{g}\sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}\ .
\label{minM0}$$
(At this point, one is introducing experimental information on the spectrum. As already stressed, it is the interplay between the LEP bounds on sparticle masses and the vacuum conditions that constrains the parameter space.) Now, from (\[minM0\]) and (\[A1\]), (\[Z\]) can be well approximated by
$$\frac{\overline{g}}{4\sqrt{3} \kappa } >\left( \frac{M_{0}^{2}}{A_{0}^{2}}\right)
\frac{\left( 4\rho -\frac{1}{2}\right) }{\sqrt{C(\alpha )}} \label{A2}$$
Notice that the necessary condition $C(\alpha ) >0 $, which follows from (\[minM0\]) and (\[Z\]), implies $\alpha >0,$ namely, the condition (\[neccon1\]).
For $A_{0}/M_{0}>0$ one obtains from (\[V\]) and (\[A2\]) the bound
$$\frac{\kappa }{\overline{g}}<\frac{1}{5\left( 4\rho -\frac{1}{2}\right)}
\ , \label{A3}$$
so that $\kappa $ is always relatively small, $\kappa <\overline{g}%
/10=0.05.$ This is related to the large values taken by the $S$ v.e.v.. Indeed by replacing (\[O\]) and (\[minM0\]) in (\[A2\]), we obtain
$$\frac{\left| s\right| }{\sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}}>\sqrt{3} \left( 8\rho -1\right)
>7 \ . \label{A4}$$
Of course, the limits (\[A3\]) and (\[A4\]) are relatively loose bounds and most of the solutions of our numerical studies correspond to smaller (larger) values of $\kappa $ ($s,$ respectively). Also to be noticed is the behaviour of $s$ for fine-tuning of the parameter $\alpha $ in (\[U\]): $s/\sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}\rightarrow \left( 4\rho
-1/2\right) /\sqrt{\alpha }$ as $\alpha \rightarrow 0,$ while $\kappa $ decreases as $\sqrt{\alpha }.$
For $A_{0}/M_{0}<0,$ the situation is more involved since one can allow for large values of $A_{0}$ with some fine-tuning of the $m_{0}^{2}/A_{0}^{2}$ ratio. The relations corresponding to (\[A3\]) and (\[A4\]) are respectively
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\kappa }{\overline{g}} &<&\frac{1}{2 \left( 4\rho -\frac{1}{2} \right) }\frac{1}{%
\sqrt{\alpha }}\left( 1+\frac{1}{6\alpha }\right) \nonumber \\
\frac{\left| s\right| }{\sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}} &>&\left( 2\rho -\frac{1}{4} \right) \frac{7\sqrt{\alpha }}{(1+\alpha )} \label{A5}\end{aligned}$$
For moderate values of $\alpha ,$ (\[A5\]) corroborate our conclusions from (\[A3\]) and (\[A4\]). In the fine-tuning limit, $%
\alpha \rightarrow 0$, the singular behaviour of $\kappa $ in the parameter $\alpha $ is apparent. However, in this case our approximations are not powerful enough to explain the lower bound [@ERS1] $s\gtrsim 6\sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}} $ that is found in our numerical analysis.
Another interesting constraint follows from (\[P\]) which implies $
-(m_{2}^{2}+\left( m_{T_{1}}^{2}+m_{T_{2}}^{2}+A_{t}^{2}\right)
\beta_{t}L)
<\hat{\mu}^{2}+M_{Z}^{2}/2.$ Neglecting the top-stop radiative corrections and using (\[A1\]) and (\[minM0\]) yields,
$$\hat{\mu}^{2}=\lambda ^{2}s^{2} > \left( 4\rho -1\right) M_{0}^{2} \label{A6}$$
From (\[O\]) and (\[V\]), one derives the limits: $$\begin{array}{lll}
\left( \lambda ^{2}/\kappa ^{2}\right) & > &
\left( 4\rho -1 \right) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\left( A_{0}/M_{0}>0\right) \nonumber \\
{ } & > &
\left( 4\rho -1 \right)\left(3\alpha /(1+2\alpha )\right) \ \ \left(
A_{0}/M_{0}<0\right) \end{array}
\label{A7}$$
For moderate values of $\alpha $ this implies $\kappa
^{2}<\lambda ^{2} .$ At the price of some fine-tuning and $%
A_{0}/M_{0}<0$ one can obtain $\kappa $ slightly larger than $\lambda .$
Concerning the important parameter $\tan \beta ,$ some simple qualitative predictions can be obtained from the following expression,
$$\frac{-2\hat{B}\hat{\mu}}{m_{1}^{2}+m_{2}^{2}+\left( m_{T_{1}}^{2}+m_{T_{2}}^{2}+A_{t}^{2}+\hat{\mu}^{2}\right) \beta_{t}L
+2\mu ^{2}}=\sin 2\beta
\label{Q'}$$
which is equivalent to (\[P\]) by the minimum conditions (\[I\]). Notice that $\mathrm{sign} (\tan \beta)=-\mathrm{sign} (\hat{B} \hat{\mu} )$. From the renormalized expression (\[Z6\]) in the appendix, one sees that for $A_0M_0<0$ the sign of $\hat{B}$ is preserved and its magnitude increased by the gauge renormalisation proportional to $M_0$ which increases the numerator in (\[Q’\]). Therefore, in this case, $\tan \beta >0$ and it can take relatively small values for $\left| A_0\right| > \left| M_0\right| .$ Instead, for $A_0M_0>0,$ where (\[W\]) also applies, the $M_0$ term in (\[Z6\]) tends to exceed the $A_0$ term so that in most cases $\tan \beta < 0$ and its magnitude is relatively large. (Exceptions are the special cases with small $\rho $ and $\left| A_0 \right| \gtrsim 2\left| M_0 \right| $ with a positive large $\tan \beta$.)
Therefore, with these simple analytic approximations for the vacuum conditions, together with the approximated condition from the experimental limits on the gauginos (to be discussed later on), one easily understands the qualitative pattern of the allowed parameter space as obtained from the detailed numerical investigation. For instance, (\[A4\]) and (\[A5\]) are related to the decoupling of the singlet sector, whereas sizeable mixing - which requires $s/\sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}} \sim O(1)$ - is possible only with the fine-tuning (and signs) discussed below (\[A5\]). 1truecm
[Qualitative aspects of the mass spectrum]{} {#sec:inos}
============================================
Let us first consider the chargino masses given by the expression
$$\begin{array}{lll}
m_{\chi^{+}}^{2} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left( M_{2}^{2}+\hat
{\mu}^{2}+M_{W}^{2}\right) \nonumber \\
& & \nonumber \\
& \pm & \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\left( M_{2}^{2}+\hat {\mu}^{2}+M_{W}^{2}\right)^{2} -\left(
2\hat {\mu} M_{2}-M_{W}^{2}\sin 2\beta
\right) ^{2}}
\end{array}
\label{E1}$$
with $M_{2}^{2}/M_{0}^2 \simeq 2/3.$ For the LEP experimental limit we take $m_{\chi^{+}}>65$ [GeV]{}. Of course, the constraints from this limit on the parameters are the same as in the MSSM (with $\tan \beta$ in the more restricted range determined by the (M+1)SSM as discussed in section \[sec:spectrum\]). On the other hand, this constraint plays an important role in the discussion of the previous section as well as in this section.
Because the scale of the soft supersymmetry breaking parameters is set by the weak scale, we conveniently express the dimensionful parameters in terms of $M_Z$ in this section. One can use the experimental bound, together with (\[P\]) and the (\[A1\]), to deduce the relations
$$\hat{\mu}^{2}>\left( 6\rho -\frac{3}{4}\right) M_{2}^{2}-
\frac{M_{Z}^{2}}{2}>M_{2}^{2}>m_{\chi^{+}}^{2}> M_{Z}^{2}/2.
\label{E2}$$
Let us now define a parameter $a$ by, $$\hat{\mu}^{2}+\frac{M_{Z}^{2}}{2}=\left( a-1\right) M_{2}^{2} \label{E3}$$ which, for $\tan \beta \gtrsim 2$ (which turns out to be always the case in our numerical analysis), satisfies the approximate inequalities $6\rho +1/4\lesssim a\lesssim 6\rho + 2.$ Then, from (\[E1\]) and (\[E2\]) one gets the following expression for the lightest chargino mass,
$$m_{\chi^{+}}^{2}\simeq \frac{\left( a-1\right) }{a}M_{2}^{2}-\left( 1+%
\frac{2\sqrt{a}}{\tan \beta }\right) \frac{3M_{Z}^{2}}{4a} \ , \label{E4}$$
so that the approximate bounds,
$$\frac{1}{14}M_{3}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}M_{Z}^{2}\simeq
\frac{3}{4}M_{2}^{2}-\frac{1}{3}M_{Z}^{2} \lesssim m_{\chi^{+}
}^{2}\lesssim \frac{7}{8}M_{2}^{2}-\frac{1}{6}M_{Z}^{2} \simeq
\frac{2}{25}M_{3}^{2}-\frac{1}{6}M_{Z}^{2} \label{E5}$$
are obtained by varying the parameters $\rho$ and $\tan \beta ,$ and by using the relation between the gluino and wino masses $M_{3}^{2}/M_{2}^{2} \simeq 10.7.$ This defines a relatively narrow band for $m_{\chi^+}$ as a function of the gluino mass $M_3$, that is reasonably reproduced in our numerical analysis. It just expresses the fact that the lightest chargino is mostly a wino, with a component of $O(1/a)$ of the higgsino.
Now, from (\[E5\]) and the experimental LEP bound, $m_{\chi^{+}}^{2}>M_{Z}^{2}/2,$ one gets a limit on the gluino mass, $M_3 \gtrsim 3M_{Z}= 273$ [GeV]{} (from the previous LEP bound, $m_{\chi^{+}}>M_{Z}/2,$ the corresponding result was $M_{3}\gtrsim 180$ [GeV]{}, but needed a more detailed approximation than (\[E5\])). This corresponds to $M_{0} \gtrsim 100$ GeV. Notice that these are only approximations aimed to explain rather than predict the numerical results that take all the parameters into account. As already stressed, this result is analogous to the limits on the chargino masses in the MSSM. For $M_{0}\gg M_{Z}$ the off-diagonal terms become relatively unimportant and $\hat{\mu}^{2}\rightarrow (a-1) M_{2}^{2}.$ Therefore the lightest chargino is mostly a wino with $m_{\chi^{+}_{1}}\simeq M_{2}$ and the other chargino has mass $m_{\chi^{+}_{2}}\simeq \sqrt{a-1}
m_{\chi^{+}_{1}} > \sqrt{3} m_{\chi^{+}_{1}} . $
We next consider the neutralino sector, with five Majorana fermions. It is particularly important since it includes the lightest odd R-parity state, or LSP, and since its phenomenology can deviate from that predicted in the MSSM because of the presence of the singlet fermion (singlino, $\widetilde{s}).$ The mass terms for the neutralinos are,
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\widetilde{s} \left[ 2\nu \widetilde{s}+\frac{%
\lambda }{\overline{g}}M_{Z}\left( \widetilde{h}_{1}\sin \beta +%
\widetilde{h}_{2}\cos \beta \right) \right]+\hat{\mu}\widetilde{h}_{1}\widetilde{h}_{2}\nonumber
+M_{1}\widetilde{B}\widetilde{B}+M_{2}\widetilde{W}_{3}\widetilde{W}_{3}\\
&&+M_{Z}\left( \widetilde{B} \sin \theta _{\mathrm{w}}+
\widetilde{W}_{3}\cos \theta _{\mathrm{w}}\right)
\left( \widetilde{h}_{1}\cos \beta +\widetilde{h}_{2}\sin \beta \right)
\label{E6} \end{aligned}$$
The point to be stressed is the relatively small mixing of the singlino to the higgsinos. This is because $s\gg h_{2}>h_{1}$ and $(2/3)\left|
A_{0}\right| <\left| 12\nu \right| <\left| A_{0}\right| $ , $\hat{\mu}=\lambda s\gtrsim \sqrt{2}M_{0}>\sqrt{2M_{Z}}.$ Hence the singlino remains an almost pure state of mass $\left|2 \nu \right|$, and the higgsino-gaugino sector is analogous to the charged one. The experimental constraints on the chargino imply, as just discussed, that the lightest chargino is mostly a gaugino, which will also imply an analogous situation in the non-singlet neutralino sector.
One finds indeed that the lightest states are [^2]: one which is mostly $\widetilde B,$ with a mass $\simeq
M_{1}\simeq M_{0}/\sqrt{6}$, and another one, mostly $\widetilde{W}_{3},$ with mass $
\simeq M_{2}\simeq 2M_{1}.$ From the bound on the chargino mass one has $M_{1}^{2}>M_{Z}^{2}/5.$ The most important difference between the (M+1)SSM and the MSSM could be in the LSP character: unless one badly violates the universality assumption for the scalar masses, the LSP is mostly a $\widetilde{B}$ in the MSSM, while the $\widetilde{s}$ is also a LSP candidate in the (M+1)SSM. Let us consider the condition for a [*singlino*]{} LSP,
$$\left| 2\nu \right| \lesssim M_{1} \label{E7}$$
which in terms of the bare parameters yields:
$$\left| A_{0}\right| < M_{0}\frac{\sqrt{6}}{3+\sqrt{1+8\alpha }}%
< \sqrt{\frac{3}{8}}M_{0} \label{E8}$$
This corresponds to some constraints in the coupling constants as well.From (\[A3\]) one infers $\kappa /\overline{g} \lesssim .01.$ The $S$ v.e.v. has to be relatively large because of (\[A7\]), which gives $s/\left( \sqrt{h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}}\right) >20.$ From (\[A6\]) and (\[E8\]) one derives the constraint, $\left| \hat{\mu}/\nu \right|
=\lambda/\kappa \gtrsim 5.$ On the other hand, (\[E8\]) also implies $M^2_0 > 24$ $m^2_0$. In other words, the light singlino scenario corresponds to gaugino masses being the largest soft terms, a “gaugino dominated scenario”. This implies many correlations between sparticle masses.
If the singlino is the LSP, the second lightest neutralino being mostly a $%
\widetilde{B}$ should be quite long-lived. Indeed, its decay into $%
\widetilde{s}$ has to go through its mixing to higgsinos. Then the decay $\widetilde{B}\rightarrow \widetilde{s}$ is proportional to $g_{1}^{2}\left( h_{1}^{2}+h_{2}^{2}\right) /s^{2}<g_{1}^{2}/400.$ Conversely, if (\[E8\]) is not realized, then $\widetilde{s}$ will decay into the LSP, mostly $%
\widetilde{B},$ with a similar coupling ($\widetilde{s}$ would be produced in Higgs or higgsino decays).
Let us now turn to the slepton sector. The lowest lying states are the $\nu$ sneutrinos $\widetilde{\nu }_{\mathrm{e}}$ and the “right-handed” sleptons, $\widetilde{\ell }_{R},\ell =\mathrm{e},\mu ,\tau $ [^3]. This follows from the assumption of universality for the soft terms. The approximated expressions for the slepton masses as given in the Appendix are
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{\widetilde{\ell _{R}}}^{2} &=&m_{0}^{2}+ .15 M_{0}^{2}+M_{Z%
}^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta _{W}\left| \cos 2\beta \right| \nonumber \\
m_{\widetilde{\nu }}^{2} &=&m_{0}^{2}+ .5 M_{0}^{2}-\frac{1}{2}M_{%
Z}^{2}\left| \cos 2\beta \right| \label{E9}\end{aligned}$$
Searches at LEP 1 put a limit of roughly $M_{Z}^{2}/4$ on both of them. For the relatively large values of $\tan \beta $ that tend to prevail in the (M+1)SSM $|\cos 2\beta| \approx 1.$ With the LEP 1 results on the chargino masses, as pointed out above, one had a bound $%
2M_{0}^{2}\gtrsim M_{Z}^{2}$ and the bounds on $m_{\widetilde{\nu }}^{2}$ gave some useful information. With the LEP 1.5 results, the limit on $M_{0}$ implied by (\[E6\]) is enough to ensure $m_{\widetilde{\nu }}>
m_{\widetilde{\ell _{R}}}.$
A more interesting issue is provided by the interplay between chargino and slepton searches at LEP 200. In order to compare their masses, we first replace $M_0$ in (\[E9\]) in terms of the lightest chargino mass in (\[E4\]) to obtain
$$m_{\widetilde{\ell_R}}^{2}\simeq
\frac{a}{4(a-1)}m_{\chi ^{+}}^{2}+
m_{0}^{2}+\frac{M_{Z}^{2}}{4}\left( 1+\frac{3}{4a}+\frac{3}{2\sqrt{a}
\tan \beta} \right) \gtrsim
m_{0}^{2}+\frac{2}{7}M_{Z}^{2} \label{E11}$$
which gives a qualitative explanation of figure (2) in the next section. The difference between $m_{\widetilde{\ell_R}}$ and $m_{\chi ^{+}}/2$ is almost a measure of the parameter $m_{0}$ in the future searches for these particles at relatively high energies. As a matter of fact, this reverses the situation at LEP 1, where the chargino was expected to be lighter than the selectron. Indeed by comparing (\[E9\]) and (\[E4\]), we find that the chargino is always lighter than the selectron if $M_{2}^{2}<M_{Z}^{2}/2,$ or, equivalently, as $m_{\chi ^{+}}^{2}<M_{Z}^{2}/3=(52.5 \mathrm{ GeV} )^2 .$ This is quite well reproduced by our numerical results.
In particular, in the light singlino scenario, the term $m_0^2$ can be almost neglected in (\[E11\]) so that the selectron and chargino masses are strongly correlated.
Numerical analysis, experimental and theoretical constraints {#sec:cuts}
============================================================
In this section we describe the numerical procedure employed to produce the figures (1) - (6). As mentioned above, the essential independent parameters of the model are (apart from the lepton and light quark Yukawa couplings and the known gauge couplings) three Yukawa couplings $h_t$, $\lambda$ and $\kappa$ and, under the universality hypothesis at $\Lambda_0 = M_{GUT}$, the three soft parameters $M_0$, $m_0$ and $A_0$. Since these are the only dimensionful parameters in the theory and the scale is finally set by the experimental value of $M_Z$, the true independent parameters are the five dimensionless quantities $h_{t_0}$, $\lambda_0$, $\kappa_0$, $m_0 / M_0$ and $A_0 / M_0$.
The numerical results presented here have been obtained by scanning over $\sim 10^6$ points in this five dimensional parameter space. (Here we used a logarithmic measure, but we have checked the results with different measures as well. A lot of scanning of particular regions of the parameter space has been carried out in order to verify the boundaries of the parameter space and the mass ranges, but the results of these scannings are not shown in the figures.) In each case we integrate the one loop renormalization group equations down to the electroweak scale $v=174$ [GeV]{}. To one loop accuracy it is sufficient to use $v$ as the low energy scale, independently from the exact particle masses of $O(v)$. At the one loop level, one can also take advantage of (\[obvious\]) and compute the coefficients in these equations, what saves a lot of computer time to be used for a better scanning.
Actually, also two loop renormalization group equations have been considered in [@King2]. In this case, however, the low energy scale has to be defined more precisely: The decoupling of particles with masses of $O(v)$ has to be properly taken into account; these masses, in turn, are only known once the Higgs potential (which depends on these masses via the radiative corrections) has been minimized. As a consequence, the numerical procedure becomes much more envolved and allows only to study much less points in the parameter space. On the other hand, the corresponding numerical results hardly deviate from ours. Individual points in the parameter space may well lead to somewhat different particle masses, once two loop contributions have been taken into account. Allowed mass ranges and correlations, however, remain practically unchanged. We found it much more important numerically to minimize the full one loop Coleman-Weinberg Higgs potential including the non-logarithmic contributions than to include two loop logarithms.
Having obtained the parameters at low energy it is most convenient to check first the absence of slepton v.e.v.’s according to eq. (\[T\]) at the scale $\sim A_e/h_e$. Next we minimize in each remaining case the effective potential (\[F\]) including the Coleman-Weinberg radiative corrections (\[G\]),(\[H\]), numerically. We test, whether the minimum with $\left\langle S \right\rangle $, $\left\langle H_1\right\rangle $ and $\left\langle H_2 \right\rangle \neq 0$ is the lowest one, and dismiss the corresponding set of parameters otherwise. We calculate $\tan \beta $ and discard the initial conditions that lead to $\tan \beta >30$ (since we assume $h_t \gg h_b$ in the present work; larger values turn out to be somewhat disfavoured in the model).
In the remaining cases we determine the overall scale of the dimensionful parameters by identifying $\left\langle H_1^2 \right\rangle + \left\langle
H_2^2 \right\rangle $ with $2 M_Z^2 / (g_1^2+g_2^2)$, and compute the physical masses of all particles. Then we impose the following experimental constraints: For the top quark pole mass $m_{t}$ (where we take the leading $QCD$ corrections to the pole mass into account [@tar]) we require $168\ \mathrm{GeV} < m_{t} < 192\ \mathrm{GeV}$ [@PDG]. Next we impose the LEP $1.5$ lower bound on the lightest chargino mass $m_{\chi^+}$: $m_{\chi^+} > 65$ GeV [@Aleph]. As a result, nearly all other experimental bounds on new particles turn out to be satisfied automatically, with some exceptions discussed in section \[sec:spectrum\]. Indeed, though the experimental bounds on sleptons, stop, gluinos, as well as on the decays of the $Z$ into neutralinos and Higgs scalars are implemented in our code, these conditions only eliminate a few marginal points in the parameter space. This remarkable property also can be seen from the plots in the next section.
Let us briefly discuss the range of the bare parameters, which turns out to be consistent with our theoretical and experimental constraints. Concerning the Yukawa couplings we first remark that, as in the MSSM, the known range of the top quark mass together with the solution of the RGE for $h_t$ as given in the appendix allows easily to obtain the allowed range for $h_{t_0}$: $m_{t}> 168$ GeV leads to $h_{t_0}> 0.468$. The other two bare Yukawa couplings $\lambda_0$ and $\kappa_0$ turn out to be fairly small, $2.7\cdot 10^{-3} \lesssim \lambda_0 \lesssim 0.32$ and $1.1 \cdot 10^{-4} \lesssim \kappa_0 \lesssim 0.33$, and relatively closely related, $0.04 \lesssim \kappa_0/\lambda_0 \lesssim 1.14$.
As already remarked below eq. (\[E5\]), the experimental lower limit on $m_{\chi^+}$ implies a lower limit on the soft susy breaking parameter $M_0$. The numerical analysis is in good agreement with the approximate analytic result and leads to $M_0 \gtrsim 90 \ GeV$. No strict upper limits (in the absence of fine tuning constraints) on the soft susy breaking parameters have been obtained. The scalar mass term $m_0^2$ turned out to be unconstrained by our analysis; we assumed, however, $m_0^2 >
0$. The numerical analysis also confirms the allowed range for the third susy breaking parameter $A_0$ as a function of $M_0$ and $m_0$, eq. (28). The corresponding lower limit on $A_0$ is a particularity of the (M+1)SSM, since it is required by the need to destabilize the scalar potential in the singlet direction. The correlations between the particle masses and the bare parameters can finally be obtained from the approximate analytic solutions given in sect (6) and the appendix; in table 1 we present the precise numerical parameters and masses for two particular generic cases: one with $A_0$ negative and a non-singlet LSP, and one with $A_0$ positive and a singlet LSP. 1truecm
Predictions for the particle spetrum {#sec:spectrum}
====================================
In order to allow to study the correlations among the particle masses we choose to plot all masses against the lightest chargino mass $m_{\chi^+}$. Each point in these plots corresponds to one of the $\sim 1.5 \cdot 10^3$ points in the parameter space, which satisfy all our theoretical and phenomenological constraints. The density of points in the plots is clearly not uniform; regions of low density (if not completely empty and hence forbidden), typically towards larger particle masses, correspond to regions where more and more fine tuning is required. We will not, however, employ quantitative “fine tuning constraints” in this paper in order to constrain the particle masses from above; a reader, who is interested in “probable particle masses”, can obtain them by investigating the relative densities in our plots. Let us first consider the gluino mass $M_3$, fig. 1. As already noted in eq. (\[E5\]), given the present experimental bounds, $m_{\chi^{+}}$ and $M_3$ turn out to be strongly correlated. Fig. 1 agrees well with the approximate analytic relation (\[E5\]), and one sees that the lower experimental bound on $m_{\chi^+}$ turns into a lower bound $M_3 \gtrsim 260$ [GeV]{} on the gluino mass within our model. For large masses, the ratio between the lightest chargino and the gluino is close to $g_2^2/g_3^2$ as predited by the chargino being a wino, but slightly smaller as the parameters in the chargino mass matrices are dynamically correlated (as discussed in section \[sec:inos\]).
Next we turn to the slepton masses. The lightest charged “right-handed” slepton mass $m_{\widetilde {\ell_R}}$ is plotted against $m_{\chi^+}$ in fig. 2. We see that $m_{\chi^+} > 65$ [GeV]{} implies $m_{\widetilde \ell_R} > 55$ [GeV]{} in our model. In most cases, as noted below (\[E11\]), the charged slepton mass $m_{\widetilde \ell_R}$ has the tendency to be smaller than $m_{\chi^+}$ (except for large values of the bare scalar mass $m_0$), although it always satisfies $m_{\widetilde \ell_R} \gtrsim m_{\chi^+}/2$ in agreement with the analytic approximation (\[E11\]). In fig. 3 we plot the sneutrino mass $m_{\tilde \nu}$ against $m_{\chi^+}$. Given $m_{\chi^+} > 65$ GeV, the [LEP 1]{} lower limit on $m_{\tilde \nu}$ only eliminates a tiny additional corner in the parameter space.
The neutral scalar Higgs sector has already been discussed in detail in ref. [@ERS2], in particular with respect to future experiments at LEP $2$. Although in [@ERS2] only the LEP $1$ bound on the chargino mass $m_{\chi^+}$ had been taken into account, the results concerning the neutral Higgs sector remain essentially unchanged. Therefore we briefly repeat only the essential features. In order to take the experimental constraints on neutral Higgs bosons properly into account both their masses $and$ their couplings to the $Z$ bosons have to be evaluated. In fact, the negative LEP $1$ results on neutral CP-even Higgs scalars [@PDG] eliminate only a tiny region of the parameter space of the present model, corresponding to $m_h < 58$ GeV and a coupling $hZZ$ as large as in the non-supersymmetric standard model. On the other hand, a large region with smaller values of $m_h$, but small couplings $hZZ$ remains unconstrained by LEP $1$. In this region the lightest CP-even Higgs scalar is essentially a gauge singlet and hence decoupled. In view of this possibility the experimental searches for and the theoretical upper limits on the masses of the lightest CP-even Higgs scalar have to be turned into considerations of the “lightest visible CP-even Higgs scalar”. Fortunately it turns out within the present model [@Ellis; @King; @Kam], that upper limits exist also on the lightest visible CP-even Higgs scalar (which could be the second lightest), varying from $140$ to $160$ GeV for gluino masses (as a measure of the susy breaking scale) from $1$ to $3$ TeV. Similar complications arise also in the CP-odd Higgs sector, which contains a gauge singlet state as well. Here no upper limit can be derived, and we just remark that a visible CP-odd Higgs scalar below $130$ GeV is impossible within the present model and the present experimental constraints on $m_{\chi^+}$.
As in the MSSM the mass of the visible (non-singlet) CP-odd Higgs scalar is actually just somewhat below the mass $m_{H^+}$ of the charged Higgs; cf. the upper left entry of the CP-odd mass matrix eq. (15) and eq. (16). In fig. 4 we plot $m_{H^+}$ against $m_{\chi^+}$, and we see that the present lower limit on $m_{\chi^+}$ implies $m_{H^+} > 160\ GeV$ (increasing rapidly with increasing lower limits on $m_{\chi^+}$).
The range of $\tan{\beta} $ is fairly restricted, and depends strongly on the sign of the bare susy breaking parameter $A_0$: for $A_0 > 0$ we have $\tan{\beta} < -2.6$, whereas for $A_0 < 0$ we find both signs, but large absolute values for $\tan{\beta}$: $\tan{\beta} < -6.5$ or $\tan{\beta} > 8.7$. Since these inequalities hardly depend on the mass of the chargino, a figure does not provide additional information.
Next we turn to the squarks. Because of renormalization effects between $M_{GUT}$ and $M_Z$ (cf. the appendix) the lightest stop eigenstate is the lightest of all squarks; subsequently we concentrate on this particle. In fig. 5 we plot its mass $m_{T_1}$ against $m_{\chi^+}$, and we see that the present lower limit on $m_{\chi^+}$ implies $m_{T_1} >
170$ GeV. A possible “supersymmetric” top quark decay mode is thus practically excluded within the present model.
Finally we consider the neutralino sector. As discussed in chapter (6), two different scenarios are possible within the present model, depending on the mass of the nearly pure singlino: In the case of a heavy singlino, the two lightest neutralino states are a practically pure bino with a mass $M_1$ and a practically pure wino with a mass $M_2 \sim 2 M_1$. The numerical procedure confirms this approximate analytic result to a very high accuracy. Since furthermore the chargino mass $m_{\chi^+}$ is close to $M_2$, cf. eq. (\[E5\]), the two lightest neutralino masses can easily be obtained as a function of $m_{\chi^+}$ and a figure is of no further use. Here the LSP is, of course, the bino, and the supersymmetric decays of all sparticles will proceed as in the MSSM with a suitable set of parameters.
The case of a light singlino is actually more interesting. From the numerical analysis we find, that now the second and third neutralinos correspond to the above mentioned nearly pure bino and wino states. In fig. 6 we plot the mass of the lightest singlino, $m_{ls}$, against the bino mass $M_1$ (for those parameters where $m_{ls} < M_1$). Now supersymmetric decays of all sparticles will start as in the MSSM, until the bino state is produced. (A direct decay into the singlino LSP will be heavily suppressed due to its tiny coupling.) Finally the bino will decay into the singlino LSP, producing an additional cascade, whose consequences on experimental susy searches still have to be worked out in more detail.
1truecm
Conclusions and outlook {#sec:conclusions}
=======================
In the present paper we have presented an exhaustive overview over the parameter space and the particle spectra, which are consistent with the correct vacuum structure and present experimental constraints, within the (M+1)SSM under the universality hypothesis. Since the scalar potential and the corresponding minimization conditions differ considerably from the MSSM due to the presence of the additional singlet superfield, the outcome of this analysis was far from predictable. We have seen that still a large region in the parameter space consistent with all constraints exists. This region is characterized, however, by a) small values of the new Yukawa couplings $\lambda$ and $\kappa$, b) a large value of the scalar singlet $vev$, c) a strong tendency of the singlet states to decouple from the rest of the spectrum. In spite of the complexity of the model this region allows for fairly accurate analytical approximations to the vacuum minimization conditions and particle masses, which we have worked out and presented in some detail.
The near decoupling of the singlet states leads to a particle spectrum, which is close to the MSSM for a suitable set of the corresponding parameters. Our figures show strong correlations or inequalities among the particle masses, which allow for experimental falsifications of our underlying hypothesises. For instance, as in the MSSM with the universality hypothesis, sparticles are not light enough to play an important role for the radiative corrections to $R_{b \bar b}$ [@rbb]. Only the Higgs boson, the lightest chargino, sleptons and neutralinos could be light enough to be discovered at LEP 2; gluinos, squarks and charged or CP-odd Higgs scalars are necessarily too heavy in our model.
Our approximate analytic results allow to translate future possibly negative sparticle searches into constraints on the soft susy breaking parameters. Obvious are lower limits on the universal gaugino mass $M_0$ from negative chargino searches (cf. eq. (\[E5\])) and, of course, negative gluino searches. From eqs. (50), one can furthermore easily deduce excluded regions in the $m_0 - M_0$ plane from negative “right-handed” slepton and sneutrino searches. These relations are actually not different from the MSSM. Eq. (28), however, allows to turn these constraints on $m_0$ and $M_0$ into constraints on $A_0$, which is a particular feature of the (M+1)SSM.
If future sparticle searches turn out to be successful, and the mass pattern predicted by our model turns out to be confirmed, the question arises whether the model can be distinguished from the MSSM with corresponding parameters. The answer depends on the corresponding parameters of the (M+1)SSM. First, there still exist small corners in the parameter space, where mixing with the singlet states either in the neutral Higgs sector or in the neutralino sector could be possible; in this case the couplings of the corresponding visible particles could be substantially and hence measurably smaller than in the MSSM. A more likely possibility - but by no means certain - is the singlino LSP scenario. As discussed in the previous section, in this case sparticle decays will produce an additional cascade with respect to the MSSM. This scenario desserves further phenomenological investigations.
Appendix
========
In this Appendix we list the analytic solutions of the RGE for soft susy breaking terms in the approximation where the dependence on all Yukawa couplings but the top one, $h_{t},$ are neglected.
Also, flavour mixing is neglected in these expressions (see [@Brasa]) for solutions that fully take family mixing into account). However, for the sake of generality, universality is [*not*]{} assumed for the soft terms at the unification scale, $\Lambda _{0}.$ All quantities are defined at the scale $\Lambda $ (unless stated otherwise) and the boundary conditions at the scale $\Lambda _{0},$ are generally denoted as $X_{0}=X(\Lambda _{0}).$ We define the following quantities:
$$\begin{aligned}
t &=&\frac{1}{16\pi ^{2}}\ln \frac{\Lambda _{0}}{\Lambda } \nonumber \\
\Pi _{(\mathrm{i})} &=&\prod\limits_{\alpha =1}^{3}\left( \frac{g_{\alpha
}^{2}}{g_{\alpha _{0}}^{2}}\right) ^{\frac{2C_{\alpha }^{(\mathrm{i})}}{%
b_{\alpha }}} \nonumber \\
J &=&\Pi ^{-1}_{(u)}(t)\int_{0}^{t}\Pi _{(u)}(t^{\prime })dt^{\prime }
\label{Z1}\end{aligned}$$
The index $\alpha =1,2,3,$ refers to the $U(1), SU(2)$ and $ SU(3)$ gauge groups, respectively, and $C_{\alpha }^{(\mathrm{i})}$ is the sum of the their quadratic Casimir eigenvalues for the three fields in the i-th Yukawa coupling. We replace the integral $J $ by the value $h_{\mathrm{crit}}$ of $h_{t}$ at the scale $\Lambda $ corresponding to a Landau pole at $ \Lambda _{0},$ by defining
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{h_{\mathrm{crit}}^{2}} =12J\qquad \qquad \quad \rho =\frac{%
h_{t}^{2}}{h_{\mathrm{crit}}^{2}} \label{Z2}\end{aligned}$$
The solutions for the Yukawa coupling are then as follows
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda ^{2} &=&\lambda _{0}^{2}\Pi _{(\lambda )}\left( 1-\rho \right) ^{1/2}
\nonumber \\
h_{t}^{2} &=&h_{t_{0}}^{2}\Pi _{(u)}\left( 1-\rho \right) \nonumber \\
h_{c(u)}^{2} &=&h_{c(u)_{0}}^{2}\Pi ^{(u)}\left( 1-\rho \right) ^{1/2}
\nonumber \\
h_{b}^{2} &=&h_{b_{0}}^{2}\Pi _{(d)}\left( 1-\rho \right) ^{1/6} \nonumber
\\
h_{s(d)}^{2} &=&h_{s(d)_{0}}^{2}\Pi _{(d)} \nonumber \\
h_{\ell }^{2} &=&h_{\ell _{0}}^{2}\Pi _{(\ell )}\quad \left( \ell =\mathrm{e}%
,\mu ,\tau \right) \nonumber \\
\kappa ^{2} &=&\kappa _{0}^{2} \label{Z3}\end{aligned}$$
The soft trilinear terms are as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
A_{\lambda } &=&A_{\lambda_0 }-\frac{1}{2}\rho \left( A_{t_{0}}+\xi
M_{0}\right) +2M_{0}t\left( 3g_{2}^{2}+g_{1}^{2}\right) \nonumber \\
A_{\kappa } &=&A_{\kappa 0} \nonumber \\
A_{t} &=&A_{t_{0}}-\rho \left( A_{t_{0}}+\xi M_{0}\right)+2M_{0}t\left(
\frac{16}{3}g_{3}^{2}+3g_{2}^{2}+\frac{13}{9}g_{1}^{2}\right) \nonumber \\
A_{c(u)} &=&A_{c(u)0}-\frac{1}{2}\rho \left( A_{t_{0}}+\xi M_{0}\right)
+2M_{0}t\left( \frac{16}{3}g_{3}^{2}+3g_{2}^{2}+\frac{13}{9}g_{1}^{2}\right)
\nonumber \\
A_{b} &=&A_{b0}-\frac{1}{6}\rho \left( A_{t_{0}}+\xi M_{0}\right)+2M_{0}t
\left( \frac{16}{3}g_{3}^{2}+3g_{2}^{2}+\frac{1}{9}g_{1}^{2}\right)
\nonumber \\
A_{s(d)} &=&A_{s(d)0}+2M_{0}t\left( \frac{16}{3}g_{3}^{2}+3g_{2}^{2}+\frac{1}{%
9}g_{1}^{2}\right) \nonumber \\
A_{\tau (\mu ,e)} &=&A_{\tau (\mu ,e)0}+2M_{0}t\left(
3g_{2}^{2}+3g_{1}^{2}\right) \nonumber \\
\xi &=&\left( \frac{t}{J}-1\right) =\left( 12h_{\mathrm{crit}}^{2}t-1\right)
\label{Z4}\end{aligned}$$
Soft supersymmetry breaking scalar masses can also be written in terms of $\rho ,t$ and J (or $\xi ),$ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
m_{S}^{2} &=&m_{S0}^{2} \nonumber \\
m_{1}^{2} &=&m_{10}^{2}+g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{L}tM_{0}^{2} \nonumber \\
m_{2}^{2} &=&m_{20}^{2}-\frac{3\rho }{2}\overline{m}_{0}^{2}-\frac{\rho }{2}%
K-g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{L}tM_{0}^{2} \nonumber \\
m_{T}^{2} &=&m_{T0}^{2}-\rho \overline{m}_{0}^{2}-\frac{\rho }{3}K+\frac{4}{3%
}g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{U}tM_{0}^{2} \nonumber \\
m_{Q_{3}}^{2} &=&m_{Q30}^{2}-\frac{\rho }{2}\overline{m}_{0}^{2}-\frac{\rho
}{6}K-\frac{1}{3}g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{Q}tM_{0}^{2} \nonumber \\
m_{B}^{2} &=&m_{B0}^{2}-\frac{2}{3}g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{D}tM_{0}^{2}
\nonumber \\
m_{U_{i}}^{2} &=&m_{Ui0}^{2}+\frac{4}{3}g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{U}tM_{0}^{2}
\nonumber \\
m_{Q_{i}}^{2} &=&m_{Qi0}^{2}-\frac{1}{3}g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{Q}tM_{0}^{2}
\nonumber \\
m_{D_{i}}^{2} &=&m_{Di0}^{2}-\frac{2}{3}g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{D}tM_{0}^{2}
\nonumber \\
m_{Lj}^{2} &=&m_{Lj0}^{2}+g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{L}tM_{0}^{2} \nonumber \\
m_{Ej}^{2} &=&m_{Ej0}^{2}-2g_{1}^{2}ts_{0}+2\gamma _{E}tM_{0}^{2} \nonumber \\
\gamma _{L} &=&3g_{2}^{2}\left( 1-g_{2}^{2}t\right) +
g_{1}^{2}\left( 1-11g_{1}^{2}t\right) \nonumber \\
\gamma _{U} &=&\frac{16}{3}g_{2}^{2}\left( 1+3g_{3}^{2}t\right) +\frac{16}{9}%
g_{1}^{2}\left( 1-11g_{1}^{2}t\right) \nonumber \\
\gamma _{Q} &=&\frac{16}{3}g_{3}^{2}\left( 1+3g_{3}^{2}t\right) +3
g_{2}^{2}\left( 1-g_{2}^{2}t\right) +\frac{1}{9}g_{1}^{2}\left(
1-11g_{1}^{2}t\right) \nonumber \\
\gamma _{D} &=&\frac{16}{3}g_{3}^{2}\left( 1+3g_{3}^{2}t\right) +\frac{4}{9}%
g_{1}^{2}\left( 1-11g_{1}^{2}t\right) \nonumber \\
\gamma _{E} &=&4g_{1}^{2}\left( 1-11g_{1}^{2}t\right) \nonumber \\
s_{0} &=&\left[ m_{H_{2}}^{2}-m_{H_{1}}^{2}+\sum _i\left(
m_{Q_i}^{2}+m_{D_i}^{2}+m_{E_i}^{2}-m_{L_i}^{2}
-2m_{U_i}^{2}\right) \right] _{t=0}
\nonumber \\
\overline{m}_{0}^{2} &=&\frac{1}{3}\left(
m_{2}^{2}+m_{T}^{2}+m_{Q}^{2}\right) _{t=0} \nonumber \\
K &=&\left( 1-\rho \right) \left( A_{t_{0}}+\xi M_{0}\right) ^{2}-\xi
^{2}M_{0}^{2}+ \nonumber \\
&&+2\left( \frac{16}{3}g_{3}^{2}+3g_{2}^{2}+\frac{13}{9}g_{1}^{2}\right)
\left( \xi +1\right) tM_{0}^{2} \label{Z5}\end{aligned}$$
Finally, let us recall that the renormalization effects on the effective variables $\hat{B}$ and $\hat{\mu }$ are easily obtained by taking the limit in which the singlet fields are decoupled at its classical value. Then,
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B} &=& A_{\lambda }+ \nu =\hat{B}_{0}-\frac{1}{2}\rho \left( A_{t_{0}}+\xi
M_{0}\right) +2M_{0}t\left( 3g_{2}^{2}+g_{1}^{2}\right) \nonumber \\
\hat{\mu } ^2 &=& \lambda ^2 s^2 = \hat{\mu }_{0}^{2} \Pi ^{(\lambda )}
\left( 1-\rho \right) ^{1/2} \label{Z6}\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} J. Ellis, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, L. Roszkowski, F. Zwirner, *Phys. Rev. ***D 39** (1989) 844;L. Durand and J. L. Lopez, *Phys. Lett.* **B 217** (1989) 463;M. Drees, *Int. J. Mod. Phys.* **A 4** (1989) 3635.
U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, C. A. Savoy, *Phys. Lett.* **B 315** (1993) 331.
T. Elliott, S. F. King and P. L. White, *Phys. Lett.* **B 305** (1993) 71;T. Elliott, S. F. King and P. L. White, *Phys. Lett.* **B 314** (1993) 56;T. Elliott, S. F. King, P. L. White, *Phys. Rev.*** D 49** (1994) 2435.
S. F. King and P. L. White, *Phys. Rev.*** D 52** (1995) 4183.
U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg and C. A. Savoy, *Z. Phys.***C 67** (1995) 665.
R. M. Barnett et al., *Phys. Rev.*** D 54** (1996) 1.
Aleph Collaboration, *Phys. Lett. ***B 373** (1996) 246.
U. Ellwanger, *Phys. Lett. ***B 303** (1993) 271.
G. F. Giudice and A. Masiero, *Phys. Lett. ***B 206** (1988) 480.
H. -P. Nilles, M. Srednicki, D. Wyler, *Phys. Lett.* **B 120** (1983) 346.
H. Nilles, M. Srednicki, and D. Wyler, *Phys. Lett.* **B 124** (1983) 337. A. Lahanas, *Phys. Lett.* **B 124** (1983) 341.
U. Ellwanger, *Phys. Lett.* **B 133** (1983) 187;J. Bagger, E. Poppitz, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **71** (1993) 2380;J. Bagger, E. Poppitz, L. Randall, *Nucl. Phys. * **B 455** (1995) 59.
S. A. Abel, S. Sarkar and P. L. White, *Nucl. Phys.*** B 454** (1995) 663, S. A. Abel, preprints hep-ph 9603301 and hep-ph 9609323.
A. Pomarol, *Phys. Lett.* **B 287** (1992) 331.
J. Romão, *Phys. Lett.* **B 173** (1986) 309.
K. S. Babu and S. M. Barr, *Phys. Rev.* **D49** (1994) 2156.
Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi and T. Yanagida, *Progr. Theor. Phys. Lett.* **85** (1991) 1, *Phys. Lett.* **B 262** (1991) 54. J. Ellis, G. Ridolfi and F. Zwirner, *Phys. Lett.* **B 257** (1991) 83, *Phys. Lett.* **B 262** (1991) 474. H. Haber and R. Hempfling, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **66** (1991) 1815.P. Chankowski, S. Pokorski and J. Rosiek, *Phys. Lett.* **B 274** (1992) 191.
J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros and A. Riotto, *Nucl. Phys. * **B 436** (1995) 3. M. Carena, J. Espinosa, M. Quiros, C. Wagner, *Phys. Lett. * **B 335** (1995) 209.
U. Ellwanger, M. Rausch de Traubenberg, *Z. Phys.* **C 53** (1992) 521; P. Binetruy and C. A. Savoy, *Phys. Lett.* **B 277** (1992) 453.J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, *Phys. Lett.* **B 279** (1992) 92;G. Kane, C. Kolda and J. Wells, *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***70** (1993) 2686;J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, *Phys. Lett. ***B 302** (1993) 51.U. Ellwanger and M. Lindner, *Phys. Lett. ***B 301** (1993) 365;
Ph. Brax, U. Ellwanger and C. A. Savoy, *Phys. Lett.* **B 347** (1995) 269.
J. -P. Derendinger, C. A. Savoy, *Nucl. Phys.* **B 237** (1984) 307.
J. -M. Frère, D. R. T. Jones, S. Raby, *Nucl.Phys. ***B 222** (1983) 11.
G. Gamberini, G. Ridolfi and F. Zwirner,*Nucl.Phys. ***B 331** (1990) 331.
M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, *Phys. Lett. ***B 214** (1988) 393.
J. A. Casas, A. Lleyda and C. Muñoz, *Nucl.Phys. ***B 471** (1996) 3.A. J. Borner, hep-ph/9506409.
R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C. A. Savoy, *Phys. Lett.* **B 119** (1982) 343.R. Arnowitt, A. Chamseddine and P. Nath, *Phys. Rev. Lett. ***D 49** (1982) 970.L. Hall, J. Lykken and S. Weinberg, *Phys. Rev. ***D 27**(1983) 2359.
V. S. Kaplunovski and J. Louis, *Phys. Lett. *[**B**306]{} (1993) 269.R. Barbieri, J. Louis and M. Moretti, *Phys. Lett. *[**B**312]{} (1993) 451.A. Brignole, L. E. Ibáñez and C. Muñoz, *Nucl. Phys. *[**B**422 ]{}(1994) 235.
R. Tarrach, *Nucl. Phys.***B 183** (1981) 384.
J. Kamoshita, Y. Okada and M. Tanaka, *Phys. Lett.* **B 328** (1994) 67.
J. D. Wells, C. Kolda and G. L. Kane, *Phys. Lett.* **B 338** (1994) 219. G. L. Kane, R. G. Stuart, J. D. Wells *Phys. Lett.* **B 354** (1995) 350. D. Garcia and J. Sola, *Phys. Lett.***B 354** (1995) 335. P. H. Chankowski and S. Pokorski, *Phys. Lett.* **B 366** (1996) 188. J. Ellis, J. L. Lopez and D. V. Nanopoulos, *Phys. Lett.* **B 372** (1996) 95.
R. Barbieri, L. Hall and A. Strumia, *Phys. Lett.*
Ph. Brax and C. A. Savoy, *Nucl. Phys. * **B 447** (1995) 227.
=25 truecm
Figure captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
[**Figure :**]{}
Gluino mass $M_3$ versus the chargino mass $m_{\chi^+}$ (all in GeV)
Slepton mass $m_{\widetilde \ell_R}$ versus $m_{\chi^+}$
Sneutrino mass $m_{\widetilde \nu}$ versus $m_{\chi^+}$
Lightest stop mass $m_{T_1}$ versus $m_{\chi^+}$
Charged Higgs mass $m_{H^+}$ versus $m_{\chi^+}$
Mass of the second lightest neutralino $m_{\chi^0_2}$ versus the mass of the lightest neutralino $m_{\chi^0_1}$ in those cases where $\chi^0_1$ is essentially a singlino
Table caption {#table-caption .unnumbered}
=============
[**Table :**]{}
Parameters and particle masses (in GeV) for two particular cases (with $M_{susy}$ not too large). The three neutral CP even Higgs scalars are denoted by $h_1$, $h_2$ and $h_3$ (in the order of increasing masses), the two neutral CP odd Higgs scalars by $p_1$ and $p_2$, and the two lightest neutralinos by $\chi^0_1$ and $\chi^0_2$, respectively. In the first case $\chi^0_1$ is essentially a non-singlet, in the second case it practically a pure singlino.
**Table 1**
5 mm $$\vbox{\offinterlineskip \halign{
\tv# &\cc{#} &\tv# &\cc{#} &\tv# &\cc{#} &\tv# \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&\cc{$\lambda_0$} &&\cc{$6,89\cdot 10^{-3}$} &&\cc{$2.68\cdot 10^{-3}$} & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$\kappa_0$ &&$2.16\cdot 10^{-3}$ &&$1.08\cdot 10^{-4}$ & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$h_{t_0}$ &&0.470 &&0.534 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$M_0$ &&104 &&116 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$A_0$ &&- 95.8 &&11.6 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_0$ &&22 &&0.6 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$\lambda$ &&$7,18\cdot 10^{-3}$ &&$2.67\cdot 10^{-3}$ & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$\kappa$ &&$2.16\cdot 10^{-3}$ &&$1.08\cdot 10^{-4}$ & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$h_t$ &&0.932 &&0.966 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$A_{\lambda}$ &&- 46.7 &&31.8 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$A_{\kappa}$ &&- 95.8 &&11.6 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$A_t$ &&- 273 &&- 256 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$s$ &&19500 &&- 53300 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$|\tan (\beta )|$ &&8.17 &&16.0 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{top}$ &&170 &&177 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$M_3$ &&280 &&313 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{h_1}$ &&55.1 &&8.00 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&singlet component of $h_1$ &&.999 &&1.00 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{h_2}$ &&101 &&108 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{h_3}$ &&156 &&157 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{p_1}$ &&110 &&14.2 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{p_2}$ &&152 &&156 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{H^+}$ &&172 &&176 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{\tilde{\ell_R}}$ &&63.2 &&62.9 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{\tilde{\nu}}$ &&46.5 &&54.8 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{\chi^+}$ &&72.9 &&65.9 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{T_1}$ &&179 &&214 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{\chi^0_1}$ &&42.0 &&11.5 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&singlet component of $\chi^0_1$ &&0.01 &&1.00 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
&$m_{\chi^0_2}$ &&71.4 &&39.1 & \cr
\noalign{\hrule}
}}$$
(12,20) (-1.8,20.5)[$\bf M_3$]{} (16.0,1.5)[$\bf m_{\chi^+}$]{} (6.0,0.5)[**Figure 1**]{} (-1.9,-4)
(12,20) (-1.8,20.5)[$\bf m_{\widetilde \ell_R}$]{} (16.0,1.5)[$\bf m_{\chi^+}$]{} (6.0,0.5)[**Figure 2**]{} (-1.9,-4)
(12,20) (-1.8,20.5)[$\bf m_{\widetilde \nu}$]{} (16.0,1.5)[$\bf m_{\chi^+}$]{} (6.0,0.5)[**Figure 3**]{} (-1.9,-4)
(12,20) (-1.8,20.5)[$\bf m_{T_1}$]{} (16.0,1.5)[$\bf m_{\chi^+}$]{} (6.0,0.5)[**Figure 4**]{} (-1.9,-4)
(12,20) (-1.8,20.5)[$\bf m_{H^+}$]{} (16.0,1.5)[$\bf m_{\chi^+}$]{} (6.0,0.5)[**Figure 5**]{} (-1.9,-4)
(12,20) (-1.8,20.5)[${\bf m_{\chi^0_2}}$]{} (16.0,1.5)[${\bf m_{\chi^0_1}}$]{} (6.0,0.5)[**Figure 6**]{} (-1.9,-4)
[^1]: As can be seen from (\[N\]) there is a negative contribution $\lambda ^{2}M_{Z}^{2}/\overline{g}^{2},$ to $m_{H^{+}}^{2}.$ This is the origin of the condition $\lambda ^{2}<\overline{g}^{2}$ which is sufficient to avoid $e.m.$ charge breaking through $\left\langle
H^{+}\right\rangle \neq 0,$ which is satisfied anyway by the models that are consistent with the other phenomenological constraints.
[^2]: As a matter of fact, when the mass spectrum of the model is relatively low, the mixings are more important in the neutralino sector, and, besides the singlino, the lightest state can be more like a photino $(\widetilde{\gamma }
)$ than a “bino” $(\widetilde{B}).$ But this can be easily incorporated in the discussion that follows where a $\widetilde{B}$-state is assumed for simplicity.
[^3]: In a $\mathrm{GUT}$ context, the $\tau $ superpartners can become considerably splitted and much lighter than the other sleptons, as a consequence of renormalization between the Planck and $\mathrm{GUT}$ scales, as noticed in [@BHS]. However in this paper we are assuming $%
h_{t}>h_{\tau }$ at $M_{\mathrm{Planck}}$ and we consistently neglect this possibility.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Steffen Mieske
- Michael Hilker
- Andrés Jordán
- Leopoldo Infante
- 'Markus Kissler-Patig'
title: 'A search for ultra-compact dwarf galaxies in the Centaurus galaxy cluster[^1]'
---
[Our aim is to extend the investigations of ultra-compact dwarf galaxies (UCD) beyond the well studied Fornax and Virgo clusters.]{} [We measured spectroscopic redshifts of about 400 compact object candidates with $19.2<V<22.4$ mag in the central region of the Centaurus galaxy cluster (d=43Mpc), using 3 pointings with VIMOS@VLT. The luminosity range of the candidates covers the bright end of the globular cluster (GC) luminosity function and the luminosity regime of UCDs in Fornax and Virgo. Within the area surveyed, our completeness is $\approx$30%.]{} [We find 27 compact objects with radial velocities consistent with them being members of Centaurus, covering an absolute magnitude range $-12.2<M_V<-10.9$ mag. We do not find counterparts to the two very large and bright UCDs in Fornax and Virgo with $M_V=-13.5$ mag, possibly due to survey incompleteness. The compact objects’ distribution in magnitude and space is consistent with that of the GC population. Their kinematics and spatial distribution indicate that they are associated more to the central galaxies than to the overall cluster potential. The compact objects have a mean metallicity consistent with that of the metal-rich globular cluster sub-population. Compact objects with high S/N spectra exhibit solar \[$\alpha$/Fe\] abundances, consistent with typical dwarf elliptical galaxy values and unlike galactic bulge globular clusters. HST based size estimates for a sub-sample of eight compact objects reveal the existence of one very large object with half-light radius $r_h$ around 30 pc, having $M_V=-11.6$ mag ($\simeq 10^7$ M$_{\sun}$). This source shows super-solar \[$\alpha$/Fe\] abundances. Seven further sources are only marginally larger than typical GCs with $r_h$ in the range 4 to 10 pc. Those sources exhibit a large scatter in \[$\alpha$/Fe\] abundances.]{} [We consider the largest compact object found to be the only bona-fide UCD detected in our study. In order to improve our understanding of UCDs in Centaurus, a significant increase of our survey completeness is necessary. ]{}
Introduction {#Intro}
============
In their spectroscopic studies of the Fornax galaxy cluster, Hilker et al. ([@Hilker99]) and Drinkwater et al. ([@Drinkw00] and [@Drinkw03]) reported on the discovery of six isolated compact stellar systems, having $-13.5<M_V<-12$ mag and half-light radii $r_h$ between 20 and 100 pc. Due to their compactness compared to dwarf galaxies of similar luminosity, they were dubbed “ultra-compact dwarf galaxies“ (UCDs) (Phillipps et al. [@Philli01]). More recently, UCDs have also been discovered in the Virgo cluster (Haşegan et al. [@Hasega05], Jones et al. [@Jones05]).
There are, currently, two main hypotheses on the origin of UCDs: 1. UCDs are remnant nuclei of dwarf elliptical galaxies stripped in the potential well of their host cluster (e.g. Bassino et al. [@Bassin94], Bekki et al. [@Bekki03]). 2. UCDs are merged stellar super-clusters created in gas-rich galaxy mergers (e.g. Fellhauer & Kroupa [@Fellha02]).
High resolution imaging and spectroscopy (Drinkwater et al. [@Drinkw03], Hilker et al. [@Hilker07]) place the Fornax UCDs between the sequence of globular clusters (GCs) and dwarf elliptical galaxies (dEs) in the fundamental plane of stellar systems. Their M/L ratios are in the range 2-5 and can be explained without invoking the presence of dark matter. The luminosities, sizes and M/L ratios of Fornax UCDs are comparable to those of bright nuclei of nucleated dwarf ellipticals (dE,Ns) (Lotz et al. [@Lotz04], Côté et al. [@Cote06], Hilker et al. [@Hilker07]).
For the Virgo cluster, Haşegan et al. ([@Hasega05]) report on three compact objects with M/L ratios between 6 and 9, suggesting such high ratios as a criterion to separate UCDs from GCs. From their HST based size estimates they furthermore derived a limit between normal GCs and larger sources (Dwarf Globular Transition Objects in their notation) to occur at about 2$\times 10^6$ M$_{\sun}$. Evstigneeva et al. ([@Evstig07]) find that Virgo UCDs are in general more $\alpha$ enriched than dwarf elliptical galaxies in Fornax and Virgo. This is not naturally explained by the hypothesis that Virgo UCDs are dominated by stripped nuclei.
Our long term aim is to characterise UCD properties in a broad range of environments (e.g. Mieske et al. [@Mieske04b], Mieske et al. [@Mieske06c]). For the Fornax cluster (Mieske et al. [@Mieske02], [@Mieske04a]) we have shown that the luminosity distribution of compact objects for $M_V<-10.4$ mag does not show any discontinuities that would hint at two separate populations (i.e. UCDs vs. GCs)[^2]. Only the brightest UCD with $M_V=-13.5$ mag clearly stands out. In Mieske et al. ([@Mieske06a]), we found a break in the metallicity distribution at $M_V=-11$ mag, such that brighter compact objects are more metal rich than fainter compact objects. Furthermore, we identified a change in the size-luminosity relation occurring at about the same luminosity, similar to the Virgo cluster case. Fainter sources have luminosity independent half light radii of $r_h\simeq
3$pc (e.g. Jordán et al. [@Jordan05]), brighter sources have sizes correlating with their luminosity (Haşegan et al. [@Hasega05], Kissler-Patig et al. [@Kissle05]). We therefore identified $M_V=-11$ mag ($\sim$3$\times 10^6$ M$_{\sun}$) as the rough dividing line between GCs and UCDs in Fornax. Nuclear regions of Fornax dE,Ns were found to be about 0.6 dex more metal poor than Fornax UCDs, implying that Fornax UCDs do probably not originate from the current population of dE,Ns.
The Centaurus cluster of galaxies ((m-M)=33.28 mag or 43 Mpc, Mieske et al. [@Mieske05]) is the most nearby southern cluster of mass comparable to Virgo (m $\simeq 5\ \times \ 10^{14} M_{\sun}$, Reiprich & Böhringer [@Reipri02]). It is therefore a natural target for broadening the environmental baseline of UCD investigations. The Centaurus cluster consists of a main component Cen30 at $v_{\rm
rad}\simeq$ 3000 km/s, dominated by NGC 4696, and an in-falling, spiral-rich subcomponent at $v_{\rm rad}\simeq$ 4500 km/s, called Cen45 (Stein et al. [@Stein97]), which is dominated by NGC 4709.
In this paper, we present a spectroscopic search for UCDs in the Centaurus cluster, which we term Centaurus Compact Object Survey “CCOS”.
The data {#data}
========
The data for this publication were obtained in service mode with the VIsible MultiObject Spectrograph VIMOS (Le Fevre et al. [@Lefevr03]) mounted on UT3 Melipal at the VLT (programme 076.B-0293). VIMOS allows simultaneous observing of 4 quadrants, each of dimension $7'\times 8'$, and separated by about 2$'$. We observed three multi-object spectroscopy (MOS) pointings in the central Centaurus cluster, covering both NGC 4696 and NGC 4709 (see Fig. \[map\]).
Candidate selection {#candsel}
-------------------
The candidates for our survey were selected from the VIMOS pre-imaging that was performed in the $V$ and $R$ filters.
For de-redenning the apparent magnitudes we used Schlegel et al. ([@Schleg98]). To select sources as compact object candidates, we defined three criteria regarding size, colour and luminosity.
1\. Be unresolved on the VIMOS pre-imaging (as judged by SExtractor star-classifier, Bertin & Arnouts [@Bertin96]). The PSF FWHM typically was 0.8$''$, corresponding to $\approx$ 150 pc at the distance of Centaurus.
2\. Have de-redenned colours $0.23<(V-R)_0<0.73$ mag, in order to cover a broad metallicity range for old stellar populations ($-3\le{\rm [Fe/H]}\le 0.5$ dex for a 13 Gyr population, Bruzual & Charlot [@Bruzua03]).
3\. Have de-redenned apparent magnitudes $19.2<V_0<22.4$ mag ($-14.1<M_V<-10.9$ mag). This covers both the bright end of the globular cluster luminosity function (GCLF) and the magnitude range of all UCDs discovered so far.
Spectroscopic observations
--------------------------
Within our 12 masks (3 pointings $\times$ 4 quadrants) the VIMOS mask creation software VMMPS enabled the allocation of 405 compact objects (minimum slit length 6$''$), compared to a total of 1340 photometrically selected sources. We were able to measure redshifts for 386 out of those 405 sources. Our completeness in the area surveyed is hence about 29%. We furthermore added 13 early-type dwarf galaxies in the range $-16.2<M_B<-13.9$ mag to the masks, all from the Centaurus Cluster Catalog (Jerjen et al. [@Jerjen97]). Nine of those were already known members from radial velocity measurements (Stein et al. [@Stein97]).
We used the medium resolution MR grism with the order sorting filter GG475. This covers the wavelength range from 4800 to 10000 [Å]{} at a dispersion of 2.5 [Å]{} per pixel. The average seeing for the spectroscopic observations was around 0.8$''$, at a slit width of 1.0$''$. With a pixel scale of 0.2$''$, the instrumental resolution (FWHM) is 10-12 Å, at about the limit for Lick index measurements. For each pointing the total exposure time was 8400 seconds, subdivided in four single exposures of 2100 seconds.
Arc-lamp exposures for wavelength calibration were taken for every second science exposure. We also observed four Lick standard stars (HD064606, HD131976, HD131977, HD148816) with the same grism and slit width as the science exposures.
Data reduction {#reduction}
==============
For the data reduction from 2D raw spectrum to wavelength calibrated 1D spectrum we used the recipes vmmosobsjitter and vmmosobsstare provided by the ESO VIMOS pipeline[^3]. These recipes perform bias subtraction, flat field division, wavelength calibration, image combination (only for vmmosobsjitter), and spectrum extraction.
The radial velocity measurements of the calibrated 1D spectra were performed via cross-correlation using the IRAF task fxcor in the RV package. As template for cross-correlation we used a synthetic spectrum created to resemble a typical early-type galaxy (see also Mieske et al. [@Mieske02]).
For the cluster membership determination we measured the radial velocity on the 1D spectrum combined from the four single exposures with the recipe vmmosobsjitter. The S/N per pixel in these spectra was in the range 12 to 63 in the wavelength range of highest transmission (6700 to 6800 Å). The radial velocity measurement errors were of the order 50-100 km/s. As a cluster membership criterion we required $1750<v_{rad}<5550$ km/s, excluding both foreground stars and background galaxies (see Fig. \[vradhistall\]). This resulted in the discovery of 40 cluster members, comprised by 27 compact cluster members and the 13 dEs (see Tables \[table\] and \[table\_dE\]). Example spectra for two Centaurus compact objects are shown in Fig. \[spectra\].
In order to refine the velocity measurements, we compared the radial velocities derived from the combined exposures with those derived from the single science exposures that were observed back-to-back with an arc-lamp exposure. This comparison showed no systematic difference in quadrants 3 and 4 to a level of 30 km/s. For quadrants 1 and 2 the velocity derived from the two exposures next to the wave-lamp was higher by about 100 km/s for quadrant 1 and lower by about 100 km/s for quadrant 2. We attribute these offsets to the well-known flexure of the VIMOS instrument. In order to determine the final radial velocity, we corrected the mean velocity in quadrants 1 and 2 by those shifts, and adopted the uncorrected mean for quadrants 3 and 4.
Results
=======
Out of the 386 compact objects with measurable redshift observed, 27 turn out to be Centaurus cluster members (see Fig. \[vradhistall\] and Table \[table\]). In the following subsections we will investigate their photometric properties, spatial distribution, abundances, kinematics, and their structural parameters. The null hypothesis is that their properties can be explained by the Centaurus cluster globular cluster systems.
Photometry
----------
Fig. \[cmd\] shows a colour-magnitude diagram in $VR$ of all compact cluster members, all observed objects, and all photometrically selected objects. It suggests that no detection bias was introduced by our colour selection.
A first step to test our null hypothesis is to compare the cumulative magnitude distribution of the compact objects with that expected for a generic globular cluster luminosity function (GCLF). For very bright galaxies like NGC 4696 and NGC 4709, the typical dispersion ($\sigma$) of a Gaussian GCLF is around 1.3 to 1.4 mag (Jordan et al. [@Jordan06] and [@Jordan07], Kundu & Whitmore [@Kundu01]). Fig. \[vhist\] shows that for such values, the agreement with our data is still at the 10-20% level according to a KS-test. Only with respect to an assumed width of $\sigma=1.2$ mag, the agreement drops to 2%.
A further test is to estimate the total number of UCDs one would expect to detect in the case of the stripping scenario. Bekki et al. ([@Bekki03]) predict about two dozen stripped nucleated dwarfs in the range $-13<M_B<-11$ mag in the central 200kpc projected distance of the Virgo cluster. A comparable number may be expected for the Centaurus cluster given its similar mass. The completeness of our survey within 200 kpc (16$'$) projected radius is about 12%, induced by 29% slit allocation completeness and about 40% area coverage. Formally, we would thus expect 3$\pm 2$ stripped dwarf galaxies with $M_B<-11$ mag ($M_V<-11.5$ mag). This number is too small to support the hypothesis that the slight overpopulation seen in Fig. \[vhist\] for bright luminosities is caused by stripped dwarfs.
Finally, we compare the total number of 27 compact objects with that expected from the GCLF. Our faint magnitude cut of $M_V=-10.9$ mag restricts us to 0.5 $^{+0.35}_{-0.2}$% of all GCs, provided that their luminosity distribution is described by a Gaussian of width $\sigma=1.3 \pm 0.1$ mag and turn-over magnitude $M_V=-7.4 \pm 0.2$ mag. Under the null hypothesis that our compact objects are all explained by the GC system, we would deduce a total number of GCs in the surveyed area of $\frac{27}{0.005\times
C}=\frac{5400}{C}=\frac{5400}{0.28}=19300^{+12900}_{-8260}$, where $C=0.28$ is the completeness of our survey in the magnitude range where compact objects are discovered. We can now estimate which specific GC frequency $S_N=N_{GC}\times 10^{0.4\times (15+M_V)}$ is required for the two main Centaurus galaxies NGC 4696 and NGC 4709 in order to produce a total amount of $\sim$20000 GCs. We derive the total absolute magnitude of both galaxies from our $V$-band pre-images. Under the assumption of $(m-M)=33.28$ mag, we obtain values of $M_V=-23.1$ mag for NGC 4696 and $M_V=-22.3$ mag for NGC 4709, in agreement with other literature estimates (e.g. Michard et al. [@Michar05], Jerjen et al. [@Jerjen97]). In order to contain 19300$^{+12900}_{-8260}$ GCs, both galaxies would require $S_N=7.5^{+4.9}_{-2.3}$. This agrees with the $S_N$ values of 7.3 $\pm$ 1.5 (NGC 4696) and 5.0 $\pm$ 1.3 (NGC 4709) derived in Mieske et al. ([@Mieske05]) for the central regions of both galaxies (radii below 2$'$).
We conclude that the luminosity distribution and number of compact objects are consistent with the GC systems of NGC 4696 and NGC 4709.
Spatial distribution
--------------------
In this sub-section we compare the cumulative radial distribution of the compact objects with that of dEs and of GCs.
Fig. \[radcum\] shows that the compact objects are clearly more concentrated towards the central cluster galaxies than are the dEs included in our study. Selection effects regarding the dE sample should not significantly influence this finding, given that the dEs were selected from a homogeneous source catalog (Jerjen et al. [@Jerjen97]). Note that the stronger clustering of the compact objects does not exclude that they originate from dEs, since tidal stripping is expected to preferably affect dEs with smaller apocentric distances (Bekki et al. [@Bekki03]).
For comparison with the genuine GC population, we use the deep FORS $VI$ photometry from Mieske et al. ([@Mieske05]). The central FORS pointing of our previous study practically matches the area covered by the VIMOS quadrant centred on NGC 4696 (see Fig. \[map\]). Since most of the candidates were detected in that quadrant, a direct comparison is possible. To define the GC candidate sample in the FORS observations, we restricted the colour range to $0.7<(V-I)<1.4$ mag (see Sect. \[candsel\]) and the magnitude range to $-7.9>M_V>-10.9$ mag. The bright magnitude cut makes the GC candidate sample disjunct from the compact object sample, the faint magnitude cut is due to the completeness limit. Fig. \[radcum\] shows that the radial distribution of compact objects agrees very well with that of the GC candidates. The KS test gives a probability of 98% that both samples have identical parent distributions.
We thus conclude that the radial distribution of compact objects is consistent with that of the globular cluster system.
Abundances {#met}
----------
Line index measurements of the 27 confirmed Centaurus compact objects, the 13 dEs, and the four Lick standard stars were performed with standard IRAF routines within the ONEDSPEC package. We derived Lick indices using the pass-band definitions of Trager et al. ([@Trager98]). The instrumental resolution of 10-12 [Å]{} is slightly worse than the Lick resolution of 8-9 Å. The pass-bands were red-shifted according to the radial velocity of each investigated object.
For the four Lick standard stars, we compare in Fig. \[licks\] our equivalent width (EW) measurements of both Mgb and $\langle {\rm Fe}
\rangle$ with the literature values (Worthey et al. [@Worthe94]). We determine a global offset of $-$0.69 $\pm$ 0.08 [Å]{} for $\langle
{\rm Fe}\rangle $ and $-$1.39 $\pm$ 0.53 [Å]{} for Mgb. The correction is quite uncertain for Mgb, mainly due to one outlier (HD148816). We have gone back to the raw spectrum, but did not find artefacts that would have inhibited a correct index measurement for this source. Furthermore, the S/N was sufficiently high ($\ge 50$) for all four Lick standards. We re-measured the line indices for continuum normalised spectra, for logarithmic re-binnings, and for spectra extracted with a task outside the VIMOS pipeline (apall in the IRAF package twodspec). However, all this did not change the index values by more than $\sim$ 0.2 Å, and did not remove the outlier. We therefore apply the offsets resulting from the mean of all four Lick standards to the measured indices of compact objects and dEs.
In Fig. \[Fe\_V1\] we plot the correspondingly corrected ${\rm
\langle {\rm Fe}\rangle }$ and Mgb line index EWs against each other. In the plot we also indicate the global uncertainty of the Lick calibration for $\langle {\rm Fe}\rangle $ and Mgb. We sub-divide the Centaurus compact object sample into a high and low S/N sub-sample using S/N=30 as limit. This roughly corresponds to a magnitude limit of $M_V=-11.6$ mag, see Fig. \[Fe\_V2\]. We furthermore show literature line index measurements for Fornax and Virgo UCDs (Mieske et al. [@Mieske06a], Evstigneeva et al. [@Evstig07]), Centaurus dEs (this paper), and Fornax and Virgo dEs (Geha et al. [@Geha03]). We overlay three model grids from Thomas, Maraston & Bender ([@Thomas03]), corresponding to a 12 Gyr single stellar populations with \[$\alpha$/Fe\]=0, 0.3, and 0.5 dex. The UCDs in Fornax, the Centaurus compact objects with high S/N, and the dEs in all three environments show roughly solar $\alpha$ abundances. The UCDs investigated in Virgo show in contrast super-solar abundances, between 0.3 and 0.5 dex. Assuming the IMFs are roughly similar, this implies that Virgo UCDs have had a more truncated star formation history than the other samples, in line with the galactic bulge population of globular clusters (e.g. Puzia et al. [@Puzia02], Barbuy et al. [@Barbuy99], McWilliam & Rich [@McWill94], Carretta et al. [@Carret01] and [@Carret07], Gratton et al. [@Gratto06]).
It is interesting to note that also the low S/N Centaurus compact objects appear to show super-solar $\alpha$ values, albeit at a considerable scatter. We have tested whether the corresponding low $\langle {\rm Fe}\rangle $ values may be artifacts of the lower S/N. For that we combined rest-frame corrected spectra to a higher S/N master spectrum, and compared the line index of the combined spectrum to the mean of the single indices. We did this for 4 sets of 3 spectra in different S/N ranges from S/N$\sim$18 to S/N$\sim$45. We found only very small differences of order 0.05 $\AA$ between the combined index and the averaged index, indicating that lower S/N may not be the reason for the apparent difference in $\alpha$ values to the brighter Centaurus compact object. However, deeper data with S/N $\ge 30$ (requiring on-source integration of about 1 night) are certainly required to confirm the possible trend of $\alpha$ abundance with luminosity.
In Fig. \[Fe\_V2\] we plot the logarithm of the \[MgFe\] index (${\rm [MgFe]}=\sqrt{{\rm Mgb} \ \times \ {\rm \langle {\rm Fe}\rangle }}$) against luminosity for compact objects in Centaurus, Fornax and Virgo. The \[MgFe\] index is a good metallicity indicator (e.g. Puzia et al. [@Puzia02]), given that it is practically insensitive to changes in $\alpha$ element contents (e.g. Thomas, Maraston & Bender [@Thomas03]). We also indicate an estimate of the corresponding \[Fe/H\]. For this we use for \[Fe/H\]$<-$ 0.4 dex the empirical calibration between \[Fe/H\] and \[MgFe\] derived by Puzia et al. ([@Puzia02]) from galactic GCs. For \[Fe/H\]$>-$ 0.4 dex we adopt an extrapolation of the form ${\rm [Fe/H]_*}=a+b \ \times \
\log(\rm MgFe)$ that matches the calibration for \[Fe/H\]$<-$ 0.4 dex. This is of course only a rough estimate whose systematic uncertainty is of the order 0.2-0.3 dex. The resulting mean \[Fe/H\]$_*$ of the Centaurus compact objects is $-$0.14 $\pm$ 0.06 dex ($-$0.08 $\pm$ 0.07 dex for the dominating Cen30 component, -0.39 $\pm$ 0.10 dex for Cen45). This is consistent with the typical metallicity of the metal-rich globular cluster sub-population (see e.g. Cohen et al. [@Cohen03], Peng et al. [@Peng06]). On a relative scale, the mean metallicity of the Fornax UCDs is indistinguishable from the Centaurus compact objects, but slightly higher than the metallicity range of the Virgo UCDs.
Kinematics
----------
There is no spectroscopic data set of the Globular Cluster System in Centaurus available. Also, measurements of the field star velocity dispersion in NGC 4696 or NGC 4709 (Michard et al. [@Michar05], Blakeslee et al. [@Blakes01]) do not extend to large radii. The compact objects’ kinematics can therefore only be compared directly with that of the cluster galaxy population. We sub-divide the sample of compact objects into Cen30 and Cen45 at a limiting radial velocity of 4000 km/s (see Fig. \[vradhist\]).
Fig. \[vradhist\] shows that the mean velocity of the Cen30 and Cen45 components agree with the velocities of the respective central galaxies. The velocity dispersion of the 21 Cen30 compact objects is 433 $^{+ 153}_{- 98}$ km/s, where error ranges refer to a 95% confidence interval (2$\sigma$). This value is lower at the 4$\sigma$ level than the dispersion of 738 km/s of the Cen30 early-type galaxies from Stein et al. ([@Stein97]). The velocity dispersion of the six Cen45 compact objects is 288 $^{+ 315}_{- 95}$ km/s, indistinguishable to within its large error range from the dispersion of 345 km/s of the Cen45 early-type galaxies.
The lower velocity dispersion of the Cen30 compact objects as compared to the cluster galaxy population is consistent with the more centrally clustered distribution of the former. It indicates that the compact objects are associated more to the central galaxies than to the overall cluster potential.
Structural Parameters {#struct}
---------------------
Out of the 27 compact objects detected in the CCOS, eight have archival HST imaging available. Six objects are found in one ACS pointing of NGC 4696 (Proposal 9427, PI Harris), while the two remaining sources are contained in two WF chips of one WFPC2 pointing (Proposal 6579, PI Tonry). Two example thumbnails are shown in Fig. \[ucdthumbs\]. We use these images to estimate their sizes. To this end we use the program KINGPHOT (Jordán et al. [@Jordan04] and [@Jordan05]), which was already successfully applied to measure half-light radii $r_h$ of GCs in Virgo and Fornax (Jordán et al. [@Jordan05] and [@Jordan07]). At the distance of the Centaurus cluster (assumed to be 43 Mpc), the resolution limit of the ACS images in terms of half light radius corresponds to $\sim$2.5 pc, i.e. about the typical value of GC $r_h$. The limit of the WF images is $\sim$ 5 pc. The resulting $r_h$ estimates are listed in Table \[table\]. Fig. \[sizes\] plots $M_V$ vs. $r_h$ in pc measured on the HST images for the eight Centaurus compact objects. Over-plotted are HST based size estimates for compact objects in other environments: Fornax, Virgo, and the Local Group. The largest Centaurus compact object (CCOS J1248.74-4118.58) has a half-light radius of about 30pc. Seven further objects have much smaller sizes in the range 4 to 10 pc, which is only marginally larger than typical GC sizes.
\
Discussion
==========
Can we identify a bona-fide UCD sub-sample?
-------------------------------------------
In several respects (luminosity distribution, total number, spatial distribution, kinematics) the compact object sample does not show significant differences compared to what is expected from the globular cluster population. That is, based on those properties we are not able to identify a separate sub-population of UCDs. What can we say about our compact object sample regarding sizes and abundances?
### Sizes
Only one of the nine compact objects with HST imaging has a large size of $r_h=$30 pc that clearly separates it from the typical range of GC sizes. This object CCOS J1248.74-4118.58 truly classifies as an ultra-compact dwarf galaxy. In logarithmic space, its size is right between those of GCs and dwarf spheroidal galaxies (Mateo et al. [@Mateo98]).
The overall size distribution of the Centaurus compact objects fits into the picture outlined in Haşegan et al. ([@Hasega05]) and Mieske et al. ([@Mieske06a]): for $M_V<-11$ mag the sizes of compact objects start to deviate from the typical GC values towards larger sizes. This may indicate that those large sources are the merger of several single star clusters (Kissler-Patig et al. [@Kissle05], Bekki et al. [@Bekki04], Fellhauer & Kroupa [@Fellha02]). The magnitude range of our compact objects is too small and their size scatter too large to confirm a [*trend*]{} of increasing size with luminosity, as it is found for Fornax and Virgo. This is partially due to the fact that we do not detect a very bright and large UCD with $M_V\simeq$ -13.5 mag as in Fornax and Virgo. However, our survey completeness of 30% still allows at 95% confidence for 3-4 sources in the bright magnitude regime where no compact objects are found. We have to substantially increase our survey completeness to make firm statements on the size (and mass) range of UCDs in Centaurus.
### Abundances {#abundances}
Our Centaurus sample does not show any obvious break in the metallicity distribution (Fig. \[Fe\_V2\]) that would allow a sub-division in two groups of objects. The sample has a metallicity distribution whose mean agrees very well with the value of Fornax UCDs and that of the metal-rich GC subpopulation, with the scatter being somewhat larger than in Fornax. We note that our survey has an absolute magnitude limit of $M_V=-10.9$ mag, such that we would not be able to trace a metallicity break at $M_V=-11$ mag like that found for Fornax compact objects (Mieske et al. [@Mieske06a]).
There may be a dichotomy in $\alpha$ abundance between bright and faint Centaurus compact objects, but this certainly needs confirmation with higher S/N data. Even if confirmed, this would not necessarily imply different formation mechanisms for bright and faint sources. The recently found colour-luminosity relation among bright blue GCs in various nearby GC systems (e.g. Harris et al. [@Harris06], Strader et al. [@Strade06], Mieske et al. [@Mieske06b]) indicate that one may have abundance trends within one GC population. The findings of multiple or broadened main sequences in some massive Milky Way GCs (Bedin et al. [@Bedin04]; D’Antona et al. [@Danton05]; Piotto et al. [@Piotto07]) also point to the possibility of having complex star formation histories within massive GCs.
We note that another potential separation criterion between GCs and UCDs are M/L ratios (Haşegan et al. [@Hasega05]). However, our low-resolution spectra do not allow to measure intrinsic velocity dispersions. This would require several nights of on-source integration at significantly higher spectral resolution.
Clues to the formation of UCDs
------------------------------
The only bona-fide UCD detected in our survey appears to have a super-solar \[$\alpha$/Fe\] abundance, different to typical values found for the current population of dEs. When including the abundance analyses done for UCD populations in Fornax and Virgo, it thus appears that today’s dwarf elliptical galaxy population is not the parent population of most UCDs. The stellar super cluster scenario (SSC) (e.g. Fellhauer & Kroupa [@Fellha02]) is a conceivable possibility for the formation of UCDs, also because young and very massive super-clusters – the possible UCD progenitors – can be observed in various environments today (e.g. Kissler-Patig et al. [@Kissle05], Bastian et al. [@Bastia05], Cortese et al. [@Cortes07]). One would not expect too metal-poor SSCs given that they are created by already pre-processed material. This fits to the metallicities estimated for most of the UCDs. The scenario seems especially plausible for the Centaurus cluster, which is believed to have had a quite busy merger history (e.g. Furusho et al. [@Furush01]).
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have presented a search for ultra-compact dwarf galaxies in the Centaurus galaxy cluster. We acquired spectroscopic redshifts of about 400 compact object candidates with $19.2<V<22.4$ mag ($-14.1<M_V<-10.9$ mag at the distance of Centaurus) with VIMOS@VLT. We find 27 compact objects (21 in Cen30, 6 in Cen45) with radial velocities consistent with Centaurus, covering an absolute magnitude range $-12.2<M_V<-10.9$ mag.
Most properties (e.g. number, luminosity distribution, spatial distribution) of the compact object sample can be explained by the globular cluster systems in Centaurus, such that it is difficult to identify a UCD sub-sample. Only one of the eight sources with HST imaging has a large size of $r_h\sim$ 30 pc which clearly distinguishes it from normal globular clusters. We consider this source the only bona-fide UCD detected in our survey. It has an $\alpha$ abundance well above that of typical dwarf elliptical galaxies, more in line with Galactic bulge globular clusters. For this source, creation as a merged stellar super cluster in a past galaxy merger event appears plausible. To further quantify the properties of Centaurus UCDs, a significant increase of our survey completeness is necessary.
\[conclusions\]
Barbuy, B., Renzini, A., Ortolani, S., Bica, E., & Guarnieri, M. D. 1999, A&A, 341, 539 Bastian, N., Saglia, R. P., Goudfrooij, P., Kissler-Patig, M., Maraston, C., Schweizer, F., & Zoccali, M. 2006, A&A, 448, 881 Bassino, L. P., Muzzio, J. C., & Rabolli, M. 1994, ApJ, 431, 634 Bedin, L. R. [*et al.*]{} 2004, ApJL, 605, 125 Bekki, K., Couch, W.J., Drinkwater, M.J., Shioya, Y., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 399 Bekki, K., Couch, W.J., Drinkwater, M.J., Shioya, Y., 2004, ApJL, 610, 13 Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, A&AS 117, 393 Blakeslee, J. P., Lucey, J. R., Barris, B. J., Hudson, M. J., & Tonry, J. L. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1004 Bruzual, G., Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 Carretta, E., Cohen, J. G., Gratton, R. G., Behr, B. B. 2001, AJ, 122, 1469 Carretta, E., [*et al.*]{} 2007, A&A in press, astro-ph/0701176 Cohen, J.R., Blakeslee, J. P., & Côté, P. 2003, ApJ, 592, 866 Cortese, L. [*et al.*]{} 2007, MNRAS in press, astro-ph/0703012 Côté, P. [*et al.*]{} 2006, ApJS, 165, 57 D’Antona, F., Bellazzini, M., Caloi, V., Pecci, F. F., Galleti, S., & Rood, R. T. 2005, ApJ, 631, 868 Drinkwater M.J., Jones J.B., Gregg M.D., Phillipps S., 2000, PASA 17, 227 Drinkwater, M.J., Gregg, M.D., Hilker, M. [*et al.*]{}, 2003, Nature, 423, 519 Evstigneeva, E. A., Gregg, M. D., Drinkwater, M. J., & Hilker, M. 2007, AJ accepted, astro-ph/0612483 Fellhauer, M., Kroupa, P., 2002, MNRAS, 330, 642 Furusho, T., Yamasaki, N.Y., Ohashi, T. [*et al.*]{} 2001, PASJ, 53, 421 Geha, M., Guhathakurta, P., & van der Marel, R. P. 2003, 2003, AJ, 126, 1794 Gratton, R. G. [*et al.*]{} 2006, A&A, 455, 271 Harris, W. [*et al.*]{} 2006, ApJ, 636, 90 Haşegan, M., Jordán, A., Côté, P. [*et al.*]{} (VCS team) 2005, ApJ, 627, 203 Hilker, M., Infante, L., Vieira, G., Kissler-Patig, M., & Richtler, T. 1999, A&AS, 134, 75 Hilker, M. [*et al.*]{} 2007, A&A, 463, 119 Jerjen, H., & Dressler, A. 1997, A&AS, 124, 1 Jones, J.B., Drinkwater, M.J., Jurek, R. [*et al.*]{} 2006, AJ, 131, 312 Jordán, A., Blakeslee, J. P., Peng, E. W. [*et al.*]{} 2004, ApJS, 154, 509 Jordán, A. [*et al.*]{} 2005, ApJ, 634, 1002 Jordán, A. [*et al.*]{} 2006, ApJ, 651L, 25 Jordán, A. [*et al.*]{} 2007, ApJS, 169, 213 Kissler-Patig, M., Jordán, A., Bastian, N. 2006, A&A, 448, 1031 Kundu, A., Whitmore, B. 2001, AJ, 121, 2950 Le Fevre, O. [*et al.*]{} 2003, SPIE, 4841, 1670 Lotz, J. M., Miller, B. W., Ferguson, H. C. 2004, ApJ, 613, 262 Mateo, M. L., ARA&A, 36, 435 Michard, R. 2005, A&A, 429, 819 Mieske, S., Hilker, M., Infante, L., 2002, A&A, 383, 832 Mieske, S., Hilker, M., Infante, L. 2004a, A&A, 418, 445 Mieske, S., Infante, L., Benítez, N., [*et al.*]{} 2004b, AJ, 128, 1529 Mieske, S., Infante, L., Hilker, M. [*et al.*]{} 2005a, A&A, 430L, 25 Mieske, S., Hilker, M., Infante, L., & Jordán, A. 2006a, AJ, 131, 2442 Mieske, S. [*et al.*]{} 2006b, ApJ, 653, 193 Mieske, S., West, M.J. & Mendes de Oliveira, C. 2006, astro-ph/0603524, proceedings of ESO Astrophysics Symposia: “Groups of Galaxies in the Nearby Universe”, eds. I. Saviane, V. Ivanov, J. Borissova Peng, E., [*et al.*]{} 2006, ApJ, 639, 95 Phillipps S., Drinkwater M.J., Gregg M.D., Jones J.B., 2001, ApJ 560, 201 Piotto, G. [*et al.*]{} 2007, ApJ letters in press, astro-ph/0703767 Puzia, T. H., Saglia, R. P., Kissler-Patig, M., Maraston, C., Greggio, L., Renzini, A., Ortolani, S. 2002, A&A, 395, 45 Reiprich, T. & Böhringer, H. 2002, ApJ, 567, 716 Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525 Stein, P., Jerjen, H., Federspiel, M. 1997, A&A, 327, 952 Strader, J., Brodie, J. P., Spitler, L., & Beasley, M. A. 2006, AJ, 132, 2333 Thomas, D., Maraston, C., & Bender, R. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 897 Trager, S.C., Worthey, G., Faber, S.M., Burstein, D., Gonzalez, J.J. 1998, ApJS, 116, 1 McWilliam, A, & Rich, R. Michael, 1994, ApJS, 91, 749 Worthey, G., Faber, S.M., Gonzalez, J. J., & Burstein, D. 1994, ApJS, 94, 687 Zinn, R., West, M.J. 1984, ApJS, 55, 45
ID RA (J2000) DEC (J2000) V$_0$ (V-R)$_0$ v$_{\rm rad}$ \[km/s\] $\langle {\rm Fe}\rangle $ \[Å\] Mgb \[Å\] r$_h$ \[pc\]
----------------------- ------------- -------------- ------- ----------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------- --------------
CCOS J1250.02-4121.45 12:50:01.23 -41:21:26.83 21.06 0.40 4835 (60) 2.76 (0.36) 4.13 (0.55)
CCOS J1248.54-4119.64 12:48:32.64 -41:19:38.20 21.08 0.47 3854 (69) 2.20 (0.27) 2.83 (0.36)
CCOS J1248.79-4117.15 12:48:47.61 -41:17:09.12 21.10 0.50 2882 (54) 4.15 (0.25) 6.69 (0.36) 6.12 (0.45)
CCOS J1248.06-4111.40 12:48:03.76 -41:11:24.30 21.15 0.58 2768 (89) 2.80 (0.20) 2.96 (0.27)
CCOS J1248.54-4121.90 12:48:32.48 -41:21:54.07 21.22 0.51 3279 (75) 3.51 (0.30) 4.07 (0.42)
CCOS J1248.70-4121.11 12:48:41.75 -41:21:06.76 21.57 0.50 2521 (123) 3.56 (0.40) 2.78 (0.57)
CCOS J1250.11-4114.59 12:50:06.57 -41:14:35.28 21.57 0.45 4430 (66) 2.70 (0.35) 2.44 (0.47)
CCOS J1249.71-4120.63 12:49:42.63 -41:20:38.04 21.59 0.43 5184 (55) 2.29 (0.35) 3.34 (0.48)
CCOS J1248.79-4116.00 12:48:47.69 -41:16:00.11 21.75 0.46 3140 (63) 3.73 (0.28) 5.54 (0.40)
CCOS J1248.74-4118.58 12:48:44.70 -41:18:35.03 21.76 0.44 2189 (114) 1.34 (0.59) 3.35 (0.74) 29.49 (0.64)
CCOS J1248.76-4118.70 12:48:45.56 -41:18:42.21 21.77 0.55 2828 (45) 4.15 (0.47) 6.09 (0.68) 4.36 (0.30)
CCOS J1248.74-4119.74 12:48:44.33 -41:19:44.37 21.79 0.40 3138 (56) 4.28 (0.35) 5.77 (0.49) 7.02 (0.25)
CCOS J1250.03-4122.68 12:50:01.77 -41:22:40.60 21.84 0.54 4538 (66) 0.96 (0.61) 3.53 (0.85) 6.18 (0.83)
CCOS J1248.63-4115.71 12:48:37.77 -41:15:42.37 21.87 0.39 2524 (88) 2.61 (0.47) 2.40 (0.65)
CCOS J1249.07-4120.77 12:49:03.99 -41:20:45.96 21.88 0.37 2453 (140) 0.87 (0.39) 3.24 (0.51)
CCOS J1249.36-4121.57 12:49:21.64 -41:21:34.16 22.09 0.42 2790 (96) 2.44 (0.58) 4.76 (0.76)
CCOS J1249.99-4124.45 12:49:59.21 -41:24:27.18 22.10 0.36 5000 (80) 1.47 (0.62) 3.59 (0.88) 8.94 (1.31)
CCOS J1248.97-4120.01 12:48:58.25 -41:20:00.52 22.12 0.52 2962 (98) 1.88 (0.45) 5.89 (0.62)
CCOS J1248.65-4120.34 12:48:39.28 -41:20:20.58 22.13 0.55 3303 (69) 3.55 (0.53) 4.88 (0.76)
CCOS J1248.74-4118.95 12:48:44.11 -41:18:56.87 22.17 0.53 3213 (53) 2.35 (0.65) 4.66 (0.90) 7.77 (1.32)
CCOS J1248.70-4118.23 12:48:41.99 -41:18:13.77 22.18 0.48 2822 (55) 3.47 (0.43) 5.96 (0.60) 10.17 (0.98)
CCOS J1250.07-4121.16 12:50:04.49 -41:21:09.37 22.18 0.43 4952 (80) 0.09 (0.92) 0.72 (1.25)
CCOS J1248.72-4121.23 12:48:43.02 -41:21:13.54 22.23 0.58 2582 (99) 2.26 (0.60) 3.21 (0.86)
CCOS J1249.41-4118.64 12:49:24.85 -41:18:38.15 22.23 0.58 2206 (79) 3.42 (0.60) 5.58 (0.76)
CCOS J1248.91-4117.70 12:48:54.64 -41:17:42.05 22.29 0.43 2909 (120) 1.78 (0.67) 3.93 (0.88)
CCOS J1248.99-4118.08 12:48:59.65 -41:18:04.51 22.31 0.53 2806 (75) 2.15 (0.66) 4.72 (0.91)
CCOS J1248.62-4120.63 12:48:37.13 -41:20:37.79 22.34 0.52 3741 (85) 2.96 (0.61) 4.48 (0.87)
ID RA (J2000) DEC (J2000) B$_{\rm T}$ v$_{\rm rad}$ \[km/s\] $\langle {\rm Fe}\rangle $ \[Å\] Mgb \[Å\] v$_{\rm rad, S97}$ \[km/s\]
--------- ------------- -------------- ------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------- --
CCC 125 12:49:56.31 -41:15:35.97 17.14 3016 (78) 2.85 (0.34) 4.18 (0.45) 2880 (35)
CCC 61 12:48:39.68 -41:16:03.14 17.40 2871 (62) 3.72 (0.12) 4.14 (0.17) 2910 (67)
CCC 58 12:48:36.20 -41:26:21.38 17.94 3312 (58) 3.20 (0.23) 3.65 (0.33) 3304 (60)
CCC 22 12:48:02.05 -41:18:18.25 17.94 2467 (38) 2.79 (0.09) 3.90 (0.13) 2433 (33)
CCC 75 12:49:02.05 -41:15:33.26 18.06 1977 (73) 3.34 (0.19) 3.62 (0.26) 1958 (71)
CCC 150 12:50:24.36 -41:17:46.91 18.23 4408 (99) 2.49 (0.15) 3.07 (0.20) 4426 (46)
CCC 104 12:49:35.82 -41:25:36.59 18.25 3317 (75) 3.54 (0.47) 4.89 (0.65) —
CCC 121 12:49:54.15 -41:20:21.39 18.36 4661 (62) 1.55 (0.30) 2.96 (0.41) 4739 (70)
CCC 52 12:48:29.99 -41:19:16.93 18.42 3768 (73) 3.59 (0.27) 4.05 (0.37) —
CCC 123 12:49:56.03 -41:24:04.06 18.45 4729 (46) 2.42 (0.14) 2.75 (0.20) 4661 (69)
CCC 97 12:49:30.19 -41:25:14.93 18.70 2870 (70) 3.58 (0.19) 4.63 (0.25) 2818 (30)
CCC 72 12:48:58.81 -41:10:26.55 19.11 3218 (54) 2.74 (0.27) 2.20 (0.37) —
CCC 16 12:47:54.58 -41:18:43.37 19.40 3891 (58) 2.78 (0.19) 3.27 (0.27) —
[^1]: Based on observations obtained in service mode at the VLT (programme 076.B-0293)
[^2]: we refer as “compact objects” to sources in the magnitude regime of bright globular clusters and Fornax UCDs. Only if the properties of a compact object cannot be explained by the general globular cluster population, we refer to it as UCD. In our usage the term UCD does not imply a particular formation channel.
[^3]: http://www.eso.org/projects/dfs/dfs-shared/web/vimos/vimos-pipe-recipes.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The method of factorization, based on the model of unstable particles with a smeared mass, is applied to the processes with an unstable particle in the intermediate state. It was shown, that in the framework of the method suggested, the decay rate and cross-section can be represented in the universal factorized form for an arbitrary set of particles. An exact factorization is caused by the specific structure of unstable particles propagators. We performed the phenomenological analysis of the factorization effect.'
author:
- 'V. I. Kuksa'
title: Factorization method in the model of unstable particles with a smeared mass
---
Introduction
============
The most of the elementary (fundamental) particles are unstable, however, a large width have the $W, Z$ bosons and $t$ quark only. For the rest of unstable particles the ratio $\Gamma/M$ is very small, therefore the so-called stable particle approximation is valid with very high precision. The most of hadrons (mesons and baryons) have a large width and this approximation is not valid. So, we have to take into account the finite-width effects (or instability) in the processes with the participation of the unstable particles or resonances with a large width.
The specific properties of the unstable particles (UP) were being under considerable discussion during the last decades. In particular, the assumption that the decay of UP or resonance (R) proceeds independently of its production remains of interest [@1; @2; @3]. Formally, this effect is expressed as the factorization of a cross-section or decay rate [@3]. The processes of type $ab\rightarrow Rx\rightarrow cdx$ were considered in Ref.[@3]. It was shown, that the factorization always is valid for a scalar $R$ and does not take place for a vector and spinor $R$. The factorization usually is related with the narrow-width approximation (NWA) [@4], which makes five critical assumptions [@5].
We consider the factorization method, which is based on the model of UP with a smeared mass [@6; @6a] and related with the propagator structure. The decay processes of type $a\rightarrow Rx\rightarrow cdx$ were analyzed in Ref.[@7]. It was shown in this work, that the factorization always is valid for a scalar $R$, while for a vector and spinor $R$ it occurs when the propagators’ numerators are $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q)=g_{\mu\nu}-q_{\mu}q_{\nu}/q^2$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)=\hat{q}+q$, respectively, where $\hat{q}=q_i\gamma^i$ and $q=\sqrt{q_iq^i}$. The processes of type $ab\rightarrow R\rightarrow cd$, were considered in Ref.[@8]. It was shown, that the cross-section $\sigma(ab\rightarrow R\rightarrow cd)$ can be represented in the universal factorized form when the same expressions $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q)$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)$ are used to describe the propagator’s numerator of vector and spinor UP. Such a structure of propagators always provides an exact factorization for any tree process. This condition of factorization is some analytical analog of NWA, which is discussed in Section 3 and 4. These propagators were constructed in the model of UP with a smeared mass [@6; @6a] and describe some effective (dressed by self-energy insertion) unstable fields in an intermediate state. The model have been applied in the various fields of particles physics [@6; @6a]. Note that the structure of the expressions $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q)$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)$ is not related with the choice of the gauge (see the second section).
In this work, we systematically analyze the effects of factorization in the processes with UP in an intermediate state. In Section 2 we illustrate the premise of factorization and give universal factorized formulae for the decay rate of three-particle decay and for the cross-section of two-particle scattering. The factorization approach is applied to the processes of scattering with consequent decays of the final states (Section 3). It was noted, that similar processes were considered in Refs.[@8a; @8b], where the phenomenon of pseudoresonances was discussed. In Section 4, we analyze some methodological and phenomenological aspects of factorization.
Factorization effect in the model of unstable particles with a smeared mass
===========================================================================
In this section, we consider the structure of the model amplitude when UP is in the intermediate state. We show that the special form of the model propagators of unstable fields lead to the factorization of the transition probability. In contrast to the traditional treatment (narrow-width approximation, NWA), the approach suggested provides an exact factorization for the any type of UP. This effect makes it possible to represent the decay rate of three-particle decays and the cross-section of two-particle scattering in the universal factorized form.
The model propagators of scalar, vector and spinor unstable fields are defined by the following expressions (see Appendix 1): $$\label{2.1}
\frac{i}{P(q^2)};\,\,\,-i\frac{g_{\mu\nu}-q_{\mu}q_{\nu}/q^2}{P(q^2)};\,\,\,i\frac{\hat{q}+q}{P(q^2)}.$$ In Eqs.(\[2.1\]) $q^2=(q_iq^i)$, $q=\sqrt{(q_iq^i)}$ and $P(q^2)$ can be defined in arbitrary way (pole, Breit-Wigner and other definitions). It is essential, that the effect of factorization does not depend on the definition of denominator $P(q^2)$ and crucially depends on the structure of propagator’s numerators for the case of vector and spinor fields. The model expressions $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q)=g_{\mu\nu}-q_{\mu}q_{\nu}/q^2$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)=\hat{q}+q$ provide an exact factorization, while the traditional expressions $\eta_{\mu\nu}(M)=g_{\mu\nu}-q_{\mu}q_{\nu}/M^2$ and $\hat{\eta}(M)=\hat{q}+M$ leads to an approximate factorization (NWA). It should be noted, that the structure of $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q)$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)$ is not related with the choice of the gauge. The model under consideration is not a gauge one and describes some effective unstable fields (see Appendix 1). We note, also, that the differences between the model and traditional $\eta$ -functions are small at $q^2\approx M^2$. So, the model approach can be treated as approximation to the standard one, that is gives an analytical alternative of NWA (see Section 4)
Now, we consider the mechanism of factorization in the processes of three-particle decay $\Phi_1\to\Phi_2 R\to \Phi_2\Phi_3\Phi_4$ and two-particle scattering $\Phi_1\Phi_2\to R\to \Phi_3\Phi_4$. In the case of vector UP in an intermediate state the model amplitude is $$\label{2.2}
\mathit{M}\sim \Phi_1\Gamma^{\mu} \Phi_2 \frac{g_{\mu\nu}-q_{\mu}q_{\nu}/q^2}{P(q^2)}\Phi_3\Gamma^{\nu}\Phi_4.$$ It is essential, that the structure of propagator’s numerator and polarization matrix is the same (Appendix 1): $$\label{2.3}
\sum_{k=1}^{3} e^k_{\mu}(q) e^{*k}_{\nu}(q)=-(g_{\mu\nu}-q_{\mu}q_{\nu}/q^2).$$ Thus, from Eqs.(\[2.2\]) and (\[2.3\]) it follows $$\label{2.4}
\mathit{M}\sim \sum_{k=1}^{3}\frac{\mathit{M}_{1}^{(k)}\cdot\mathit{M}_{2}^{(k)}}{P(q^2)}\,,$$ where $\mathit{M}_{1}^{(k)}\sim\Phi_1\Gamma^{\mu}\Phi_2 e^k_{\mu}$ and $\mathit{M}_{2}^{(k)}\sim\Phi_3\Gamma^{\nu}\Phi_4 e^k_{\nu}$. From Eq.(\[2.4\]) it follows, that for the case of scalar UP, exact factorization occurs at amplitude level (see also [@3; @7]). The quasifactorized structure of the full amplitude $\mathit{M}$ is direct consequence of Eq.(\[2.3\]), that is of the smearing of mass-shell. Full factorization occur in the $|\mathit{M}|^2$, when the properties of the polarization matrixes of the initial and final states are used. In the standard treatment factorization takes place when the intermediate state occur on mass-shell $q^2=M^2$, while the virtual states destroy the factorization. In our approach this effect takes place at arbitrary $q^2$ due to smearing (fuzzing) of mass-shell (see Appendix 1) and some dualism of virtual and real states. This dualism imply the possibility to describe UP by polarization matrix (real state) and propagators (virtual state) at the same time [@6; @7]. More exactly, the division of the unstable states onto virtual and real ones have no sense in the vicinity of the resonance.
The same effect takes place for the case of spinor UP in an intermediate state. In this case, the structure of spinor propagator’s numerator $\hat{\eta}(q)=\hat{q}+q$ is similar to the structure of spinor polarization matrix (Appendix 1): $$\label{2.5}
\sum_{a=1}^{2} u^{a,\pm}_{\alpha}(q) \bar{u}^{a,\mp}_{\beta}(q)=\frac{1}{2q^0}(\hat{q}\mp q)_{\alpha\beta}.$$ Thus, the premise of factorization is the coincidence of the polarization matrix and propagator’s numerator for any $q^2$, which is directly related with the smearing (fuzzing) of mass-shell.
Let us consider the three-particle decay of type $\Phi\to \phi_1 R\to \phi_1\phi_2\phi_3$, where $R$ is UP of any kind with a large width. The method of calculation and some specific details of the model approach are given in Appendix 2. By straightforward calculation it was checked, that the decay rates of the processes under consideration can be represented in the universal factorized form: $$\label{2.6}
\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1 \phi_2 \phi_3)=\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}\Gamma(\Phi
\rightarrow\phi_1 R(q))\frac{q\Gamma(R(q)\rightarrow\phi_2\phi_3)}
{\pi \vert P_{R}(q)\vert ^2}dq^2\,,$$ where $q_1=m_2+m_3$ and $q_2=m_{\Phi}-m_1$. By means of the summation over decay channels of $R$, from Eq.(\[2.6\]) we get the well-known convolution formula for the decays with UP in a final state [@6a; @7; @9; @10]: $$\label{2.7}
\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1 R) = \int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2} \Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow
\phi_1 R(q))\rho_{R}(q)dq^2\,.$$ In Eq.(\[2.7\]) the smearing of mass of unstable state $R$ is described by the probability density $\rho_R(q)$: $$\label{2.8}
\rho_{R}(q)=\frac{q\Gamma^{tot}_R(q)}{\pi\vert P_{R}(q)\vert^2}.$$ If the parametrization $q\Gamma(q)=Im\Sigma(q)$ and Dyson-resummed propagator are used, then we get: $$\label{2.9}
P_{R}(q)=q^2-m^2_{R}(q)-iIm\Sigma_{R}(q),\,\,
m^2_{R}(q)=m^2_{0R}+Re\Sigma_{R}(q),$$ and the $\rho_{R}(q)$ can be written in the Lorentzian (Breit-Wigner type) form: $$\label{2.10}
\rho_{R}(q)=\frac{1}{\pi}\,\frac{Im\Sigma_{R}(q)}{[q^2-m^2_{R}(q)]^2+[Im\Sigma_{
R}(q)]^2}\,.$$ The expressions similar to (\[2.10\]) have been used in the many papers [@6]-[@10].
Now, we consider the two-particle scattering of type $a+b\to R\to c+d$, where $R$ is UP with a large width. With the help of the expressions (\[2.1\]) we have got by straightforward calculations (see Appendix 2) the universal factorized formula for the cross-section for all permissible combinations of particles $(a,b,R,c,d)$: $$\sigma(ab\rightarrow R\rightarrow cd)=\frac{16\pi (2J_R+1)}
{(2J_a+1)(2J_b+1) \bar{\lambda}^2(m_a,m_b;\sqrt{s})}
\frac{\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)\Gamma^{cd}_R(s)}{|P_R(s)|^2}.
\label{2.11}$$ In Eq.(\[2.11\]) $J_k$ is spin of the particle ($k=a,b,R$), $s=(p_1+p_2)^2$, $\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)=\Gamma(R(s)\rightarrow ab)$ and $P_R(s)$ is propagator’s denominator of the UP or resonance $R$. The expressions for $\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)$ and $\Gamma^{cd}_R(s)$ follow from the standard ones (see Appendix 2), when squared mass of UP is $m^2_R=q^2=s$. The factorization of cross-section does not depend on the definition of $P_R(s)$, which can be determined in a phenomenological way, in Breit-Wigner or pole form etc. The expression (\[2.11\]) is a natural generalization of the spin-averaged Breit-Wigner (non-relativistic) cross-section, defined by the expression (37.51) in Ref. [@11]. Note that the factorization is exact in our approach, while in the traditional one it occurs as an approximation.
The cross-section of exclusive process $ab\rightarrow
R\rightarrow cd$, defined by Eq.(\[2.11\]), does not depend on $J_c$ and $J_d$. So, it can be summarized over final channels $R\rightarrow cd$: $$\sigma(ab\rightarrow R(s)\to all)=\frac{16\pi k_R}
{k_a k_b\bar{\lambda}^2(m_a,m_b;\sqrt{s})}\frac{\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)\Gamma^{tot}_R(s)}
{|P_R(s)|^2}.
\label{2.12}$$ In Eq.(\[2.12\]) $k_i=2J_i+1$ and $\Gamma^{tot}_R(s)=\sum_{cd}\Gamma^{cd}_R(s)$, where for simplicity we restrict ourselves by two-particle channels.
The factorization effect, expressed by Eq.(\[2.11\]), has two aspects. On the one hand, it means that the decay of UP proceeds independently of its production in the approach considered. On the other hand, it leads to the significant simplification of calculations, in particular, in the case of the complicated processes (see the next section).
Factorization effect in the complicated processes
=================================================
In this section, we consider the factorization effects in the case of complicated chain processes. For example, let us consider the decay-chain process $\Phi\to aR\to abR_1\to abcd$. It is convenient to divide this process onto the stages $\Phi\to aR\to abR_1$ and $R_1\to cd$. In according with the Eq.(\[2.6\]) the width of the first process is $$\label{3.1}
\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow abR_1)=\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}\Gamma(\Phi
\rightarrow a R(q))\frac{q\Gamma(R(q)\rightarrow bR_1)}
{\pi \vert P_{R}(q)\vert ^2}\,dq^2\,,$$ where $\Gamma(R(q)\rightarrow bR_1)$ includes all decay channels of $R_1$. Analogously, the width of exclusive decay $R(q)\to bR_1\to bcd$ is defined by the expression: $$\label{3.2}
\Gamma(R(q)\rightarrow bcd)=\int_{g^2_1}^{g^2_2}\Gamma(R(q)\to bR_1(g))
\frac{g\Gamma(R_1(g)\rightarrow cd)}
{\pi \vert P_{R_1}(g)\vert ^2}\,dg^2\,,$$ where $g_1=m_c+m_d$ and $g_2=m_{\Phi}-m_a-m_b$. Combining the expressions (\[3.1\]) and (\[3.2\]), we get the width of the full decay-chain process: $$\label{3.3}
\Gamma(\Phi\to abcd)=\frac{1}{\pi^2}\int_ {q^2_1}^{q^2_2}\frac{q\Gamma(\Phi
\rightarrow a R(q))}{\vert P_{R}(q)\vert ^2}\int_{g^2_1}^{g^2_2}\Gamma(R(q)\to bR_1(g))
\frac{g\Gamma(R_1(g)\rightarrow cd)}
{\vert P_{R_1}(g)\vert ^2}dg^2\,dq^2.$$ Using this method, one can write the width for the more complicated decay-chain processes. We should note that the factorization reduces the number of independent kinematical variables which specify a point in the phase space. In the general case of $n$-particle decay the number of such variable is $N=3n-7$ [@20]. Thus, in the standard approach, for three- and four-particle decays we have $N=2$ and $N=5$. The factorization effect reduces these numbers and gives $N=1$ (Eq.(\[2.6\])) and $N=2$ (Eq.(\[3.3\])), respectively.
Now, we consider the scattering $ab\to R\to x R_1$ with consequent decay $R_1\to cd$. In this case, Eq.(\[2.11\]) has the form: $$\sigma(ab\rightarrow R(s)\to x R_1)=\frac{16\pi k_R}
{k_a k_b\bar{\lambda}^2(m_a,m_b;\sqrt{s})}\frac{\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)\Gamma^{R_1x}_R(s)}
{|P_R(s)|^2}.
\label{3.4}$$ To calculate the value $\Gamma^{R_1 x}_R (s)$ we apply the convolution formula (\[2.7\]), which accounts FWE in the decay $R(s)\to x R_1$: $$\Gamma(R(s)\to x R_1)=\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}\Gamma(R(s)\to x R_1(q))\rho_{R_1}(q)\,dq^2\,.
\label{3.5}$$ In Eq.(\[3.5\]) $q=p_R-p_x$, $q_{1,2}$ are defined by kinematics of the process and $\rho_{R_1}(q)=q \Gamma^{tot}_{R_1}(q)/\pi|P_{R_1}(q)|^2$ is interpreted in the model of UP as distribution function of the smeared mass of unstable particle $R_1$. Convolution structure of Eq.(\[3.5\]) is caused by the factorization of the decay rate $\Gamma(R\to x R_1\to x, all)$.
From Eqs.(\[3.4\]) and (\[3.5\]) it follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sigma(ab\rightarrow R\rightarrow x R_1)=\notag\\&\frac{16\pi
k_R}{k_a k_b\bar{\lambda}^2(m_a,m_b;\sqrt{s})}\frac{\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)}{|P_R(s)|^2}
\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}\Gamma(R(s)\rightarrow
x R_1(q))\rho_{R_1}(q)\,dq^2.
\label{3.6}\end{aligned}$$ Using the expression for $\rho_{R_1}(q)$, from Eq.(\[3.6\]) we can get the cross-section of exclusive process, for example $ab\to R\to R_1 x\to cdx$. To this effect we represent $\Gamma ^{tot}_{R_1}(q)$ in the form: $$\Gamma^{tot}_{R_1}(q)=\sum_{X_1}\Gamma^{X_1}_{R_1}(q);\,\,\,
\Gamma^{cd}_{R_1}(q)=\Gamma(R_1(q)\to cd)\,.
\label{3.7}$$ As a result, from (\[3.6\]) and (\[3.7\]) we get: $$\begin{aligned}
&\sigma(ab\rightarrow R\rightarrow xcd)=\notag\\
&\frac{16k_R}{k_a k_b\bar{\lambda}^2(m_a,m_b;\sqrt{s})}\frac{\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)}{|P_R(s)|^2}
\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}\Gamma(R(s)\rightarrow
x R_1(q))\frac{q \Gamma^{cd}_{R_1}(q)}{|P_{R_1}(q)|^2}\,dq^2.
\label{3.8}\end{aligned}$$ It should be noted that, in analogy with the decay processes, the factorization effectively reduces the number of independent kinematical variables in the scattering processes too. In the standard approach for the process $2\to 3$ the number of such variables $N=3n-4=5$ [@20], while the approach suggested gives $N=1$.
The processes of scattering with one unstable particle or resonance and one quasistable particle in the final state were discussed in [@8a; @8b]. Such processes, called in [@8a] as pseudoresonances, exhibit themselves as peak in cross-section in analogy with ordinary resonance. However, they are not caused by the pole of $S$-matrix, rather by nonelastic channels [@8b].
Similar structure arises in the case $R\rightarrow R_1R_2$, i.e. when there are two UP in the final state, which have two-particle decay channels (semi-analytical approach [@12]-[@14]). Thus, the model gives a convenient instrument to describe two-particle scattering accompanied by complicated decay-chain processes. However, we have checked by direct calculations only two types of processes - the decay of type $a\rightarrow Rx\rightarrow bcx$ and the scattering of type $ab\rightarrow R\rightarrow cd$. The more complicated processes, such as decay $a\rightarrow
R_1 R_2\rightarrow cdef$ and scattering $ab\rightarrow
R\rightarrow R_1 R_2\rightarrow cdef$, will be the subject of the next paper.
Phenomenology of the factorization method
=========================================
In this section, we consider some methodological and phenomenological aspects of factorization. The model factorization of a decay width and cross-section of the processes with UP in an intermediate state was established by straightforward calculations at tree level. Note that these calculations in the effective theory of UP [@6a; @7] account for some loop contributions. The vertex and self-energy type corrections can be included into $\Gamma_R(s)$ and $P_R(s)$ respectively. These corrections do not breakdown a factorization, but the interaction between initial and final states does. However, such an interaction has no clear and explicit status in perturbation theory due to UP (or resonance) is not a perturbative object in the resonance neighborhood [@6a]. As it was noted in Ref.[@14], such non-factorable corrections give small contribution to the processes $e^{+}e^{-}\to ZZ, WW, 4f$ in the resonance range.
Now, we consider another aspect of factorization effect, namely, the determination of dressed propagator of UP. Factorization of decay width and cross-section does not depend on the structure of propagator’s denominator $P_R(q)$, but crucially depends on the structure of its numerator in the case of vector and spinor UP. As it was verified by direct calculations, the factorization always takes place in the case of scalar UP. The expressions $\eta_{\mu\nu}(m_R) =g_{\mu\nu}-q_{\mu}q_{\nu}/m^2_R$ and $\hat{\eta}(m_R)=\hat{q}+m_R$ for vector and spinor UP, respectively, do not lead to exact factorization. But the expressions $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q) =g_{\mu\nu}-q_{\mu}q_{\nu}/q^2$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)=\hat{q}+q$ strictly lead to factorization for any kinds of particles. It should be noted that the definition of the functions $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q)$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)$ is not related with the choice of the gauge, because effective theory of UP [@6a] is not the gauge theory. The choice of $q$ instead of $m_R$ in the $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ and $\hat{\eta}$ may seems contradict to the equation of motion for vector and spinor UP. However, this statement is valid for the stable particle with fixed mass. In the case of UP the question arises what the mass participates in equation of motion - pole mass or one of the renormalized mass? An account of uncertainty relation by smearing of mass intensifies the question. There is no unique and strict determination of dressed propagator structure for vector and spinor UP due to the specific nature of renormalization in these cases [@7]. The situation is more complicated and involved in the case of hadron resonance. So, the functions $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ and $\hat{\eta}$ have rather phenomenological (or model) than theoretical status. The model of UP [@6a] defines these functions as $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q)$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)$, which describe the dressed propagators of UP in the resonance neighborhood.
Further, we briefly analyze the phenomenological aspect of the factorization effect. Universal convolution formula for a decay rate was widely used in the so-called convolution method (CM). This method introduces the factorization in a phenomenological way. It was applied for the description of the near-threshold decays of $t$ quark [@9; @10] and non-leptonic decays of hadrons [@15]-[@18]. The decay rates of the near-threshold decays $t\rightarrow bWZ,cWW,cZZ$ were calculated within the framework of CM and DCM (decay-chain method) in Refs.[@9; @10]. The contributions of FWE lead to the substantial enhancement of the decay rates, in particular, of $B(t\rightarrow bWZ)$ and $B(t\rightarrow cZZ)$. For instance, the branchings without ($B$) and with an accounting of FWE ($\bar{B}$) in the case of decay $t\rightarrow bWZ$ differ by an order of magnitude [@9]: $B(t\rightarrow bWZ)\sim
10^{-7}$ and $\bar{B}(t\rightarrow bWZ)\sim 10^{-6}$. The description of FWE in hadron decays of type $H\rightarrow H_1 H_2$ is directly follows from the approach suggested, when $H_1$ and (or) $H_2$ are the hadrons with a large width. The contribution of FWE to decay rates of the decays $B^0\rightarrow D^-\rho^+$, $B^0\rightarrow
D^-a^+_1$ and $\Lambda^0_b\rightarrow \Lambda^+_c\rho^-$, $\Lambda^0_b\rightarrow \Lambda^+_c a^-_1$ were considered in Refs.[@15]-[@18] within the framework of CM. The result of calculations reveals that the contributions of FWE are large (from 20 to 40 percent) and its account improves the conformity of the experimental data and theoretical predictions. In the work [@6a], we have reanalyzed the decays $B^0\rightarrow D^-\rho^+$ and $\phi(1020)\to K\bar{K}$ within the frame of the model considered and significantly improve the correspondence between the experimental data and theoretical predictions.
Now, we analyze the phenomenology of the factorization in the processes of scattering. In the low-energy experiments of type $e^+e^-\rightarrow \rho, \omega...\rightarrow \pi^+\pi^-, ...$ we can not distinguish propagators $\eta_{\mu\nu}(m_R)$ and $\eta_{\mu\nu}(q)$ even for the wide resonance. This is due to the equality $\bar{e}^-(p_1)(\hat{p}_1+\hat{p}_2)e^-(p_2)=0$, when the functions $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ reduce to $g_{\mu\nu}$ in both cases. In the high-energy experiments of type $e^+e^-\rightarrow
Z\rightarrow \bar{f}f$, where $f$ is quark or lepton (we neglect $\gamma-Z$ interference), the transverse part of amplitude is $$M_q\sim\bar{e}^-(p_1)\hat{q}(c_e-\gamma_5)e^-(p_2)\bar{f}^+(k_1)\hat{q}
(c_f-\gamma_5)f^+(k_2),
\label{E:4.1}$$ where $q=p_1+p_2=k_1+k_2$. From Eq.(\[E:4.1\]) with the help of the Dirac equations in momentum representation it follows $$M_q\sim m_em_f \bar{e}^-(p_1)\gamma_5
e^-(p_2)\bar{f}^+(k_1)\gamma_5f^+(k_2).
\label{E:4.2}$$ As a result, we get the terms $m_e m_f/q^2$ and $m_e m_f/m^2_Z$ for $\eta(q)$ and $\eta(m_R)$, respectively. The difference of these values is an order of $(m_e m_f/m^2_Z)\cdot(m_Z-q)/m_Z$ at $q^2\sim m^2_Z$. Thus, the distinction between the structure of two type of the expressions $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ is negligible in a wide range of energy. We always can evaluate this deviation, that is the approach suggested gives us a simple analytical analog of NWA. This approach was applied also to the near-threshold $Z$-pair production [@14] in the process $e^+e^-\to ZZ$, where the model polarization matrix (\[2.3\]) was used. An accordance with the experiment and Monte-Carlo simulation was demonstrated. From this result, it follows that the contribution of the non-factorable corrections is small at the resonance energy.
The structure of $\hat{\eta}$ can be studied in the process of type $VF\rightarrow R\rightarrow V^{'}F^{'}$, where $V$ and $F$ are vector and fermion field, $R$ is, for instance, baryon resonance with a large width. In this case, the difference between $\hat{\eta}(m_R)$ and $\hat{\eta}(q)$ is characterized by the value $\sim\Gamma_R/m_R$ at peak region, and this problem demands more detailed consideration.
From this brief analysis it follows that the method of factorization is a simple analytical analog of the narrow-width approximation (NWA, which contains five critical assumptions [@5]). Instead, we use the structure of propagators’ numerators $\eta(q)$, which follows from usual ones under a simple transformation $m_R \to q$, and one assumption: there is no significant interference with non-resonant processes (fifth assumption of NWA). The rest assumptions of NWA can be derived from the first our point, where some of them are not obligatory in the special cases. The method leads to factorization in the basic type of processes - decay-chain processes (universal convolution formula (\[2.7\])) and scattering ones (universal factorized formula (\[2.11\])). Combining these two results, we get a simple and strict algorithm of analytical description of the complicated chain processes.
Conclusion
==========
The factorization method gives us a convenient semianalytical way to describe the three-particle decays and two-particle scattering processes. This effect significantly simplifies calculations and gives compact universal formulae for the decay rate and cross-section.
In this work, we have shown that the factorization always is valid when scalar UP is in the intermediate state. In the case of vector or spinor intermediate states, the factorization takes place when the specific propagators are used for these states. These propagators are derived in the model of UP with a random (smeared) mass. They negligibly differ from the traditional propagators at peak area and follow from the smearing of mass in accordance with an uncertainty relation. Our method makes it possible significantly simplify the description of the complicated decay-chain and scattering processes. It is some analytical analog of NWA and gives a simple and strict algorithm for calculations. This approach can be treated also as a convenient approximation to the traditional one, which always is valid in the resonance range, where non-resonance contribution is small.
We have performed also a short methodological and phenomenological analysis of the approach under discussion. It was shown, that in the process $e^+e^-\rightarrow f\bar{f}$ the difference between two forms of propagators is negligible in a wide range of energy. It can be significant in the processes with baryon resonance in an intermediate state, but in this case we should perform an additional analysis.
Appendix 1
==========
In this section, we represent the model formalism we need to construct the propagators for the vector and spinor fields (for the detail see [@6; @6a]). The structure of these propagators lead to the factorization effect in the processes with the participation of UP in the intermediate state. The model field wave function, which describes UP, is $$\label{A.1}
\Phi_a(x)=\int\Phi_a(x,\mu)\omega(\mu)d\mu,$$ where $\Phi_a(x,\mu)$ is spectral component, which defines a particle with a fixed mass squared $m^2=\mu$ in the stable particle approximation (SPA): $$\label{A.1a}
\Phi_{\alpha}(x,\mu)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3/2}}\int\Phi_{\alpha}(k)
\delta(k^2-\mu)e^{ikx}\,dk.$$ The weight function $\omega(\mu)$ is formed by the self-energy type interactions of UP with vacuum fluctuations and decay products. This function describes the smeared (fuzzed) mass-shell of UP.
The model Lagrangian, which determines a “free” (effective) unstable field $\Phi(x)$, has the convolution form: $$\label{A.2}
L(\Phi(x))=\int L(\Phi(x,\mu))|\omega(\mu)|^2\,d\mu\,.$$ In Eq.(\[A.2\]) $L(\Phi(x,\mu))$ is the standard Lagrangian, which describes model “free” field component $\Phi(x,\mu)$ in the stable particle approximation ($m^2=\mu$).
From Eq.(\[A.2\]) and prescription $\partial\Phi(x,\mu)/\partial\Phi(x,\mu^{'})=\delta(\mu-\mu^{'})$ it follows the Klein-Gordon equation for the spectral component of the unstable field: $$\label{A.3}
(\square-\mu)\Phi_{\alpha}(x,\mu)=0.$$ As a result, we get the standard representation (\[A.1a\]) of the spectral component $\Phi_{\alpha}(x,\mu)$ with a fixed mass parameter $\mu$. All standard definitions, relations and frequency expansion take place for $\Phi_{\alpha}(k,\mu)$, however, the relation $k^0_{\mu}=\sqrt{{\bf k}^2+\mu}$ defines the smeared (fuzzy) mass-shell due to a random nature of the mass parameter $\mu$. In analogy with (\[A.3\]) one can get the Dirac equation $(i\hat{\partial}+\sqrt{\mu})\Psi(x,\mu)=0$ for fermion spectral component. The convolution (diagonal) representation of the “free” Lagrangian (\[A.2\]) has an assumption (or approximation?) that the states with different $\mu$ do not interact in the approximation of the model “free” fields.
The expressions (\[A.1\])–(\[A.3\]) define the model “free” unstable field as some effective field. As it was mentioned above, this field is formed by an interaction of “bare” UP with the vacuum fluctuations and decay products, that is includes the self-energy contribution. This interaction leads to the spreading (smearing) of mass, described by the function $\omega(\mu)$ or $\rho(\mu)=|\omega(\mu)|^2$. Thus, we go from the distribution $\rho^{st}(\mu)=\delta(\mu-M^2)$ for “bare” particles to some smooth density function $\rho(\mu)=|\omega(\mu)|^2$ with mean value $\bar{\mu}\approx M^2$ and mean square deviation $\sigma_{\mu}\approx \Gamma$. So, the UP is characterized by the weight function $\omega(\mu)$ or probability density $\rho(\mu)$ with parameters $M$ and $\Gamma$ (or real and imaginary parts of a pole).
The commutative relations for the model operators have an additional $\delta$-function: $$\label{A.4}
[\dot{\Phi}^{-}_{\alpha}({\bf k},\mu),\,\Phi^{+}_{\beta}({\bf q},\mu^{'})]_{\pm}
=\delta(\mu-\mu^{'}) \delta({\bf k}-{\bf q})\delta_{\alpha\beta},$$ where subscripts $\pm$ correspond to the fermion and boson fields. The presence of $\delta(\mu-\mu^{'})$ in Eq.(\[A.4\]) means an assumption - the acts of creation and annihilation of the particles with different $\mu$ (the random mass squared) do not interfere. Thus, the parameter $\mu$ has the status of physically distinguishable value of a random $m^2$. This assumption is naturally related with a diagonal form of Eqs.(\[A.2\]) and (\[A.3\]). By integrating both sides of Eq.(\[A.4\]) with weights $\omega^{*}(\mu)\omega(\mu^{'})$ one can get the standard commutative relations $$\label{A.5}
[\dot{\Phi}^-_{\alpha}({\bf k}),\Phi^+_\beta({\bf q})]_{\pm}=\delta({\bf k}-{\bf q})
\delta_{\alpha\beta}\,,$$ where $\Phi^{\pm}_{\alpha}({\bf k})$ is full operator field function in the momentum representation: $$\label{A.6}
\Phi^{\pm}_{\alpha}({\bf k})=\int\Phi^{\pm}_{\alpha}({\bf k},\mu)\omega(\mu)d\mu\,.$$
The amplitude for the transition $\Phi\rightarrow R\phi_1$, where $R$ is scalar UP with a large width, has the form $$\label{A.7}
A(k,\mu)=\omega(\mu)A^{st}(k,\mu)\,,$$ where $A^{st}(k,\mu)$ is the amplitude in a stable particle approximation. This amplitude is calculated in the standard way and can include the higher corrections. The differential (on ${\bf k}$) probability is $$\label{A.8}
d\Gamma(k)=\int d\Gamma^{st}(k,\mu)\rho(\mu)d\mu\,.$$ In Eq.(\[A.8\]) the differential probability $d\Gamma^{st}(k,\mu)$ is defined in the standard way (stable particle approximation): $$\label{A.9}
d\Gamma^{st}(k,\mu)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\delta(k_{\Phi}-k_{R}-k_1)|A^{st}
(k,\mu)|^2d{\bf k}_{\phi}d{\bf k}_1\,,$$ where $k=(k_{\Phi},k_{R},k_1)$ denotes the 4-momenta of particles. From Eqs.(\[A.8\]) and (\[A.9\]) it directly follows the well-known convolution formula (CF) for a decay rate $$\label{A.10}
\Gamma(m_{\Phi},m_1)=\int_{\mu_1}^{\mu_2}\Gamma^{st}(m_{\Phi},m_1;\mu)\rho(\mu)d\mu\,,$$ where $\rho(\mu)=|\omega(\mu)|^2$, $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ are the threshold and maximal invariant mass squared of an unstable particle. If there are two UP with large widths in a final state of decay $\Phi\rightarrow R_1 R_2$, then in analogy with the previous case one can get the double convolution formula: $$\label{A.11}
\Gamma(m_{\Phi})=\int\int\Gamma^{st}(m_{\Phi};\mu_1,\mu_2)\rho_1(\mu_1)\rho_2(\mu_2)d\mu_1
d\mu_2\,.$$ The derivation of CF for the cases, when there is a vector or spinor UP in the final state, can be done in analogy with the case of scalar UP. However, in Eqs.(\[A.7\]) and (\[A.9\]) one should take into account the polarization vector $e_m(q)$ or spinor $u^{\nu,\pm}_{\alpha}(q)$, where momentum $q$ is on fuzzy mass-shell. In this case, we derive the polarization matrixes in full analogy with standard derivation, but taking into consideration modified Klein-Gordan (\[A.3\]) and Dirac equations. As a result, we get the polarization matrix with $m^2=\mu$, that is on smeared mass-shell. In the case of vector UP in the final state we have: $$\label{A.12}
\sum_{e} e_m(q)e^{*}_n(q)=-g_{mn}+q_mq_n/\mu\,,$$ where $q^0_{\mu}=\sqrt{{\bf q}^2+\mu}$ and the summation over polarization is implied. In the case of spinor UP in the final state: $$\label{A.13}
\sum_{\nu} u^{\nu,\pm}_{\alpha}(q)\bar{u}^{\nu,\mp}_{\beta}(q)=\frac{1}{2q^0_{\mu}}
(\hat{q}\mp\sqrt{\mu})_{\alpha\beta}\,,$$ The same relations take place for the initial states, however one have to average over the polarizations.
Now, we consider the structure of the model propagators. With the help of the traditional method, one can get from Eqs.(\[A.1\]), (\[A.4\]) and (\[A.6\]) the expression for the unstable scalar Green function [@6]: $$\label{A.14}
\langle 0|T(\phi(x),\phi(y))|0\rangle\equiv D(x-y)=\int
D(x-y,\mu)\rho(\mu)d\mu\,.$$ In Eq.(\[A.14\]) $D(x,\mu)$ is a standard scalar Green function, which describes UP in an intermediate state with a fixed $m^2=\mu$: $$\label{A.15}
D(x,\mu)=\frac{i}{(2\pi)^4}\int\frac{e^{-ikx}}{k^2-\mu+i\epsilon}dk\,.$$ The right-hand side of Eq.(\[A.14\]) is the Lehmann-like spectral (on $\mu$) representation of the scalar Green function. Taking into account the relation between scalar and vector Green functions, we can get the Green function of the vector unstable field in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A.16}
D_{mn}(x,\mu)=&-(g_{mn}+\frac{1}{\mu}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial
x^n\partial x^m})D(x,\mu)\notag\\
=&\frac{-i}{(2\pi)^4}\int\frac{g_{mn}-k_m
k_n/\mu}{k^2-\mu+i\epsilon}e^{-ikx}dk\,.\end{aligned}$$ Analogously, the Green function of the spinor unstable field is $$\label{A.17}
\Hat{D}(x,\mu)=(i\hat{\partial}+\sqrt{\mu})D(x,\mu)=\frac{i}{(2\pi)^4}
\int\frac{\hat{k}+\sqrt{\mu}}{k^2-\mu+i\epsilon}e^{-ikx}dk\,,$$ where $\hat{k}=k_i\gamma^i$. These Green functions in momentum representation have a convolution form: $$\label{A.18}
D_{mn}(k)=-i\int \frac{g_{mn}-k_mk_n/\mu}{k^2-\mu+i\epsilon} \rho(\mu)d\mu\,,$$ and $$\label{A.19}
\hat{D}(k)=i\int \frac{\hat{k}+k}{k^2-\mu+i\epsilon} \rho(\mu)d\mu\,,$$ To construct the model propagators in explicit form we need to define the probability density $\rho(\mu)$. Here, we represent the definition of $\rho(\mu)$ from the matching the model propagators to the standard dressed ones [@6; @6a]. We associate the model propagator of scalar unstable field (\[A.14\], \[A.15\]) in a momentum representation with the standard dressed one: $$\label{A.20}
\int\frac{\rho(\mu)d\mu}{k^2-\mu+i\epsilon}\longleftrightarrow
\frac{1}{k^2-m^2_0-\Pi(k^2)}\,,$$ where $\Pi(k^2)$ is the conventional polarization operator ( or self-energy) of scalar field. With the help of the analytic continuation method it was shown in [@6], that the conformity (\[A.20\]) leads to the definition: $$\label{A.21}
\rho(\mu)=\frac{1}{\pi}\,\frac{Im\Pi(\mu)}{[\mu-m^2(\mu)]^2+[Im\Pi(\mu)]^2}\,,$$ where $m^2(\mu)=m^2_0+Re\Pi(k^2)$. The expression (\[A.21\]) for $\rho(k^2)$ in the Breit-Wigner approximation is usually exploited within the framework of the convolution method.
Inserting $\rho(\mu)$ into the model propagator (\[A.18\]) for vector unstable field leads to the result [@6a]: $$\label{A.22}
D_{mn}(k)=-i\frac{g_{mn}-k_m
k_n/k^2}{k^2-m^2(k^2)-iIm\Pi(k^2)}\,.$$ An analogous procedure with Eq.(\[A.19\]) and the change $Im\Pi(\mu)\to \sqrt{\mu}Im\Sigma(\mu)$ leads to the definition: $$\label{A.23}
\hat{D}(k)=i\frac{\hat{k}+k}{k^2-m^2(k^2)-ik\Sigma(k^2)}\,,$$ Eqs. (\[A.20\])– (\[A.23\]) establish the correspondence between the model under consideration and some effective theory of UP in the framework of traditional QFT approach. This effective theory has a close analogy with the traditional description of UP in the intermediate state as a special case of the approach discussed. The most important features of the effective theory, constructed in such a way, are the factorization and convolution effects (see Section 2 and Appendix B). These effects arise due to the specific structure of the propagator’s numerators $\eta_{\mu\nu}(k)=g_{mn}-k_m k_n/k^2$ and $\hat{\eta}(k)=\hat{k}+k$ ($M\to k$, smearing of the mass-shell).
Appendix 2
==========
In this section, we consider convenient and simple method of calculation of three-particle decay rate and two-particle cross-section. This method is based on the model of UP with a smeared mass, where the expressions for polarization matrixes (\[A.12\]), (\[A.13\]) and propagators (\[A.20\])–(\[A.23\]) are constructed. The vertexes are defined by the Lagrangian in the simplest standard form: $$\begin{aligned}
L_k=&g\phi\phi_1\phi_2;\,\,\,g\phi\bar{\psi}_1 \psi_2;\,\,\,g\phi
V_{1\mu}V^{\mu}_2;\,\,\,gV_{\mu}(\phi_1^{,\mu}\phi_2-\phi_2^{,\mu}\phi_1);\,\,\,
gV_{\mu}\bar{\psi}_1\gamma^{\mu}(c_V+c_A\gamma_5)\psi_2;\notag\\&gV_{1\mu}V_{2\nu}V_{\alpha}
[g^{\mu\nu}(p_2-p_1)^{\alpha}+g^{\mu\alpha}(2p_1+p_2)^{\nu}-g^{\nu\alpha}(p_1+2p_2)^{\mu}].
\label{B.1}\end{aligned}$$ In the expressions (\[B.1\]) $\phi, V$ and $\psi$ are the scalar, vector and spinor fields, respectively, $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the momenta of particles. It is convenient to employ the universal expressions for widths $\Gamma(R\rightarrow ab)$ or $\Gamma(a\rightarrow Rb)$ in a stable particle approximation: $$\Gamma_i(R\rightarrow
ab)=\frac{g^2}{8\pi}\bar{\lambda}(m_a,m_b;m_R)f_i(m_a,m_b;m_R),
\label{B.2}$$ where $m_R^2=q^2=(p_1+p_2)^2$ and: $$\bar{\lambda}(m_a,m_b;m_R)=[1-2\frac{m^2_a+m^2_b}{m^2_R}+\frac{(m^2_a-m^2_b)^2}{m^4_R}]^{1/2}.
\label{B.3}$$ The same expressions and relations are in order for the width $\Gamma(a\rightarrow Rb)$. The functions $f_i(m_a,m_b;m_R)$ are defined by the corresponding vertexes. If these vertexes are described by Eqs.(\[B.1\]), then the functions $f_i$ (further we omit the arguments) in tree approximation are defined by the following expressions: $$\begin{aligned}
&\phi\rightarrow
\phi_1\phi_2,\,\,f_1=\frac{1}{2m_{\phi}};\,\,\,\,\phi\rightarrow V_1V_2,\,\,
f_2=\frac{1}{m_{\phi}}[1+\frac{(m^2_{\phi}-m^2_1-m^2_2)^2}{8m^2_1m^2_2}];\notag\\
&\phi\rightarrow
\bar{\psi}_1\psi_2,\,\,f_3=m_{\phi}[1-\frac{(m_1+m_2)^2}{m^2_{\phi}}];\,\,\,
\phi\rightarrow\phi_1V,\,\,f_4=\frac{m^3_{\phi}}{2m^2_V}\bar{\lambda}^2(m_1,m_V;m_{\phi});\notag\\
&V\rightarrow\phi_1\phi_2,\,\,f_5=\frac{m_V}{6}\bar{\lambda}^2(m_1,m_2;m_V);\,\,\,\,
V\rightarrow V_1\phi,\,\,f_6=\frac{1}{3m_V}[1+\notag\\ &\,\,\,+\frac{(m^2_V+m^2_1-m^2_{\phi})^2}{8m^2_Vm^2_1}];\notag\\
&V\rightarrow\bar{\psi}_1\psi_2,\,\,f_7=\frac{2}{3}m_V\{c_{+}[1-\frac{m^2_1+m^2_2}{2m^2_V}-
\frac{(m^2_1+m^2_2)^2}{2m^4_V}]+3c_{-}\frac{m_1m_2}{m^2_V}\};\notag\\
&V\rightarrow V_1V_2,\,\,f_8=\frac{m^5_V}{24m^2_1m^2_2}[1+8(\mu_1+\mu_2)-2(9\mu^2_1+16\mu_1\mu_2+9\mu^2_2)+
8(\mu^3_1-\notag\\ &4\mu^2_1\mu_2
-4\mu_1\mu^2_2+\mu^3_2)+\mu^4_1+8\mu^3_1\mu_2-18\mu^2_1\mu^2_2+
8\mu_1\mu^3_2+\mu^4_2],\,\,\mu_{1,2}=m^2_{1,2}/m^2_V;\notag\\
&\psi\rightarrow
\phi\psi_1,\,\,f_9=\frac{m_{\psi}}{2}(1+2\frac{m_1}{m_{\psi}}+\frac{m^2_1-m^2_{\phi}}{m^2_{\psi}});\notag\\
&\psi\rightarrow
V\psi_1,\,\,f_{10}=m_{\psi}\{c_{+}[\frac{(m^2_{\psi}-m^2_1)^2}{2m^2_{\psi}m^2_V}+\frac{m^2_{\psi}+m^2_1
-2m^2_V}{2m^2_{\psi}}]-3c_{-}\frac{m_1}{m_{\psi}}\};\notag\\
&c_{+}=c^2_V+c^2_A,\,\,\,c_{-}+c^2_V-c^2_A\,.
\label{B.4}\end{aligned}$$
Using the expressions (\[B.1\])–(\[B.4\]) we can represent $\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3)$, that is the width of the process $\Phi\to \phi_1 R\to \phi_1 \phi_2 \phi_3$, in a compact and universal form for all types of decay channels. Here we shortly describe the method of calculation the width $\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3)$. This value always can be written as: $$\label{B.5}
\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3)=\frac{k}{p^0}\int J(\vert M(k_i,m_i)\vert^2)\frac{d{\bf k}_1}{k^0_1}\,,$$ where $M(k_i,m_i)$ is an amplitude, $p$ and $k_i$ are momentum of $\Phi$ and $\phi_i$, $k$ is some numerical factor, and $$\label{B.6}
J(\vert M\vert^2)=\int \vert M\vert^2\delta(p-k_1-k_2-k_3)\frac{d{\bf k}_2d{\bf k}_3}
{k^0_2k^0_3}.$$ The integral $J(\vert M\vert^2)$ is easily calculated in ${\bf q}={\bf k}_2+{\bf k}_3=0$ frame of reference. As a result, we have the non-covariant expression $$\label{B.7}
J(\vert M\vert^2)\,\longrightarrow\,f(q^0,q^0 p^0,q^0 k^0_3,{\bf p}^2,...).$$ This expression can be always reconstructed to covariant form by the transition (we use ${\bf q}=0$): $$\label{B.8}
q^0\rightarrow q=\sqrt{(qq)},\,q^0p^0\rightarrow (qp),\,q^0k^0_1\rightarrow (qk_1),\,
\bar{p}^2=(p^0)^2-m^2\rightarrow (pq)^2/q^2-m^2,...$$ Then we pass to the ${\bf p}=0$ frame of reference and change the variable in Eq. (\[B.5\]) according to $$\label{B.9}
\frac{d{\bf k}_1}{k^0_1}=-\frac{1}{2m}|{\bf k}_1| dq^2 d\Omega=-\frac{1}{4}
\tilde{\lambda}(q,m_1;m)dq^2d\Omega.$$
Using this simple method and expressions for the propagators (\[A.22\]), (\[A.23\]), we have got by tedious but straightforward calculations the general expression for $\Gamma(\Phi\to\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3)=\Gamma(\Phi\to\phi_1 R\to\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3)$, where $\Phi, R$ and $\phi_k$ are particles of all possible type: $$\label{B.10}
\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1\phi_i\phi_k)=\frac{g^2_1g^2_2}{2^6\pi^3}
\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}\tilde{\lambda}(q,m_1;m)f_{\alpha}(q,m_1;m)\tilde{\lambda}
(m_i,m_k;q)f_{\beta}(m_i,m_k;q)\frac{qdq^2}
{\vert P_{R}(q)\vert^2}\,,$$ where $q_1=m_i+m_k$ and $q_2=m-m_1$. From Eqs. (\[B.10\]) and (\[B.2\]) it follows: $$\label{B.11}
\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}(\Phi\rightarrow \phi_1\phi_i\phi_k)=\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}
\Gamma_{\alpha}(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1 R(q))\frac{q\Gamma_{\beta}(R(q)
\rightarrow\phi_i \phi_k)}{\pi\vert P_{R}(q)\vert^2}\,dq^2\,,$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ denote the type of decay in (\[B.2\])–(\[B.4\]). In the approximation $$\label{B.12}
\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1 R)=\sum_{i,k}\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1\phi_i
\phi_k)$$ we get the well-known convolution formula $$\label{B.13}
\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1 R)=\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow
\phi_1 R(q))\rho_{R}(q)dq^2\,,$$ where $$\label{B.14}
\rho_{R}(q)=\frac{q}{\pi\vert P_{R}(q)\vert^2}\sum_{i,k}\Gamma(R(q)\rightarrow \phi_i\phi_k).$$ The same result can be received for many-particle decay channels of UP $\Phi\rightarrow
\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3\phi_4...$. For example, let us consider the decay chain $\Phi
\rightarrow\phi_1 R\rightarrow\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3\phi_4$, where $\phi_k$ are the scalar fields. Then for the simplest contact interaction we have: $$\label{B.15}
\Gamma_{\Phi}=\frac{g^2_1g^2_2}{2^{13}\pi^8 p^0}\int\frac{d{\bf k}_1}
{k^0_1\vert P_{R}(q)\vert^2}\int\int\int\delta(q-k_2-k_3-k_4)\frac
{d{\bf k}_2d{\bf k}_3d{\bf k}_4}{k^0_2k^0_3k^0_4}\,,$$ where $q=p-k_1$. The width of the intermediate decay is $$\label{B.16}
\Gamma_{R}(q)\equiv \Gamma(R(q)\rightarrow\phi_1\phi_2\phi_3)=
\frac{g^2_2}{2^9\pi^5q^0}\int\int\int\delta(q-k_2-k_3-k_4)\frac
{d{\bf k}_2d{\bf k}_3d{\bf k}_4}{k^0_2k^0_3k^0_4}\,.$$ From Eqs. (\[B.15\]), (\[B.16\]) with the help of (\[B.2\]) and (\[B.9\]) we get: $$\label{B.17}
\Gamma_{\Phi}=\int_{q^2_1}^{q^2_2}dq^2\Gamma_{\Phi}(q)\frac{q\Gamma_{R}(q)}
{\pi\vert P_{R}(q)\vert^2}\,,$$ where $\Gamma_{\Phi}(q)\equiv\Gamma(\Phi\rightarrow\phi_1 R(q))$. Thus we have illustrated the validity of factorization in the case of scalar UP. Using the factorable $\vert M\vert^2$, we can get the result (\[B.17\]) by direct calculations for others types of particles $\phi_k$. It should be noted that the factored (\[B.11\]) and convolution (\[B.13\]) structures are valid for any choice of $P_{R}(q)$.
Now,we consider inelastic scattering of type $ab\rightarrow R\rightarrow cd$, where $R$ is the UP with a large width in $s$-channel and $a, b, c, d$ are stable (quasi-stable) particles of any kind. The vertexes are defined by the same Lagrangian (\[B.1\]). In the further calculations it is convenient to employ the relations, which take place in the center-of-mass system: $$\begin{aligned}
&p^0_1=\frac{1}{2}q[1+\frac{m^2_a-m^2_b}{q^2}],\,\,\,
p^0_2=\frac{1}{2}q[1+\frac{m^2_b-m^2_a}{q^2}],\notag\\
&(p_1q)=\frac{1}{2}(q^2+m^2_a-m^2_b),\,\,\,
(p_2q)=\frac{1}{2}(q^2+m^2_b-m^2_a),\notag\\
&(p_1p_2)=\frac{1}{2}(q^2-m^2_a-m^2_b),\,\,\,|{\bf p}_1|=|{\bf p}_2|=
\frac{1}{2}q\bar{\lambda}(m_a,m_b;q),
\label{B.18}
\end{aligned}$$ where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are the momenta of the particles $a$ and $b$. The analogous relations occur for the momenta $k_1$ and $k_2$ of the particles $c$ and $d$. In Eqs.(\[B.18\]) the symbol $q$ has different meanings in the expressions $(p_1 q)$, $q=p_1+p_2$ (q is 4-momentum) and in the expression $q[1+f(q)]$, where $q=\sqrt{(q\cdot q)}$ is a number.
With the help of the relations (\[B.1\])-(\[B.4\]), (\[B.18\]) and using above discussed expressions for propagators, we have got by tedious but straightforward calculations the universal factorized cross-section for all permissible combinations of particles $(a,b,R,c,d)$: $$\sigma(ab\rightarrow R\rightarrow cd)=\frac{16\pi (2J_R+1)}
{(2J_a+1)(2J_b+1)(2J_R+1)\bar{\lambda}^2(m_a,m_b;\sqrt{s})}
\frac{\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)\Gamma^{cd}_R(s)}{|P_R(s)|^2}.
\label{B.19}$$ In Eq.(\[B.19\]) $J_k$ is spin of the particle ($k=a,b,R$), $s=(p_1+p_2)^2$, $\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)=\Gamma(R(s)\rightarrow ab)$ and $P_R(s)$ is propagator’s denominator of the UP or resonance $R$. The expressions for $\Gamma^{ab}_R(s)$ and $\Gamma^{cd}_R(s)$ follow from Eqs.(\[B.2\])-(\[B.4\]), when squared mass of UP is $m^2_R=q^2=s$. The factorization of cross-section does not depend on the definition of $P_R(s)$, which can be determined in a phenomenological way, in Breit-Wigner or pole form , etc. The expression (\[B.19\]) is a natural generalization of the spin-averaged Breit-Wigner (non-relativistic) cross-section, defined by the expression (37.51) in Ref.[@11]. Note that the factorization is exact in our approach, while in the traditional one it occurs as an approximation.
[00]{} J. D. Jackson, Nuovo Cimento [**34**]{}, 1544 (1964). J. Pisut, M. Roos, Nucl. Phys. B [**6**]{}, 325 (1964) . P. Lichard, Acta Phys. Slov. [**49**]{}, 215 (1999); hep-ph/9811493. D. Bardin and G. Passarino, The Standard Model in the Making, (Oxford University Press, 1999). D. Berdine, N. Kauer and D. Rainwater, hep-ph/0703058. V. I. Kuksa, in Proc. of the 17 Int. Workshop, Samara-Saratov, Russia, 4-11 September 2003, eds. M. Dubinin and V. Savrin (Skobetsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moskow State University, 2004) p.350; hep-ph/0612064. V. I. Kuksa, hep-ph/0612064 (accepted to IJMPA). V. I. Kuksa, Phys. Lett. B [**633**]{}, 545 (2006); hep-ph/0508164. V. I. Kuksa, hep-ph/0706.0311 (accepted to IJMPA). B. L. G. Bakker, I. M. Narodetsky, Yu. A. Simonov, Lett. Nuvo Cimento, [**19**]{}, 265 (1977). Yu. A. Simonov, Usp. Fiz. Nauk, [**136**]{}, 216 (1982). G. Altarelli, L. Conti, V. Lubicz, Phys. Lett. B [**502**]{}, 125 (2001). S. Bar-Shalom, G. Eilam, M. Frank and I. Turan, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 055018 (2005); hep-ph/0506167. K. Hagivara et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 010001-251 (2002). R. Kumar, Phys. Rev. [**185**]{}, 1865 (1969). D. Lehner, hep-ph/9512301. W. Beenaker and F. A. Berends, hep-ph/9602351 (To appear in “Physics at LEP2”). V. I. Kuksa, R. S. Pasechnik, hep-ph/0802.4261 (accepted to IJMPA). A. N. Kamal and R. C. Verma, Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 982 (1992). T. Uppal and R. C. Verma, Z. Phys. C [**56**]{}, 273 (1992). T. Uppal and R. C. Verma, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 2982 (1992). H. Kaur and M. P. Khanna, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**26**]{}, 387 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Deep neural networks are composed of layers of parametrised linear operations intertwined with non linear activations. In basic models, such as the multi-layer perceptron, a linear layer operates on a simple input vector embedding of the instance being processed, and produces an output vector embedding by straight multiplication by a matrix parameter. In more complex models, the input and output are structured and their embeddings are higher order tensors. The parameter of each linear operation must then be controlled so as not to explode with the complexity of the structures involved. This is essentially the role of convolution models, which exist in many flavours dependent on the type of structure they deal with (grids, networks, time series etc.). We present here a unified framework which aims at capturing the essence of these diverse models, allowing a systematic analysis of their properties and their mutual enrichment. We also show that attention models naturally fit in the same framework: attention is convolution in which the structure itself is adaptive, and learnt, instead of being given a priori.'
author:
- |
Jean-Marc Andreoli[^1]\
NAVER LABS Europe, Grenoble, France\
[http://www.europe.naverlabs.com]{}
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
date: 'April 2019, last modified March 2020'
title: '[Convolution, attention and structure embedding]{}'
---
A generic framework for convolution on arbitrary structures
===========================================================
Convolution is a powerful operator, which is widely used in deep neural networks in many different flavours: [@lecun_convolutional_1998; @lecun_convolutional_2010; @ian_goodfellow_deep_2016; @dumoulin_guide_2016; @kipf_semi-supervised_2016; @shi_convolutional_2015; @mallat_understanding_2016]. It allows to express in a compact form operations on a structured bundle of similarly shaped data instances (embeddings of nodes in a network, of instants in a time series, of pixels in an image, etc.) taking into account some known structural dependencies between them (edges between nodes, or temporal relations between instants, or positional relations between pixels). In spite of their apparent diversity, these structures can be formalised as [*families*]{} of weighted graphs, where each graph in a family captures one aspect of the structure. We develop a generic model of convolution over such structures.
Some useful properties of tensors {#sec:tensors}
---------------------------------
A tensor is characterised by its shape $S{=}{\langle{S_1\cdots S_{|S|}}\rangle}$, which is a sequence of integers, its index set which is the cartesian product $\bar{S}\triangleq\prod_{i=1:|S|}\{1\cdots S_i\}$ of cardinality $|\bar{S}|{=}\prod_{i=1:|S|}S_i$, and its value which is a mapping from its index set into the set of scalars. By construction, the space of tensors of a given shape $S$ is of dimension $|\bar{S}|$. If $S$ and $T$ are shapes, we let $ST$ denote their concatenation. The following common operations on tensors are recalled here (the notation $a{:}S$ stands for “tensor $a$ of shape $S$”): $${\setlength{\extrarowheight}{2pt}
\begin{array}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
& \textrm{operands} & \textrm{result} & \textrm{definition} \\
\hline
\textrm{\em slicing} & a:ST\hspace{.3cm}s\in\bar{S} & a_s:T &
(a_s)_t \triangleq a_{st}\\
\hline
\textrm{\em flattening} &
a:ST\hspace{.3cm}\omega:\bar{S}\mapsto\{1\cdots K\}\textrm{ \small bijective, hence }K=|\bar{S}|&
a^{[\omega]}:{\langle{K}\rangle}T &
a^{[\omega]}_{{\langle{k}\rangle}t} \triangleq a_{(\omega^{-1}k)t}\\
\hline
\textrm{\em outer product} & a:S\hspace{.3cm}b:T & a\otimes b:ST &
(a\otimes b)_{st} \triangleq a_sb_t\\
\hline
\end{array}}$$ In the case of flattening, when $T$ is of length $1$ (resp. $0$), then $\boldsymbol{a}^{[\omega]}$ is a matrix (resp. a vector) and flattening is then called [*matricisation*]{} (resp. [*vectorisation*]{}) [@rabanser_introduction_2017]. A common choice for $\omega$ is the [*canonical bijection*]{} [@rabanser_introduction_2017] $\omega_S$ defined for each $s{\in}\bar{S}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_S(s) & {\hspace{.2cm}{\triangleq}\hspace{.2cm}} 1+{\sum}_{i=1:|S|}(s_i-1){\prod}_{j=i+1:|S|}S_j\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, we also make use of a less common operation on tensors, called here the [*mixed*]{} product: if $K$ is an integer and $\boldsymbol{a},\boldsymbol{b}$ are tensors of shape ${\langle{K}\rangle}S$ and ${\langle{K}\rangle}T$, respectively, their mixed product denoted $\boldsymbol{a}\circ\boldsymbol{b}$ is a tensor of shape $ST$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mixed-product}
\boldsymbol{a}\circ\boldsymbol{b} & {\hspace{.2cm}{\triangleq}\hspace{.2cm}} {\sum}_k\boldsymbol{a}_k\otimes\boldsymbol{b}_k\end{aligned}$$ Operator $\circ$ combines features of both the inner and outer products. It can be seen as a partially factorised form for tensors. Full tensor factorisation, according to the CanDecomp scheme [@rabanser_introduction_2017], corresponds to the case where each $\boldsymbol{a}_k$ and each $\boldsymbol{b}_k$ is itself of rank $1$, i.e. decomposed into an outer product of $|S|$ and $|T|$ [*vectors*]{}, respectively. The rank of the resulting factorised form is, in that case, bounded by $K$, a fact which is exploited by many low rank approximation schemes. But even in its partial form, the factorisation of Equation [ ]{} satisfies a rank constraint, which can also be used to model low-rank approximations of arbitrary tensors: $$\operatorname{rank}(\boldsymbol{a}\circ\boldsymbol{b})\leq{\sum}_k\operatorname{rank}(\boldsymbol{a}_k)\operatorname{rank}(\boldsymbol{b}_k)$$
\[prop:inversion\] Let $S,T$ be arbitrary shapes and $K$ an integer. Let $\boldsymbol{a}$ be a tensor of shape ${\langle{K}\rangle}S$ such that the family $(\boldsymbol{a}_k)_{k=1:K}$ be a basis of the space of tensors of shape $S$ (hence $K{=}|\bar{S}|$). Then for any tensor $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ of shape $ST$ there exists a unique tensor $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ of shape ${\langle{K}\rangle}T$ such that $\boldsymbol{\Phi}=\boldsymbol{a}\circ\boldsymbol{\Theta}$.
Observe that $\boldsymbol{\Theta}\mapsto\boldsymbol{a}\circ\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ is a linear mapping from the space of tensors of shape ${\langle{K}\rangle}T$ into the space of tensors of shape $ST$. The assumption ($\boldsymbol{a}$ is a basis) implies that it is injective, and since the two spaces have the same dimension, the mapping is an isomorphism.
The expression $\sum_k\boldsymbol{a}_k{\otimes}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k$ is formally similar to a linear combination of the basis tensors $(\boldsymbol{a}_k)_{k=1:K}$, except that the coefficients $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k$ are tensors and scalar multiplication is replaced by tensor product. In the special case where $S$ and $T$ are both of length $1$, then $\boldsymbol{\Phi},\boldsymbol{a}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ are all matrices, and Proposition \[prop:inversion\] states that, if $\boldsymbol{a}$ is invertible, any matrix $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ can be factorised as $\boldsymbol{\Phi}{=}\boldsymbol{a}^\top\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ in a unique way. This is indeed straightforward, and $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ has, in that case, a simple form: $\boldsymbol{\Theta}{=}\boldsymbol{a}^{-1\top}\boldsymbol{\Phi}$. The general case of arbitrary $S,T$ can be derived from that special case by first flattening the tensors involved into matrices, then using the special case to state the property on those matrices, and finally reformulating it in the original tensor space by “un-flattening”. In other words, Proposition \[prop:inversion\] is nothing but an “un-flattened” form of matrix inversion.
Convolutions as factorised linear transforms
--------------------------------------------
In a convolution layer, the input does not consist of a simple embedding vector, as in a standard linear layer. Instead, it is a matrix $\boldsymbol{x}$ of shape ${\langle{M,P}\rangle}$, representing a bundle of $M$ entries encoded as vectors of shape ${\langle{P}\rangle}$. Similarly, the output $\boldsymbol{y}$ is a matrix of shape ${\langle{N,Q}\rangle}$ ($N$ entries encoded with shape ${\langle{Q}\rangle}$). For example, in image convolutions, $M,P$ are the number of pixels and channels, respectively, of the input image, while $N,Q$ are those of the output image. More generally $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $\boldsymbol{y}$ could be tensors — e.g. images are usually thought of as ternary tensors — but a tensor can always be flattened into a matrix, or even a vector (see Section \[sec:tensors\]). Matricisation, rather than full vectorisation, is used here in order to keep separate the uncontrolled, structural dimensions (width and height in images, of size $M$ in input and $N$ in output) from the controlled ones (channels, of size $P$ in input and $Q$ in output). By analogy with a simple linear layer, the most general form of a convolution layer is an arbitrary linear transform, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:linear}
\boldsymbol{y}_{nq} & {\hspace{.2cm}{=}\hspace{.2cm}} {\sum}_{mp}\boldsymbol{x}_{mp}\boldsymbol{\Phi}_{mnpq}\end{aligned}$$ Tensor $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$, of shape ${\langle{M,N,P,Q}\rangle}$, induces (linear) dependencies between each component of each input entry in $\boldsymbol{x}$ and each component of each output entry in $\boldsymbol{y}$. Using an arbitrary $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ directly as parameter of the convolution is not satisfactory. First, its shape depends on the numbers $M,N$ of input and output entries: $M,N$ may vary for different instances of the data, or may be too large to be involved in the size of a parameter[^2]. Furthermore, in Equation [ ]{}, the structural dependencies between the $M$ input and $N$ output entries are not captured.
We propose to capture this structure as a tensor $\boldsymbol{A}$ of shape ${\langle{K,M,N}\rangle}$, for some integer $K$, and to constrain $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ to be in the partially factorised, low rank form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:factorisation}
\boldsymbol{\Phi} & {\hspace{.2cm}{=}\hspace{.2cm}} \boldsymbol{A}\circ\boldsymbol{\Theta}
\hspace{.5cm}\left(={\sum}_k\boldsymbol{A}_k\otimes\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ is a tensor of shape ${\langle{K,P,Q}\rangle}$. Integer $K$ is assumed to be a hyper-parameter controlled by the model, so $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ has a fully controlled shape and is chosen as parameter of the convolution. Tensor $\boldsymbol{A}$ on the other hand characterises the structure underlying the convolution, and can be viewed as a family $(\boldsymbol{A}_k)_{k=1:K}$ of matrices (weighted graphs between input and output entries). The variety of existing convolution mechanisms derives from various choices for $K$ and $\boldsymbol{A}$ (called resp. the [*size*]{} and [*basis*]{} of the convolution), which obey different intuitions in different domains. Examples are given below. But in general, combining Equations [ ]{} and [ ]{} together, we obtain a formula for convolution over arbitrary structures:
A [*convolution*]{} of basis $\boldsymbol{A}$, a tensor of shape ${\langle{K,M,N}\rangle}$, and parameter $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, a tensor of shape ${\langle{K,P,Q}\rangle}$, is a linear transform which maps a bundle of inputs $\boldsymbol{x}$ represented as a matrix of shape ${\langle{M,P}\rangle}$, into a bundle of outputs $\boldsymbol{y}$ represented as a matrix of shape ${\langle{N,Q}\rangle}$, according to the rule $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:convolution}
\boldsymbol{y} & {\hspace{.2cm}{=}\hspace{.2cm}} {\sum}_k\boldsymbol{A}_k^\top\boldsymbol{x}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k\end{aligned}$$
Note that our model of structural dependencies is flexible. If $(\boldsymbol{A}_k)_{k=1:K}$ is taken to be a basis of the whole space of matrices of shape ${\langle{M,N}\rangle}$, then by Proposition \[prop:inversion\] any $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ can be written as $\boldsymbol{A}\circ\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, and the resulting class of convolutions is the class of arbitrary linear transforms. But of course, this assumes $K{=}MN$, which is uncontrolled. At the other end of the spectrum, if $K{=}1$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_1$ is the identity matrix, the input entries are processed identically and fully independently, leading to a degenerate class of convolutions also known in the image domain as $1{\times}1$ convolutions. In fact, Equation [ ]{} can be viewed as a truncated, low-rank version of the factorisation of $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ defined by Proposition \[prop:inversion\] where family $(\boldsymbol{A}_k)_{k=1:K}$ is seen as a subset of a basis (of the whole space of matrices of shape ${\langle{M,N}\rangle}$), of which the other members are ignored. $(\boldsymbol{A}_k)_{k=1:K}$ act as “principal components”.
\[prop:stack\] Given two convolutions of size $K',K''$, basis $\boldsymbol{A}',\boldsymbol{A}''$, parameter $\boldsymbol{\Theta}',\boldsymbol{\Theta}''$, respectively, their composition, when the dimensions match (i.e. ${\langle{N',Q'}\rangle}{=}{\langle{M'',P''}\rangle}$), is a convolution of size $K$, basis $\boldsymbol{A}$, parameter $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ where $$K = K'K''
\hspace{1cm}
\boldsymbol{A}_{\omega(k',k'')} = \boldsymbol{A}'_{k'}\boldsymbol{A}''_{k''}
\hspace{1cm}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\omega(k',k'')} = \boldsymbol{\Theta}'_{k'}\boldsymbol{\Theta}''_{k''}$$ and $\omega$ is a bijective mapping $\{1{\cdots}K'\}{\times}\{1{\cdots}K''\}{\mapsto}\{1{\cdots}K\}$, e.g. the canonical bijection $\omega_{{\langle{K',K''}\rangle}}$.
Simple application of Equation [ ]{}.
(bnq) at (0,0) [$bnq$]{}; (kmn) at (0,3) [$kmn$]{}; (bmp) at ([-3\*sqrt(3)/2]{},-1.5) [$bmp$]{}; (kpq) at ([3\*sqrt(3)/2]{},-1.5) [$kpq$]{}; (bknp) at ($(bmp)!.5!(kmn)$) [$bknp$]{}; (mnpq) at ($(kmn)!.5!(kpq)$) [$mnpq$]{}; (bkmq) at ($(bmp)!.5!(kpq)$) [$bkmq$]{}; (bmp) – (bknp); (kmn) – (bknp); (kpq) – (bnq); (bknp) – (bnq); (kmn) – (mnpq); (kpq) – (mnpq); (bmp) – (bnq); (mnpq) – (bnq); (bmp) – (bkmq); (kpq) – (bkmq); (kmn) – (bnq); (bkmq) – (bnq);
Parameter dimension reduction
-----------------------------
Parameter $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, of shape ${\langle{K,P,Q}\rangle}$, although controlled, may still be too large and it may be useful to constrain it further. A number of techniques have been proposed to achieve this, in particular:
- Grouped convolutions [@krizhevsky_imagenet_2012] constrain each $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k$ to be a block diagonal matrix of shape ${\langle{P,Q}\rangle}$. If $\nu$ is the number of blocks, which must be a divisor of both $P$ and $Q$, each block is of shape ${\langle{\frac{P}{\nu},\frac{Q}{\nu}}\rangle}$, of size $\frac{PQ}{\nu^2}$, so the total parameter size is $\frac{KPQ}{\nu}$ instead of $KPQ$. Furthermore, in the implementation of the convolution operator, the blocks can be processed in parallel.
- Depth-wise separable convolutions [@chollet_xception:_2016] constrain $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ to satisfy $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{kpq}{=}\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\textrm{(1)}}_{kp}\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\textrm{(2)}}_{pq}$ where $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\textrm{(1)}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{\textrm{(2)}}$ are matrices of shape ${\langle{K,P}\rangle}$ and ${\langle{P,Q}\rangle}$, respectively. The total parameter size is therefore $KP{+}PQ$ instead of $KPQ$.
We propose here another model, called “controlled separability”, which constrains $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ to be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:separable}
\boldsymbol{\Theta} & {\hspace{.2cm}{=}\hspace{.2cm}} \boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{basis})}\circ\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{channel})}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{basis})}$ is a matrix of shape ${\langle{H,K}\rangle}$ (for some integer $H$) and $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{channel})}$ a tensor of shape ${\langle{H,P,Q}\rangle}$. It allows to decouple the number $K$ of basis matrices from the number $H$ of parameter matrices of shape ${\langle{P,Q}\rangle}$. The total parameter size is therefore $H(K{+}PQ)$ instead of $KPQ$, which is useful only if $H{<}K{\ll}PQ$. In normal convolutions, doubling $K$ mechanically doubles the size of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$. With controlled separability, $H$ can be kept unchanged, so the size of $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{channel})}$ remains the same, while only doubling the size of the much smaller $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{basis})}$. Equation [ ]{} becomes $$\boldsymbol{\Phi} = {\sum}_{hk}\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{basis})}_{hk}\boldsymbol{A}_k\otimes\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{channel})}_h$$ which expresses a partial version of the Tucker factorisation scheme [@rabanser_introduction_2017] rather than the CanDecomp scheme captured by Equation [ ]{}. Controlled separability can also be combined with the other forms of dimension reduction cited above, by simply applying them to $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{channel})}$ rather than $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ directly. Yet another form is discussed in Section \[sec:transformer\].
A note on the computation of convolutions
-----------------------------------------
In practice, the input and output entries are usually batched. Batched input $\boldsymbol{X}$ and output $\boldsymbol{Y}$ are given by tensors of shape ${\langle{B,M,P}\rangle}$ and ${\langle{B,N,Q}\rangle}$, respectively, where $B$ is the batch size. Figure \[fig:computing\] shows the three alternatives to compute $\boldsymbol{Y}$ (at the centre of the triangle) as a function of $\boldsymbol{A},\boldsymbol{X},\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ (on the vertices of the triangle), according to the convolution formula of Equation [ ]{} extended to batches: $$\boldsymbol{Y}_b = {\sum}_k\boldsymbol{A}_k^\top\boldsymbol{X}_b\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k$$ Which of these alternatives should be used essentially depends on the respective dimensions $M,P,N,Q,B,K$. In any case, operations involving the basis tensor $\boldsymbol{A}$ may require a specific treatment, since it is usually very sparse, and sometimes possesses a regularity which can be exploited for optimal computation, as in the case of the “shift matrices” of grid convolution (Figure \[fig:grid-shift\]).
Some examples
=============
Grid convolutions {#sec:grid}
-----------------
[c@c]{}
[c]{}
iin [1,...,10]{} [ at (i,0) [$\bullet$]{}; ]{} iin [1,2,5,6]{} [ let =[i+2]{} in (i,0) to\[bend right=90\] (,0); ]{} iin [3,4,7,8]{} [ let =[i+2]{} in (i,0) to\[bend left=90\] (,0); ]{}
\
![\[fig:grid-shift\]Shift matrices constitute the basis of grid convolutions. Left: shift by $2$ in a 1-D grid of dimension $10$; Right: shift by $(2,4)$ in a 2-D grid of dimensions $8{\times}10$ (flattened by the canonical mapping into the sequence $1{:}80$).](grid1 "fig:")
&
[c@c]{}
iin [1,...,8]{} [ in [1,...,10]{} [ at (,i) [$\bullet$]{}; ]{} ]{} iin [3,...,8]{} [ in [1,...,6]{} [ let =[i-2]{},=[+4]{} in (,i) to\[bend right=65\] (,); ]{} ]{} at (1.3,1.2) [$71$]{}; at (9.7,1.2) [$80$]{}; at (1.3,7.8) [$1$]{}; at (9.7,7.8) [$10$]{};
& ![\[fig:grid-shift\]Shift matrices constitute the basis of grid convolutions. Left: shift by $2$ in a 1-D grid of dimension $10$; Right: shift by $(2,4)$ in a 2-D grid of dimensions $8{\times}10$ (flattened by the canonical mapping into the sequence $1{:}80$).](grid2 "fig:")
A grid is the index set $\bar{S}$ associated with a given sequence of integers $S$. In the case of images, the archetypal grids, $S$ is the sequence ${\langle{\textrm{width},\textrm{height}}\rangle}$ of length $|S|{=}2$. We assume given some bijective mapping $\omega{:}\bar{S}{\mapsto}\{1\cdots N\}$ where $N{=}|\bar{S}|$, for example the canonical mapping $\omega_S$ (see Section \[sec:tensors\]). In this way, an embedding of the whole grid, which would naturally be represented by a tensor of shape $S{\langle{L}\rangle}$ where each node in the grid is encoded as a vector of shape ${\langle{L}\rangle}$, can be matricised (see Section \[sec:tensors\]) into a matrix of shape ${\langle{N,L}\rangle}$ as used in our model. Let’s first consider convolutions which preserve the grid, hence $M{=}N$.
For each integer valued vector $\boldsymbol{d}{\in}\mathbb{Z}^{|S|}$, we define the [*shift matrix*]{} $\mathcal{A}_{\boldsymbol{d}}$ of shape ${\langle{N,N}\rangle}$ by $$(\mathcal{A}_{\boldsymbol{d}})_{mn} \triangleq \mathbb{I}[\omega^{-1}n-\omega^{-1}m=\boldsymbol{d}]$$ A [*grid convolution*]{} of size $K$ and basis $\boldsymbol{A}$ is one such that for each $k{\in}1{:}K$, $\boldsymbol{A}_k{=}\mathcal{A}_{\boldsymbol{\Delta}_k}$ for some $\boldsymbol{\Delta}_k{\in}\mathbb{Z}^{|S|}$.
Thus, $\mathcal{A}_{\boldsymbol{d}}$ is the adjacency matrix of the relation: “node $n$ is obtained from node $m$ by a shift of $\boldsymbol{d}$ in the grid”. It is illustrated in Figure \[fig:grid-shift\] in the case of grids of order $|S|{=}1,2$ (typically, sentences and images). With some padding conventions, Equation [ ]{} for a grid convolution becomes, for any node $s{\in}\bar{S}$ in the grid, $$\boldsymbol{y}_{(\omega(s))} =
{{\sum}}_k\boldsymbol{x}_{(\omega(s-\boldsymbol{\Delta}_k))}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k$$ The traditional grid (image) convolutions of “Convolutional Neural Networks” (CNNs) [@lecun_convolutional_1998] are exactly obtained by choosing $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$ to be a regular right cuboid with possibly different strides $\boldsymbol{\delta}_i$ and offsets $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ in the different grid dimensions $i{=}1{:}|S|$. In that case, we have $K=\prod_{i=1:|S|}K_i$ and for each $k{\in}1{:}K$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cnn-shift}
\boldsymbol{\Delta}_{ki} & {\hspace{.2cm}{=}\hspace{.2cm}} \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i+(\omega_{{\langle{K_1\cdots K_{|S|}}\rangle}}^{-1}k)_i\boldsymbol{\delta}_i\end{aligned}$$ Parameter $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, of shape ${\langle{K,P,Q}\rangle}$, then appears as the flattened version of a tensor of shape ${\langle{K_1,\cdots,K_{|S|},P,Q}\rangle}$, which is the familiar shape of grid convolution kernels.
Variants of grid convolutions which do not necessarily preserve the grid can also be captured in our framework using different choices of $\boldsymbol{\Delta}$, and variants of the shift matrices. This includes average pooling and dilated convolutions, where the output grid is a sub-sample of the input one ($N$ is a divisor of $M$ rather than $M{=}N$). However, our framework covers only convolutions which are linear transforms, which rules out such things as max pooling.
The choice of basis matrices introduced above captures exactly the conditions to ensure that the resulting convolutions satisfy two a priori constraints: [*translation equivariance*]{} and [*locality*]{}. To show that, recall that, by Proposition \[prop:inversion\], any linear transform $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ can be written in the form $\boldsymbol{a}\circ\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ where $(\boldsymbol{a}_h)_{h=1:MN}$ is a basis of the space of matrices of shape ${\langle{M,N}\rangle}$. One obvious such basis is given by $$(\boldsymbol{a}_h)_{mn}\triangleq\mathbb{I}[\tau(m,n)=h]$$ where $\tau$ is a given bijection $\{1{\cdots}M\}{\times}\{1{\cdots}N\}{\mapsto}\{1{\cdots}MN\}$, e.g. the canonical bijection $\omega_{{\langle{M,N}\rangle}}$. Thus, when $h{=}\tau(m,n)$, the term $\boldsymbol{a}_h^\top\boldsymbol{x}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_h$ in Equation [ ]{} can be understood as follows: $\boldsymbol{a}_h$ filters the action of node $m$ in the input grid onto node $n$ in the output grid, and $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_h$ specifies the linear transform which must be applied to the input embedding of $m$ to obtain its contribution to the output embedding of $n$.
- Translation equivariance means that the action of $m$ on $n$ should be the same as the action of $m'$ on $n'$ where $m',n'$ are obtained from $m,n$ by the same translation, i.e., borrowing a term from geometry, the two pairs $h{=}\tau(m,n)$ and $h'{=}\tau(m',n')$ are [*equipollent*]{}. In other words, translation equivariance amounts to pooling together the parameter $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_h$ of all the pairs $h{=}\tau(m,n)$ which are equipollent. This amounts to regrouping (summing together) all the corresponding basis matrices $\boldsymbol{a}_{h}$, yielding exactly what is called above a shift matrix.
- By itself, translation equivariance constrains the basis matrices to be shift matrices but does not constrain the size of the shifts, so that a node anywhere in the input grid could still act on any node of the output grid. Locality is achieved by further constraining the shift vectors outside a small neighbourhood of the null vector, as defined by Equation [ ]{}, to have a null contribution.
Graph convolutions
------------------
Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a graph over $\{1\cdots N\}$ given a priori. We assume $M{=}N$ (graph convolutions usually preserve the graph).
A [*graph convolution*]{} of size $K$ and basis $\boldsymbol{A}$ is one such that for each $k{\in}1{:}K$, matrix $\boldsymbol{A}_k$ is constructed from $\mathcal{G}$ by some procedure dependent on $k$.
The traditional “Graph Convolution Networks” (GCNs) [@kipf_semi-supervised_2016] are exactly obtained by choosing $K{=}1$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_1$ to be the normalised Laplacian matrix of $\mathcal{G}$. Constraining the size to $1$ yields a very simple, efficient architecture, at the price of some expressiveness. For example, although grids can be represented as graphs, grid convolutions cannot be expressed as graph convolutions with a size restricted to $1$.
In alternative definitions of graph convolution, the size is possibly greater than $1$, and each $\boldsymbol{A}_k$ is computed from $\mathcal{G}$ in a different way. For example, in the full spectral analysis of graph convolution [@defferrard_convolutional_2016], each $\boldsymbol{A}_k$ is a Chebyshev polynomial of the normalised Laplacian matrix of $\mathcal{G}$, up to order $K$. In a simpler version [@li_diffusion_2017], Chebyshev polynomials are replaced by elementary monomials, and $\boldsymbol{A}_k$ is simply the adjacency matrix of $\mathcal{G}$ raised to the power of $k$, capturing the random walks of length $k$ through the graph.
A similar approach can be applied to knowledge graphs [@schlichtkrull_modeling_2017], by introducing one basis matrix $\boldsymbol{A}_k$ for each random walk sort (instead of length) from a given set of sorts (instead of up to a given length), where a sort is a sequence of relations. For example, in a film knowledge base, a sort could be “[played.characterIn.genre]{}”, and a typical instance of random walk of that sort could be “[LeonardNimoy-Spock-StarTreck-SciFi]{}”.
Attention as content-based convolution
======================================
Content-based vs index-based convolution
----------------------------------------
In the previous examples of convolution, the basis tensor captures prior knowledge about the structural relationships between input and output entries through their indices. This is not the only option. Instead of relying solely on indices, the basis tensor of a convolution can also be computed from any content associated with the input and output entries. We propose a generic model to achieve this, and claim that it captures the essence of many attention mechanisms: [@vaswani_attention_2017; @elbayad_pervasive_2018; @velickovic_graph_2017; @cinar_period-aware_2018; @cinar_position-based_2017; @kool_attention_2018].
An [*attention mechanism*]{} is a parametrised mapping which takes as input two matrices, of shape ${\langle{M,P'}\rangle}$ and ${\langle{N,Q'}\rangle}$, respectively, and returns an output matrix of shape ${\langle{M,N}\rangle}$. The input matrices represent $M$ and $N$ entries encoded as vectors of shape ${\langle{P'}\rangle}$ and ${\langle{Q'}\rangle}$, respectively, and the output matrix represents an influence graph of the former on the latter, based on their encodings.
Attention mechanisms can be added or multiplied term-wise, or transformed by term-wise, row-wise or column-wise normalisation. Two particularly useful transformations are [*masking*]{} and (column-wise or row-wise) [*softmax*]{} normalisation, often used in conjunction. Masking is described here in log domain: given a mask as an a priori matrix $\boldsymbol{H}$ of shape ${\langle{M,N}\rangle}$ with values in $\{-\infty,0\}$ (the $\log$ of a binary matrix), if $a$ is an attention mechanism, then one can straightforwardly form the mechanism $a{+}\boldsymbol{H}$: it masks (sets to $-\infty$) the output of $a$ wherever $\boldsymbol{H}$ is $-\infty$ leaving the other values unchanged. In particular, if $\boldsymbol{H}$ is sparse, i.e. the density of $-\infty$ is high, then $a{+}\boldsymbol{H}$ is also sparse, i.e. the density of masked values is high, whatever the sparseness of $a$. This is useful when the dimensions $M,N$ are large and the size $MN$ of the output of $a$ becomes unmanageable. Masking allows to limit a priori which entries from the first input can influence entries from the second input. Observe that when softmax normalisation is applied to a masked attention, the masked values become $0$, cancelling the influence of the corresponding inputs in the linear domain[^3].
An [*attention convolution*]{} of size $K$ and basis $\boldsymbol{A}$ is one such that for each $k{=}1{:}K$, $\boldsymbol{A}_k{=}a(\boldsymbol{x}',\boldsymbol{y}';\boldsymbol{\Xi}_k)$ for some attention mechanism $a$ and some $\boldsymbol{\Xi}_k$ in the parameter space of $a$. The convolution now has three input matrices, the main input $\boldsymbol{x}$ of shape ${\langle{M,P}\rangle}$, and two auxiliary inputs $\boldsymbol{x}',\boldsymbol{y}'$ of shape ${\langle{M,P'}\rangle},{\langle{N,Q'}\rangle}$ respectively, and returns an output matrix $\boldsymbol{y}$ of shape ${\langle{N,Q}\rangle}$ according to Equation [ ]{}, which can be rewritten: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:attention}
\boldsymbol{y} & =
{\sum}_ka(\boldsymbol{x}',\boldsymbol{y}';\boldsymbol{\Xi}_k)^\top\boldsymbol{x}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k\end{aligned}$$ In [*cross-attention*]{} (resp. [*self-attention*]{}) convolutions, the main input $\boldsymbol{x}$ is also used as the auxiliary input $\boldsymbol{x}'$ (resp. as both $\boldsymbol{x}',\boldsymbol{y}'$), which, to be shape-consistent, requires $P'{=}P$ (resp. $N{=}M$ and $P'{=}Q'{=}P$).
(0.,.3) rectangle (1.7,-1.3); (inM) at (0.,0.) ; (in1) at (0.,-.5) ; (in2) at (0.,-1.) ; (out) at (1.7,0.) ; at (.85,-1.5) [attention]{}; (-.5,0.) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{x}$]{} – (0.,0.); (-.5,-.5) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{x}'$]{} – (0.,-.5); (-.5,-1.) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{y}'$]{} – (0.,-1.); (out) – (2.2,0.) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{y}$]{}; (am) at (.5,-.75) [$a$]{}; (A) at (1.2,-.75) [$\boldsymbol{A}$]{}; (cv) at (1.2,0.) [$*$]{}; (in1.east) – (in1-|am.west); (in2.east) – (in2-|am.west); (am) – (A); (A) – (cv); (inM) – (cv); (cv) – (out);
(0.,.3) rectangle (.5,-1.3); at (0.,0.) ; at (0.,-.5) ; at (0.,-1.) ; at (.5,0.) ; at (.25,-1.5) [cross-attention]{}; (-.5,0.) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{x}$]{} – (0.,0.); (-.15,0.) rectangle (0.,-.5); (-.5,-1.) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{y}'$]{} – (0.,-1.); (.5,0.) – (1.,0.) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{y}$]{};
(0.,.3) rectangle (.5,-1.3); at (0.,0.) ; at (0.,-.5) ; at (0.,-1.) ; at (.5,0.) ; at (.25,-1.5) [self-attention]{}; (-.5,0.) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{x}$]{} – (0.,0.); (-.15,0.) rectangle (0.,-.5); (-.15,0.) rectangle (0.,-1.); (.5,0.) – (1.,0.) node\[var\] [$\boldsymbol{y}$]{};
A graph or grid convolution, as described in the previous sections, can be seen as a degenerate case of attention convolution, in which the output of the mechanism does not depend on its input, but solely on its parameter, given a priori (not learnt). The resulting convolution thus ignores its auxiliary inputs and is linear in its main input. On the other hand, in the non degenerate case, an attention convolution may be non linear in either of its auxiliary inputs, depending on the mechanism. Furthermore, a self- or cross-attention convolution may not even be linear in its main input, since it also occurs as input to the mechanism. A commonly used attention mechanism is bi-affine attention:
Let $\xi$ be a scalar, $\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu}$ be vectors of shape, respectively, ${\langle{P'}\rangle},{\langle{Q'}\rangle}$, and $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}$ be a matrix of shape ${\langle{P',Q'}\rangle}$. The [*bi-affine*]{} attention mechanism $\mathcal{A}$ parametrised by $\boldsymbol{\Xi}{=}{\langle{\xi,\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\nu},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}}\rangle}$ is defined, for matrices $\boldsymbol{x}',\boldsymbol{y}'$ of shape, respectively, ${\langle{M,P'}\rangle}$ and ${\langle{N,Q'}\rangle}$, by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:biaffine-attention}
\mathcal{A}(\boldsymbol{x}',\boldsymbol{y}';\boldsymbol{\Xi}) & {\hspace{.2cm}{\triangleq}\hspace{.2cm}}
\boldsymbol{x}'\boldsymbol{\Lambda}\boldsymbol{y}'^T+
(\boldsymbol{x}'\boldsymbol{\mu})\otimes\mathbf{1}_{N}+
\mathbf{1}_{M}\otimes(\boldsymbol{y}'\boldsymbol{\nu})+
\xi\mathbf{1}_{M}\otimes\mathbf{1}_{N}\\
\nonumber
\textrm{equivalently,}\hspace{1cm}
\mathcal{A}(\boldsymbol{x}',\boldsymbol{y}';\boldsymbol{\Xi})_{mn} & {\hspace{.2cm}{=}\hspace{.2cm}}
{\sum}_{p'q'}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_{p'q'}\boldsymbol{x}'_{mp'}\boldsymbol{y}'_{nq'}+
{\sum}_{p'}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{p'}\boldsymbol{x}'_{mp'}+
{\sum}_{q'}\boldsymbol{\nu}_{q'}\boldsymbol{y}'_{nq'}+
\xi\end{aligned}$$
Observe that parameter $\boldsymbol{\Xi}$ has a fully controlled shape, independent of $M,N$. Bi-affine attention is used in the specific context of parsing in [@dozat_deep_2017]. It is also used, with some restrictions on parameter $\boldsymbol{\Xi}$, as a generic attention mechanism in the Transformer model for sequences [@vaswani_attention_2017], and in Graph attention networks [@velickovic_graph_2017], as shown below.
Attention in Graph Attention Networks
-------------------------------------
Graph attention networks [@velickovic_graph_2017] are based on a variant of self-attention convolutions, where the equation $\boldsymbol{A}_k{=}a(\boldsymbol{x},\boldsymbol{x};\boldsymbol{\Xi}_k)$ is replaced by $\boldsymbol{A}_k{=}a(\boldsymbol{x}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k,\boldsymbol{x}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k;\boldsymbol{\Xi}_k)$. This does not significantly alter forward computation, at least when started from the bottom of the triangle in Figure \[fig:computing\], since the term $\boldsymbol{x}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k$ is already available before entering the attention mechanism.
The attention mechanism proposed in [@velickovic_graph_2017] starts with the bi-affine mechanism of Equation [ ]{} without its bi-linear term, i.e. $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k{=}0$ for all head $k$. The output is then masked by a graph given a priori, the same for all heads, limiting the set of nodes attending on a given node to a neighbourhood of that node. When such prior graph is available, this makes sense, esp. to deal with large structures such as publication networks (up to 50,000 nodes in their experiments, hence, without mask, the output of the mechanism would be of size of magnitude $10^9$).
The masked output is then normalised by a term-wise “leaky ReLU” followed by a column-wise softmax. These choices can be motivated to some extent by properties of the simplified bi-affine mechanism at work. Indeed, observe that the masked values are still masked after a leaky ReLU[^4], and are annulled by the softmax, cancelling as intended the influence of the corresponding inputs. Skipping ReLU altogether before the softmax would make the term involving $\boldsymbol{\nu}$ in the right-hand side of Equation [ ]{} redundant: it is constant along each column, and softmax is invariant to an additive constant.
Attention in Transformer {#sec:transformer}
------------------------
We now show how the attention model described by Equations [ ]{} and [ ]{} encompasses the scaled dot product attention used in the Transformer model of [@vaswani_attention_2017]. In Transformer attention convolutions, the auxiliary inputs are called “key” and “query”, respectively, while the main input is called “value”. Attention is used in three distinct layers of the Transformer architecture. Two of them are instances of self-attention (on the source sequence and on the target sequence, respectively) while the third one is a cross-attention (the main input is the source sequence and the remaining auxiliary input is the target sequence). Masking is used in the target sequence self-attention, to ensure that tokens in that sequence do not have influence on their predecessors. This is because, in Transformer, the ultimate output of all the attention layers is used to model the next token from each position in the target sequence, so should not rely on the availability of that token.
In all cases, the scaled dot product attention used in Transformer essentially relies on the bi-affine attention mechanism of Equation [ ]{}, followed by a column-wise softmax. Actually, only the bi-linear part of Equation [ ]{} is kept, i.e. all the parameters except $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k$ are null. Furthermore, parameter $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k$ is constrained to be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:transformer-lambda}
\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k & {\hspace{.2cm}{=}\hspace{.2cm}} \boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k^{(\textrm{key})}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k^{(\textrm{query})\top}
\hspace{.5cm}\left(=\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k^{(\textrm{key})\top}\circ\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k^{(\textrm{query})\top}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where matrices $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k^{(\textrm{key})},\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k^{(\textrm{query})}$ are of shape ${\langle{P',D}\rangle},{\langle{Q',D}\rangle}$, respectively. This can be viewed as a simple dimension reduction technique, since only $(P'{+}Q')D$ parameters are required instead of $P'Q'$ for an arbitrary $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}_k$.
Now, Transformer attention introduces a seemingly richer mechanism to combine the different heads. Instead of simply summing them together as in Equation [ ]{}, it combines them with yet another linear layer: $$\boldsymbol{y} = [\boldsymbol{h}_1,\ldots,\boldsymbol{h}_K]\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{O})\top}
\hspace{1cm}\textrm{where}\hspace{1cm}
\boldsymbol{h}_k\triangleq\boldsymbol{A}_k^\top\boldsymbol{x}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k^{(\textrm{value})}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{O})}$ is a matrix of shape ${\langle{Q,KD}\rangle}$ and each $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k^{(\textrm{value})}$ is a matrix of shape ${\langle{P,D}\rangle}$. In fact, this expression can be rewritten, splitting $\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{O})}$ into $K$ blocks $(\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{O})}_k)_{k=1:K}$ each of shape ${\langle{Q,D}\rangle}$, as $$\boldsymbol{y} = {\sum}_k\boldsymbol{h}_k\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{O})\top}_k = {\sum}_k\boldsymbol{A}_k^\top\boldsymbol{x}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k^{(\textrm{value})}\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{O})\top}_k$$ In other words, it is strictly equivalent to the sum model of Equation [ ]{}, only with the constraint $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:transformer-theta}
\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k & {\hspace{.2cm}{=}\hspace{.2cm}}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k^{(\textrm{value})}\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{O})\top}_k
\hspace{.5cm}\left(=\boldsymbol{\Theta}_k^{(\textrm{value})\top}\circ\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(\textrm{O})\top}_k\right)\end{aligned}$$ This constraint is not even specific to an attention model and could apply to any convolution. In fact, Equations [ ]{} and [ ]{} are meant to reduce the dimensionality of the parameters ($\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, and, in the case of attention, $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}$) by factorisation. Formally, they apply the exact same recipe as applied to $\boldsymbol{\Phi}$ in Equation [ ]{} or $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ in Equation [ ]{}, with the same purpose.
Finally, Transformers take the extreme approach of relying exclusively on content-based convolution (“attention is all you need”), so that any index-based information such as the relative position of the tokens must be incorporated into the content. They propose a smart but not completely intuitive scheme to achieve that, called “positional encoding”. Instead, one or several additional heads with purely index-based basis matrices could be used, in complement to the attention heads. Typically, the index-based basis matrices would be those of a 1-D grid convolution, which have a particularly simple form (see Figure \[fig:grid-shift\]). And actually, it has been observed that in Transformers with positional encoding, after training, some of the attention heads precisely play the role of shift matrices. In the end, the problem is to model the role of token ordering in a sentence. It looks more natural to model it by directly adding shift matrices in the basis, than through a complicated encoding, validated mainly by the fact that some of the resulting attention heads end up playing the role of shift matrices in the basis...
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: The dependence on $P,Q$, on the other hand, is not problematic, since these are hyper-parameters controlled by the model (embedding sizes).
[^3]: As a general rule, softmax takes input in log domain (scores) and produces output in linear domain (probabilities).
[^4]: “Leaky” is important here: recall that, in log domain, the mask value is $-\infty$ which is unchanged by a leaky ReLU but annulled by a plain ReLU.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $r_Q(n)$ be the representation number of a nonnegative integer $n$ by the quaternary quadratic form $Q=x_1^2+2x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2+x_1x_3+x_1x_4+x_2x_4$. We first prove the identity $r_Q(p^2n)=r_Q(p^2)r_Q(n)/r_Q(1)$ for any prime $p$ different from $13$ and any positive integer $n$ prime to $p$, which was conjectured in [@E-K-S]. And, we explicitly determine a concise formula for the number $r_Q(n^2)$ as well for any integer $n$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, KAIST'
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, KAIST'
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, KAIST'
author:
- Ick Sun Eum
- Dong Hwa Shin
- Dong Sung Yoon
title: 'Representations by $x_1^2+2x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2+x_1x_3+x_1x_4+x_2x_4$'
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
Introduction
============
Let $r$ be a positive integer and $$Q(x_1,\cdots,x_r)=\sum_{i<j}a_{ij}x_ix_j+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}
a_{ii}x_i^2$$ be the quadratic form associated with an $r\times r$ integral positive definite symmetric matrix $(a_{ij})$ with even diagonal entries. It is one of the important problems in number theory to find the number of solutions of the equation $$Q(\mathbf{x})=n\quad(\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{Z}^r)$$ for a given nonnegative integer $n$. In the case of $r=2$ it was well studied by Fermat, Lagrange, Gauss and Dirichlet, and general cases were considered systematically by Minkowski, Hasse and Siegel. Only in very special cases does exist a satisfactory formula for the representation number $$r_Q(n)=\#\{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{Z}^r~;~Q(\mathbf{x})=n\}.$$ For instance, when $Q=x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2+x_5^2+x_6^2$, Jacobi ([@Jacobi pp.159–170]) gave the formula $$r_Q(n)=-4\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi_{-4}(d)d^2+16\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi_{-4}(n/d)d^2,$$ where $\chi_{-4}(d)=(\frac{-4}{d})$. This number $r_Q(n)$ is exactly the Fourier coefficient of the corresponding Eisenstein series ([@Iwaniec $\S$11.3]). One can also refer to [@Fine $\S$31] for some concrete examples related to hypergeometric series.
Now, let us consider the quadratic form $$Q(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=x_1^2+2x_2^2+x_3^2+x_4^2+x_1x_3+x_1x_4+x_2x_4\quad\textrm{associated
with the
matrix}~\left(\begin{smallmatrix}2&0&1&1\\0&4&0&1\\1&0&2&0\\1&1&0&2\end{smallmatrix}\right).$$ If $\Theta_Q(\tau)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty r_Q(n)q^n$ ($q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$) is the theta function associated with $Q$, then $\Theta_Q(\tau)$ lies in the space $\mathcal{M}_{13}(13,\chi_{13})$ of dimension $2$ which consists of all modular forms for $\Gamma_0(13)$ associated with the character $\chi_{13}(\cdot)=(\tfrac{13}{\cdot})$ ([@Miyake Corollary 4.9.5]). Eum et al ([@E-K-S Example 3.4]) recently provided a basis of the space $\mathcal{M}_{2}(\Gamma_1(13))$ of dimension $13$, which consists of modular forms for $\Gamma_1(13)$, in terms of Klein forms and expressed $\Theta_Q(\tau)$ as a linear combination of the basis elements. On the other hand, they happened to find in the process an interesting identity $$\label{interesting}
r_Q(p^2n)=\frac{r_Q(p^2)r_Q(n)}{r_Q(1)}\quad\textrm{for any prime
$p$ other than $13$ and any positive integer $n$ prime to $p$}.$$ But, they could give only a conditional proof by applying Hecke operators on $\Theta_Q(\tau)$ as follows: if $p$ is a prime satisfying the relation $$\label{conditional}
r_Q(p^2)=r_Q(1)(1+\chi_{13}(p)p+p^2),$$ then (\[interesting\]) is true ([@E-K-S Proposition 4.3]). For example, each prime $p$ ($\neq13$) less than or equal to $347$ satisfies (\[conditional\]). And so, the proof of (\[interesting\]) has remained open.
In this paper, we shall completely prove the conjecture (\[interesting\]) (Theorem \[main\]) by using the fact that the space $\mathcal{M}_2(13,\chi_{13})$ is generated by two Eisenstein series (Corollary \[two\]). Also, we shall obtain a general formula for $r_Q(n)$ that looks like Jacobi’s formula, from which we get a concise formula for $r_Q(n^2)$ for any integer $n$ (Remark \[formula\] and Table \[table\]).
Modular forms and Hecke operators
=================================
Let $k$ be an integer. For each $\gamma=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}\in\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ we define the *weight $k$ slash operator* $\cdot|[\gamma]_k$ on a function $f(\tau)$ on $\mathbb{H}$ (= the complex upper half-plane) by $$f(\tau)|[\alpha]_k:=(c\tau+d)^{-k}(f(\tau)\circ\gamma),$$ where $\gamma$ acts on $\mathbb{H}$ as a fractional linear transformation $\tau\mapsto(a\tau+b)/(c\tau+d)$. Let $\Gamma$ be one of the following congruence subgroups $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1(N)&:=&\bigg\{\alpha\in\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})~;~
\alpha\equiv\left(\begin{matrix}1&*\\0&1\end{matrix}\right)\pmod{N}\bigg\},\\
\Gamma_0(N)&:=&\bigg\{\alpha\in\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})~;~
\alpha\equiv\left(\begin{matrix}*&*\\0&*\end{matrix}\right)\pmod{N}\bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ for a positive integer $N$. A holomorphic function $f(\tau)$ on $\mathbb{H}$ is called a *modular form for $\Gamma$ of weight $k$* if
- $f(\tau)|[\gamma]_k=f(\tau)$ for all $\gamma\in\Gamma$,
- $f(\tau)$ is holomorphic at every cusp ($\in\mathbb{Q}\cup\{\infty\}$) ([@Koblitz pp.125–126]). In particular, since $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)\in\Gamma$ and $f(\tau)\circ\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)=f(\tau+1)$ by (i), $f(\tau)$ has a Laurent series expansion with respect to $$q:=e^{2\pi i\tau}$$ of the form $$f(\tau)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a(n)q^n\quad(a(n)\in\mathbb{C}),$$ which is called the *Fourier expansion* of $f(\tau)$ (at the cusp $\infty$).
Moreover, if a modular form vanishes at every cusp, it is called a *cusp form*. We denote the space of all modular forms (respectively, cusp forms) for $\Gamma$ of weight $k$ by $\mathcal{M}_k(\Gamma)$ (respectively, $\mathcal{S}_k(\Gamma)$).
For a given Dirichlet character $\chi$ modulo $N$ we define a character of $\Gamma_0(N)$ ([@Miyake pp.79–80]), also denoted by $\chi$, to be $$\chi(\gamma):=\chi(d)\quad\textrm{for}~\gamma=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}\in\Gamma_0(N).$$ Let $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi)&:=&\{f(\tau)\in \mathcal{M}_k(\Gamma_1(N))~;~
f(\tau)|[\gamma]_k=\chi(\gamma)f(\tau)\quad\textrm{for
all}~\gamma\in\Gamma_0(N)\},\\
\mathcal{S}_k(N,\chi)&:=&\mathcal{S}_k(\Gamma_1(N))\cap
\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi),\end{aligned}$$ which are subspaces of $\mathcal{M}_k(\Gamma_1(N))$ and $\mathcal{S}_k(\Gamma_1(N))$, respectively. Then we have the decomposition $$\mathcal{M}_k(\Gamma_1(N))=\bigoplus_\chi \mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi),$$ where $\chi$ runs over all Dirichlet characters modulo $N$ [@Koblitz Chapter III Proposition 28]. If $\chi(-1)\neq(-1)^k$, then the space $\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi)$ is known to be $\{0\}$ ([@Koblitz p.138]).
\[weight0\] Let $N$ be a positive integer.
- $\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}_k(\Gamma_1(N))=0$ for any negative integer $k$.
- $\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}_0(\Gamma_1(N))=1$, and hence $\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}_0(N,\chi)=0$ if $\chi$ is nontrivial.
See [@Miyake Theorems 2.5.2 and 2.5.3].
Using the Riemann-Roch Theorem, Cohen and Oesterlé ([@C-O]) explicitly computed the following dimension formulas.
\[Cohen\] Let $k$ be an integer and $\chi$ be a Dirichlet character modulo $N$ for which $\chi(-1)=(-1)^k$. For each prime $p$ dividing $N$, let $r_p$ respectively, $s_p$ denote the power of $p$ dividing $N$ respectively, the conductor of $\chi$. Define $$\lambda(r_p,s_p,p):=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
p^{r'}+p^{r'-1} & \textrm{if}~2s_p\leq r_p=2r'\\
2p^{r'} & \textrm{if}~2s_p\leq r_p=2r'+1\\
2p^{r_p-s_p} & \textrm{if}~2s_p>r_p,
\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\nu_k:=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}0 & \textrm{if}~$k$~\textrm{is odd}\\
-1/4 & \textrm{if}~
k\equiv2\pmod{4}\\
1/4 & \textrm{if}~ k\equiv0\pmod{4},\end{array}\right.\quad
\mu_k:=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}0 & \textrm{if}~
k\equiv1\pmod{3}\\
-1/3 & \textrm{if}~
k\equiv2\pmod{3}\\
1/3 & \textrm{if}~k\equiv0\pmod{3}.\end{array}\right.$$ Then we have $$\dim_{\mathbb{C}}\mathcal{M}_{k}(N,\chi)-
\dim_{\mathbb{C}}\mathcal{S}_{2-k}(N,\chi)
=\frac{(k-1)N}{12}\prod_{p|N}(1+p^{-1})
+\frac{1}{2}\prod_{p|N}\lambda(r_p,s_p,p)-\nu_{2-k}\alpha(\chi)-\mu_{2-k}\beta(\chi),$$ where $$\alpha(\chi):=\sum_{\begin{smallmatrix}x\pmod{N}\\x^2+1\equiv0\pmod{N}\end{smallmatrix}}
\chi(x)\quad\textrm{and}\quad
\beta(\chi):=\sum_{\begin{smallmatrix}x\pmod{N}\\x^2+x+1\equiv0\pmod{N}\end{smallmatrix}}\chi(x).$$
See [@C-O Théorèm 1] or [@Ono Theorem 1.56].
\[ab\] Suppose that $N$ is a prime. Since $r_N=1$ and $s_N=0$ or $1$, we get $\lambda(r_N,s_N,N)=2$. Observe that there are at most two $x\pmod{N}$ which satisfy $x^2+1\equiv0\pmod{N}$. Furthermore, since $|\chi(x)|=1$, we deduce $|\alpha(\chi)|\leq2$. In a similar way, we have $|\beta(\chi)|\leq2$. Hence $$\dim_{\mathbb{C}}\mathcal{M}_{k}(N,\chi)-
\dim_{\mathbb{C}}\mathcal{S}_{2-k}(N,\chi)
\geq\frac{(k-1)N}{12}\cdot(1+N^{-1})+\frac{1}{2}\cdot2-\frac{1}{4}\cdot2-\frac{1}{3}\cdot{2}
=\frac{(k-1)(N+1)}{12}-\frac{1}{6}.$$
For a nonzero integer $N$ with $N\equiv0$ or $1\pmod{4}$ we denote by $\chi_N$ the Dirichlet character modulo $|N|$ defined by $$\chi_N(d):=\textrm{the Kronecker
symbol}~\bigg(\frac{N}{d}\bigg)\quad\textrm{for}~d\in(\mathbb{Z}/|N|\mathbb{Z})^\times.$$ Note that $$\label{def-1}
\bigg(\frac{N}{-1}\bigg):=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}1 & \textrm{if}~N>0\\
-1 & \textrm{if}~N<0.\end{array}\right.$$ In particular, let $N$ be the discriminant of a quadratic field, namely, for a square-free integer $m$ ($\neq1$) $$N=\left\{\begin{array}{rl} m & \textrm{if}~m\equiv1\pmod{4}\\
4m & \textrm{if}~m\not\equiv1\pmod{4}.\end{array}\right.$$ Then $\chi_N$ becomes a primitive Dirichlet character modulo $|N|$ ([@Miyake pp.82–84]).
\[dim2\] Let $k$ $\geq2$ be an integer and $N$ be a prime such that $(-1)^kN$ is the discriminant of a quadratic field. Then, $\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})=2$ if and only if $(k,N)\in\{(2,5),(2,13),(2,17),(3,3),(4,5),(5,3)\}$.
Since $(-1)^kN$ is the discriminant of a quadratic field and $N$ is a prime, $(-1)^kN\equiv1\pmod{4}$ and $\chi_{(-1)^kN}$ is a primitive Dirichlet character modulo $N$. Suppose that $\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})=2$. We then see that $$\begin{aligned}
2&=&\dim_{\mathbb{C}}\mathcal{M}_{k}(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})
-\dim_{\mathbb{C}}\mathcal{S}_{2-k}(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN}),
~\textrm{because
$\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{S}_{2-k}(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})=0$ by
Proposition
\ref{weight0},}\\
&\geq&\frac{(k-1)(N+1)}{12}-\frac{1}{6}\quad\textrm{by Remark
\ref{ab}}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $(k-1)(N+1)\leq26$, and so the possible pairs of $(k,N)$ are $$(2,5),(2,13),(2,17),(3,3),(3,7),(3,11),(4,5),(5,3),(7,3).$$ Now, one can easily verify that $\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})=2$ except for $(3,7),(3,11),(7,3)$ by Propositions \[weight0\] and \[Cohen\].
Let $\chi$ be a nontrivial primitive Dirichlet character modulo $N$. The *Dirichlet $L$-function* $L(s,\chi)$ on $s\in\mathbb{C}$ is defined by $$L(s,\chi):=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{\chi(n)}{n^s},$$ where we set $\chi(n)=0$ if $\gcd(n,N)\neq1$. As is well-known, the function converges for $\mathrm{Re}(s)>1$. Moreover, it extends to an entire function and satisfies the following functional equation $$L(s,\chi)=L(1-s,\overline{\chi})\bigg(\frac{2\pi}{N}\bigg)^s\frac{S(\chi)}{\Gamma(s)}\bigg(\frac{e^{\pi
is/2}-\chi(-1)e^{-\pi is/2}}{e^{\pi is}-e^{-\pi is}}\bigg),$$ where $$S(\chi):=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\chi(a)e^{2\pi ia/N}\quad\textrm{and}\quad
\Gamma(s):=\int_0^\infty e^{-t}t^{s-1}dt$$ ([@Lang Chapter XIV Theorem 2.2(ii)]).
\[L-function\] Let $k$ be a positive integer and $\chi$ be a nontrivial primitive Dirichlet character modulo $N$.
- $L(1-k,\chi)\neq0$ if and only if $\chi(-1)=(-1)^k$.
- We have $$L(1-k,\chi)=-\frac{B_{k,\chi}}{k},$$ where $B_{k,\chi}$ is a *generalized Bernoulli number* defined by the following identity of infinite series $$\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}\chi(a)\frac{te^{at}}{e^{Nt}-1}=\sum_{k=0}^\infty
B_{k,\chi}\frac{t^k}{k!}.$$
\(i) See [@Lang Chapter XIV Corollary of Theorem 2.2].\
(ii) See [@Lang Chapter XIV Theorem 2.3].
\[Eisenstein\] Let $\chi$ and $\psi$ be primitive Dirichlet characters modulo $L$ and $M$, respectively. Let $k$ be an integer such that $\chi(-1)\psi(-1)=(-1)^k$. Define $$E_{k,\chi,\psi}(\tau):=c_0+\sum_{n=1}^\infty\bigg(
\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi(n/d)\psi(d)d^{k-1}\bigg)q^{n}\in\mathbb{C}[[q]]$$ with $$c_0:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0 & \textrm{if}~L>1\\
L(1-k,\psi)/2 & \textrm{if}~L=1,
\end{array}\right.$$ and set $\chi(d)=\psi(d)=0$ if $\gcd(d,LM)\neq1$. Except for the case when $k=2$ and $\chi=\psi=1$ the function $E_{k,\chi,\psi}(\tau)$ defines an element of $\mathcal{M}_k(LM,\chi\psi)$, which is called an *Eisenstein series*.
See [@Miyake Theorem 4.7.1 and Lemma 7.2.19].
\[two\] Let $k$ and $N$ be positive integers such that $(-1)^kN$ is the discriminant of a quadratic field. Then the Eisenstein series $$\begin{aligned}
G_{k,N}(\tau)&:=&\frac{L(1-k,\chi_{(-1)^kN})}{2}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty\bigg(
\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(d)d^{k-1}\bigg)q^n=\frac{L(1-k,\chi_{(-1)^kN})}{2}+q+O(q^2),\phantom{aaaaa}
\label{G}\\
H_{k,N}(\tau)&:=&\sum_{n=1}^\infty\bigg(
\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(n/d)d^{k-1}\bigg)q^n=q+O(q^2)\label{H}\end{aligned}$$ are linearly independent elements of $\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})$.
Set $\chi=1$ and $\psi=\chi_{(-1)^kN}$, which are primitive Dirichlet characters modulo $1$ and $N$ ($\geq3$), respectively. Since $\chi(-1)\psi(-1)=\chi_{(-1)^kN}(-1)=(-1)^k$ by the definition (\[def-1\]), it follows from Proposition \[Eisenstein\] that the Eisenstein series $$E_{k,\chi,\psi}(\tau)=
\frac{L(1-k,\chi_{(-1)^kN})}{2}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty\bigg(
\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(d)d^{k-1}\bigg)q^n=\frac{L(1-k,\chi_{(-1)^kN})}{2}+q+O(q^2)$$ belongs to $\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})$. Observe that the constant term $L(1-k,\chi_{(-1)^kN})/2$ does not vanish by Lemma \[L-function\](i).
Similarly, if we let $\chi=\chi_{(-1)^kN}$ and $\psi=1$, then the Eisenstein series $$E_{k,\chi,\psi}(\tau)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty\bigg(
\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(d)d^{k-1}\bigg)q^n=q+O(q^2)$$ belongs to $\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})$ by Proposition \[Eisenstein\]. This completes the proof.
Although Corollary \[two\] was originally given by Hecke ([@Hecke p.818]), we derive it as a direct corollary of a more generalized result (Proposition \[Eisenstein\]) due to Miyake.
Let $k$ be an integer and $\chi$ be a Dirichlet character modulo $N$. For a positive integer $m$, the *Hecke operator* $\cdot|T_{m,k,\chi}$ is defined on the functions $f(\tau)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a(n)q^n\in\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi)$ by the rule $$\label{Heckeoperator}
f(\tau)|T_{m,k,\chi}:=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\bigg(\sum_{d>0,d|\gcd(m,n)}\chi(d)d^{k-1}a(mn/d^2)\bigg)q^n.$$ Here we set $\chi(d)=0$ if $\gcd(N,d)\neq1$.
\[Hecke\] With the notation as above, the operator $\cdot|T_{m,k,\chi}$ preserves the space $\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi)$.
See [@Koblitz Chapter 3 Propositions 36 and 39].
Theta functions associated with quadratic forms
===============================================
Let $A$ be an $r\times r$ positive definite symmetric matrix over $\mathbb{Z}$ with even diagonal entries. Let $Q$ be its associated quadratic form, namely $$Q(\mathbf{x})=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{x}^TA\mathbf{x}\quad\textrm{for}~
\mathbf{x}=\begin{pmatrix}x_1\\\vdots\\x_r\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbb{Z}^r.$$ We define the theta function $\Theta_Q(\tau)$ on $\mathbb{H}$ associated with $Q$ by $$\Theta_Q(\tau):=\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{Z}^r}e^{2\pi
iQ(\mathbf{x})\tau} =\sum_{n=0}^\infty r_Q(n)q^n,$$ where $$r_Q(n):=\#\{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{Z}^r~;~Q(\mathbf{x})=n\}$$ is the representation number of $n$ by $Q$.
\[theta\] With the notations as above, we further assume that $r$ is even. Let $N$ be a positive integer such that $NA^{-1}$ is an integral matrix with even diagonal entries. Then $\Theta_Q(\tau)$ belongs to $\mathcal{M}_{r/2}(N,\chi_{(-1)^{r/2}\det(A)})$.
See [@Iwaniec Theorem 10.9] or [@Miyake Corollary 4.9.5].
\[detremark\] If such a matrix $A$ exists in the statement of Proposition \[theta\], then $(-1)^{r/2}\det(A)\equiv0$ or $1\pmod{4}$ ([@Iwaniec p.180]). So $\chi_{(-1)^k\det(A)}$ makes sense.
Now we are ready to prove our main theorem as follows.
\[main\] Let $k$ and $N$ be positive integers such that $(-1)^kN$ is a discriminant of a quadratic field and $\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})=2$. Let $A$ be a $2k\times2k$ positive definite symmetric matrix over $\mathbb{Z}$ with $\det(A)=N$ such that both $A$ and $NA^{-1}$ have even diagonal entries. Let $Q$ be the quadratic form associated with $A$.
- We have $r_Q(0)=1$ and $$\label{generalformula}
r_Q(n)=c_1\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(d)d^{k-1}+c_2\sum_{d>0,d|n}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(n/d)d^{k-1}\quad\textrm{for
any positive integer $n$},$$ where $$\label{c1c2}
c_1=\frac{2}{L(1-k,\chi_{(-1)^kN})}\quad\textrm{and}\quad
c_2=r_Q(1)-\frac{2}{L(1-k,\chi_{(-1)^kN})}.$$
- Let $p$ be a prime not dividing $N$. If $m$ is a nonnegative integer such that $\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^m)=1$ this condition holds true whenever $m$ is even, then we have the identity $$r_Q(1)r_Q(p^{m}n)=r_Q(p^{m})r_Q(n)\quad\textrm{for any positive
integer $n$ prime to $p$}.$$
\(i) Since $A$ is positive definite, $r_Q(0)=1$. Consider the theta function $\Theta_Q(\tau)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty r_Q(n)q^n$. Then it lies in $\mathcal{M}_{k}(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})$ by Proposition \[theta\]. Since we are assuming that $\dim_\mathbb{C}\mathcal{M}_{k}(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})=2$, we see from Corollary \[two\] that $$\label{combination}
\Theta_Q(\tau)=c_1G_{k,N}(\tau)+c_2H_{k,N}(\tau) \quad\textrm{for
some}~c_1,c_2\in\mathbb{C}.$$ We can then determine $c_1$ and $c_2$ in (\[c1c2\]) by observing the first two terms of $$\Theta_Q(\tau)=1+r_Q(1)q+O(q^2),\quad
G_{k,N}(\tau)=\frac{L(1-k,\chi_{(-1)^kN})}{2}+q+O(q^2)\quad\textrm{and}\quad
H_{k,N}(\tau)=q+Q(q^2).$$ By (\[combination\]) and the definitions (\[G\]), (\[H\]) we obtain a general formula (\[generalformula\]) for $r_Q(n)$ ($n\geq1$).\
(ii) Let $p$ be a prime not dividing $N$ and $m$ be a nonnegative integer such that $\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^m)=1$. By the formula (\[generalformula\]) we get that $$\begin{aligned}
r_Q(p^{m})&=&c_1\sum_{a=0}^{m}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^a)p^{a(k-1)}+c_2
\sum_{a=0}^{m}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^{m-a})p^{a(k-1)}\nonumber\\&=&
(c_1+c_2)\sum_{a=0}^{m}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^a)p^{a(k-1)}\quad\textrm{by
the facts $\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^m)=1$ and
$\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p)=\pm1$}\nonumber\\
&=&r_Q(1)\sum_{a=0}^{m}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^a)p^{a(k-1)} \quad\textrm{by
(\ref{c1c2})}.\label{primecondition}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
r_Q(1)\Theta_Q(\tau)|T_{p^{m},k,\chi_{(-1)^kN}}&=& r_Q(1)\bigg(
r_Q(0)\sum_{a=0}^{m}\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^a)p^{a(k-1)}+r_Q(p^{m})q+O(q^2)\bigg)\quad
\textrm{by the definition (\ref{Heckeoperator})}\\
&=&r_Q(0)r_Q(p^{m})+r_Q(1)r_Q(p^{m})q+O(q^2)\quad\textrm{by (\ref{primecondition})}\\
&=&r_Q(p^{m})(r_Q(0)+r_Q(1)q+O(q^2)),\end{aligned}$$ which turns out to be an element of $\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})$ by Proposition \[Hecke\]. Taking the set $\{\Theta_Q(\tau)=1+r_Q(1)q+O(q^2)$, $H_{k,N}(\tau)=q+O(q^2)\}$ as a basis of the space $\mathcal{M}_k(N,\chi_{(-1)^kN})$ one can derive $$r_Q(1)\Theta_Q(\tau)|T_{p^{m},k,\chi_{(-1)^kN}}=r_Q(p^{m})\Theta_Q(\tau).$$ Therefore, comparing the Fourier coefficients of the term $q^n$ for any positive integer $n$ prime to $p$ we achieve the identity $$r_Q(1)r_Q(p^{m}n)= r_Q(p^{m})r_Q(n)$$ as desired.
\[formula\]
- Let $p$ be a prime and $m$ be a nonnegative integer. If $p$ divides $N$, then $\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p)=0$ and we get from (\[generalformula\]) that $$\label{N}
r_Q(p^m)=c_1+c_2p^{m(k-1)}.$$ If $p$ does not divide $N$, then we see from (\[generalformula\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
r_Q(p^m)&=&c_1\sum_{a=0}^m\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^a)p^{a(k-1)}+c_2\sum_{a=0}^m
\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p^{m-a})p^{a(k-1)}\nonumber\\
&=&(c_1+c_2\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p)^m)\sum_{a=0}^m(\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p)p^{k-1})^a
\quad\textrm{by the fact $\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p)^2=1$}\nonumber\\
&=&(c_1+c_2\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p)^m)\frac{1-(\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p)p^{k-1})^{m+1}}{1-\chi_{(-1)^kN}(p)p^{k-1}}.\label{notdiv}\end{aligned}$$
- Assume that $N$ is a prime. Let $n$ ($\geq2$) be an integer with prime factorization $$n=N^m\prod_{i=1}^t p_i^{m_i}\quad(m,m_i\geq0).$$ If $r_Q(1)\neq0$, then we have by Theorem \[main\](ii) $$r_Q(n^2)=r_Q(N^{2m}\prod_{i=1}^t p_i^{2m_i})=
\frac{r_Q(N^{2m}\prod_{i=1}^{t-1}p_i^{2m_i})r_Q(p_t^{2m_t})}{r_Q(1)}=\cdots=
\frac{r_Q(N^{2m})\prod_{i=1}^t r_Q(p_i^{2m_i})}{r_Q(1)^{t}}.$$ Therefore by (\[N\]) and (\[notdiv\]) one can get a concise formula for $r_Q(n^2)$.
Let $(k,N)\in\{(2,5),(2,13),(2,17),(3,3),(4,5),(5,3)\}$ as in Corollary \[dim2\]. Then for each pair $(k,N)$ one can find some matrices to which Theorem \[main\] and Remark \[formula\] can be applied. However, it doesn’t seem to be known how to find such matrices systematically. We close this section by giving a table for these examples.
[10]{}
H. Cohen and J. Oesterlé, *Dimensions des espaces de formes modulaires*, Springer Lect. Notes 627 (1977), 69–78.
I. S. Eum, J. K. Koo and D. H. Shin, *A modularity criterion for Klein forms, with an application to modular forms of level $13$*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 375 (2011), 28–41.
N. J. Fine, *Basic Hypergeometric Series and Applications*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 27, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 1988.
E. Hecke, *Analytische arithmetik der positiv definiten quadratischen formen*, Kgl. Danske Vid. Selskab. Math. fys. Med. XIII 12 (1940), Werke, 789–918.
H. Iwaniec, *Topics in Classical Automorphic Forms*, Grad. Stud. in Math. 17, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 1997.
C. G. J. Jacobi, *Gesammelte Werke. Bände I*, Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1969.
N. Koblitz, *Introduction to Elliptic Curves and Modular Forms*, 2nd edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 97, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.
S. Lang, *Introduction to Modular Forms*, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, No. 222, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1976.
T. Miyake, *Modular forms*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
K. Ono, *CBMS102, The Web of Modularity: Arithmetic of the Coefficients of Modular Forms and $q$-series*, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 2003.
[^1]:
[^2]:
[^3]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The growing amount of fluctuating renewable in-feeds and market liberalization increases uncertainty in power system operation. To capture the influence of fluctuations in operational planning, we model the forecast errors of the uncertain in-feeds as random variables and formulate a security constrained optimal power flow using chance constraints. The chance constraints limit the probability of violations of technical constraints, such as generation and transmission limits, but require a tractable reformulation. In this paper, we discuss different analytical reformulations of the chance constraints, based on a given set of assumptions concerning the forecast error distributions. In particular, we discuss reformulations that do not assume a normal distribution, and admit an analytical reformulation given only a mean vector and covariance matrix. We illustrate our method with a case study of the IEEE 118 bus system, based on real data from the European system. The different reformulations are compared in terms of both achieved empirical violation probability and operational cost, which allows us to provide a suggestion for the most appropriate reformulation in an optimal power flow setting. For a large number of uncertainty sources, it is observed that the distributions of the line flows and generator outputs can be close to normal, even though the power injections are not normally distributed.'
author:
- 'Line Roald, Frauke Oldewurtel, Bart Van Parys, and Göran Andersson, [^1]'
bibliography:
- '20150326\_bib\_pSCOPF.bib'
title: |
Security Constrained Optimal Power Flow\
with Distributionally Robust Chance Constraints
---
Renewable integration, Chance Constrained Optimal Power Flow, N-1 security
Introduction
============
A fundamental tool in power system analysis is the *optimal power flow* (OPF) [@stott]. Several tasks central to power system operation, such as unit commitment, reserve procurement, market clearing and security assessment rely on the solution of an OPF. The main goal of the OPF is to minimize operational cost, while ensuring secure operation that respects technical limits of the power system. In current operational schemes, the system is considered secure if it remains within the operational limits during normal operation and during *outage of any single component*. This principle is referred to as the $N-1$ criterion, and is reflected in the OPF through additional constraints, leading to a *security constrained optimal power flow* (SCOPF). While the $N-1$ criterion secures the system against individual outages, *forecast uncertainty* is another kind of disturbance affecting the system. Forecast uncertainty arises from unforeseen fluctuations in the power injections, such as inaccurate predictions of load or renewable in-feeds, as well as from short-term electricity trading. While load profiles are relatively predictable, higher shares of electricity production from renewable sources and liberalization of energy markets (particularly in Europe) have increased the forecast uncertainty by orders of magnitude [@zong]. In current operational planning, uncertainty is usually ignored and uncertain quantities are typically replaced by a forecast value. While this approach has provided good solutions in the past, the increased levels of uncertainty lead to frequent N-1 violations in real-time operation. To mitigate these problems, it is proposed to explicitly account for uncertainty during operational planning, in particular while solving the OPF.
There are different approaches to account for uncertainty within the OPF. Robust and worst-case methods, e.g. [@joe], ensure secure operations for all possible forecast errors, but often provide very conservative and thus costly solutions. Stochastic programming methods give the operator more freedom to trade-off cost and security. One example is two stage stochastic programming for unit commitment and reserve scheduling, e.g. [@tony], which minimizes the expected cost of operations based on a set of scenarios. Another example is chance constrained programming, which explicitly limits the probability of constraint violations [@maria; @chertkov; @line]. Since the main goal in short-term operational planning is to ensure secure operations, we consider the latter method, and formulate the OPF as a *probabilistic SCOPF* (pSCOPF) with chance constraints. The acceptable violation probability, which is treated as a design parameter in the optimization problem, allows the operator to choose an appropriate trade-off between cost and security of operations.
Although the pSCOPF allow us to account for uncertainty in a comprehensive way, it is generally hard to reformulate chance constraints as tractable constraints. Two main approaches for reformulation have been applied to the OPF problem, based either on sampling or analytical reformulation. In [@maria], the SCOPF is formulated as a *joint* chance constrained problem (limiting the probability that any of the constraints are violated), which is reformulated using the scenario approach based on [@Campi2006]. The formulation was extended to include market clearing with co-optimization of energy and reserves in [@maria2], where a different sampling based reformulation based on [@kostas] was used. Both sampling based reformulations require no knowledge about the underlying distribution, except for availability of a given number of samples (which increases with the problem size).
In contrast, the SCOPF formulated in [@line] uses *separate* chance constraints (limiting the probability for each constraint separately) to formulate the pSCOPF. Assuming that the random variables follow a Gaussian distribution, an exact analytical reformulation is obtained. The same type of Gaussian reformulation is performed for an OPF without security constraints in [@chertkov].
While the assumption of a Gaussian distribution limits the applicability of the analytical reformulation from [@line], [@chertkov], the analytical reformulation has some attractive properties. First, it is scalable to a large number of random variables, as the number of random variables does not influence the problem size or complexity of the OPF itself. Second, the solution is more transparent than a sample based solution since it is possible to trace the influence of each random variable through the analytical relations. Finally, the solution based on the analytical reformulation is deterministic, i.e., the OPF will always find the same optimal solution with the same optimal cost. While this might seem trivial, the OPF solution based on the scenario approach is actually random, since it depends on the choice of the samples. The same problem might thus lead to different solutions with different costs, depending on which samples were chosen.
This paper investigates how the good qualities of the analytical reformulation can be preserved, while moving away from the limiting assumption of a Gaussian distribution. Using optimal probability inequalities, we obtain *distributionally robust* reformulations of the chance constraints. This approach is well-known in operations research and control theory and has been investigated in, e.g., [@calafiore; @popescu; @vanparys2013distributionally]. In [@Tyler], the application of some distributionally robust reformulations to the optimal power flow problem were also discussed. Here, we introduce reformulations based on assumptions like unimodality and symmetry of the forecast errors, and explain why those are relevant in the optimal power flow context. We aim to provide recommendations for the most suitable reformulations, depending on the sources of uncertainty (e.g., RES fluctuations, load variations, short term trading) and the time frame (e.g., day-ahead planning, real-time operation). To compare the different analytical reformulations, we introduce the concept of an *uncertainty margin*. The uncertainty margin has a physical interpretation as a security margin against forecast errors, and represents a reduction of available transmission and generation capacity. A larger uncertainty margin thus increases security, but also the operational cost. The empirical performance of the proposed reformulations is assessed through a case study for the IEEE 118 bus system, with uncertainties represented through historical forecast errors from the Austrian Power Grid. We investigate which reformulation is the most appropriate for a chance constrained SCOPF problem, considering empirical violation probability, nominal operational cost and the accuracy of the distributional assumptions. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section II and III present the uncertainty modeling and the formulation of the chance constrained SCOPF. Section IV discusses different analytical reformulations for these chance constraints, and Section V applies them to the power flow equations. Section V demonstrates the proposed formulation in a case study for the IEEE 118 bus system. Section VI summarizes and concludes the paper.
Modeling forecast uncertainty
=============================
Forecast errors arise from uncontrolled power in-feeds that deviate from their forecasted values, caused by, e.g., fluctuations in load or renewable production. The characteristics of forecast errors $\delta_R$ differ between systems, depending on their generation mix, load characteristics and market structure, and also depend on parameters such as the time of the day, or the forecast horizon. For example, the minute-to-minute variation in wind in-feeds in the central European system follows a Student t-distribution [@ENTSOE], while the day-ahead distribution of wind forecast depends on the forecasted wind power, and is typically non-symmetric. The uncertain in-feeds can be modeled as random variables with continuous probability distributions. We define the vector of $n$ uncertain in-feeds as $$\tilde{P}_{R} = P_{R}+\delta_R~.
\label{eq:res}$$ Here, the uncertain in-feed $\tilde{P}_R$ is the sum of the forecasted value $P_R$ and a random deviation $\delta_R$. Since the sources of uncertainty differ both within and between systems, the full distribution of $\delta_R$ is generally not known. However, we will assume some partial information about the distribution. In particular, we assume that the mean $\mu_R \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and covariance $\Sigma_R \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ of the forecast errors exist, and can be estimated either based on historical data or through forecasting methods. We allow for non-zero mean, since forecasts are not necessarily based on the expectation of $P_{R}$, but rather on the most probable realization (which are not the same, e.g., for skewed distributions).
Optimal Power Flow Formulation
==============================
We now introduce the mathematical formulation of the pSCOPF for a system with $n$ buses, based on the formulation in [@line]. The sets $\mathcal{G}$, $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ represent the conventional generators, the fixed loads and the uncertain in-feeds (consisting of, e.g., in-feeds from wind and solar power plants), respectively. To simplify notation, we assume that there is one generator, load and generator connected at each bus, such that $|\mathcal{G}|=|\mathcal{D}|=|\mathcal{R}|=n$. This assumption is however not necessary for the method itself. The set of transmission lines is denoted by $\mathcal{L}$, and there are $|\mathcal{L}|=n_L$ lines in the system. The contingencies considered for the N-1 security criterion include outage of any line or generator, in total $n_C = n_L + n$ outages.
Generator modeling
------------------
The nominal generation output of the generators, $P_G \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ are the optimization variables of the problem. In addition to keeping the system balanced in nominal operation conditions, any power deviation arising from either forecast errors or generation outages must be balanced by the generators. The contribution of balancing energy from each generator can be chosen in different ways. Here, we assume that each generator contributes according to its maximum nominal output, similar to [@spyros]. When all generators operate, the balancing contribution of each generator $g$ is given by $$d_{(g)}^i=\frac{P_{G,g}^{max}}{\sum_{j=1}^{n}{P_{G,j}^{max}}}~, %\nonumber
\label{eq:dg}$$ where the superscript $0$ refers to normal operating condition ($i=0$), or situation with line outages ($i \in \mathcal{L}$). During the outage of generator $i$, the compensation vector of the generators is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&d_{(g)}^i=\frac{P_{G,g}^{max}}{\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^{n}{P_{G,j}^{max}}}~ \forall_{\mathcal{G}\setminus i},
&d_{(i)}^i=0~. \label{eq:dg}\end{aligned}$$ The vectors $d^i \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ thus describe the compensation of any power mismatch in the system, for any outage situation $i$. We note that by definition of $d$, the system remains balanced after any fluctuations or generator outages.
Line flow modeling
------------------
Similar to the setup in [@maria], the line flows are expressed as linear functions of the active power injections in both normal and outage conditions. $$P_{l}^i=A^i P_{inj}^i, ~~\text{for all }i=0,...,n_C~.
\label{eq:lineflows}$$ Here, $A^i\in\mathbb{R}^{n_L\times n}$ describes the relation between the active power injections $P_{inj}^i\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and the line flows $P_l^i$ after outage $i$, with $i=0$ being the normal operation condition. $A^i$ is given by $$A^i = B_f^i \begin{bmatrix} (\widetilde{B}_{bus}^i)^{-1} ~~~ \bold{0} \\ ~~\bold{0} ~~~~~~~~~ 0\end{bmatrix}$$ where ${B}_{f}^i\in\mathbb{R}^{n_L\times n}$ is the line susceptance matrix and $\widetilde{B}_{bus}^i\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1\times n-1}$ the bus susceptance matrix (without the last column and row) after outage $i$ [@maria]. The power injections are given by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{inj}^i&=P_G + d^i (P_{G(i)} -\mathbf{1}_{\delta}\delta_R)+P_R + \delta_R - P_D~.
% &=M_G(P_G + d^i b^i P_G + M_R P_R -M_L P_D + (M_R - M_G d^i \mathbf{1})\delta_R~,\\
% &=\tilde{M}_G P_G + \tilde{M}_{RD} + \tilde{M}_{\delta} \delta_R~,\end{aligned}$$ Here, $P_D\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the vector of loads, and the power mismatch due to generation outage $P_{G(i)}$ is non-zero only for $i \in \mathcal{G}$. The vector $\mathbf{1}_{\delta} \in \mathbb{R}^{1\times n}$ is a vector of ones, such that $\mathbf{1}_{\delta}\delta_R$ represents the sum of the forecast errors.
Chance constrained optimal power flow
-------------------------------------
Using the modeling assumptions presented above, we can formulate the pSCOPF as $$\min_{P_G} ~c^T P_G
\label{eq:cost}$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbf{1}_{1\times n}(P_G + P_{R} - P_L) = 0 \label{eq:power_balance} \\
&\mathbb{P} [ P_{G(g)} + d^i_{(g)} (P_{G(i)} -\mathbf{1}_{\delta}\delta_R) \leq P_{G(g)}^{max} ] \geq 1-\varepsilon~, \label{eq:generation upper} \\
&\mathbb{P} [ P_{G(g)} + d^i_{(g)} (P_{G(i)} -\mathbf{1}_{\delta}\delta_R) \geq P_{G(g)}^{min} ] \geq 1-\varepsilon~, \label{eq:generation lower} \\
%&\mathbb{P} \left[ \begin{matrix} A^i_{(l,\cdot)}(M_G(P_G + d^i (g^i P_G -\delta_R)) ~~~~~~\\ ~~~~~~ +M_R(P_R +\delta_R)-M_L P_D) \leq P_{l}^{max} \end{matrix}\right] \geq 1-\varepsilon~, \label{eq:line flow upper} \\
&\mathbb{P} [ A^i_{(l,\cdot)}P_{inj}^i \leq P_{L(l)}^{max}] \geq 1-\varepsilon~, \label{eq:line flow upper} \\
&\mathbb{P} [ A^i_{(l,\cdot)}P_{inj}^i \geq -P_{L(l)}^{max}] \geq 1-\varepsilon~, \label{eq:line flow lower} \\
& \textrm{for } g=1,...,n,~l=1,...,n_L,~i=1,...,n_C~. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The objective is to minimize generation cost, with $c$ representing the bids of the generators. Constraint ensures power balance in the system. The constraints - are the generation and transmission constraints, with $P_G^{min}$ and $P_G^{max}$ being the minimum and maximum generation levels and $P_L^{max}$ being the transmission capacity of the lines. Those constraints depend on the realization of the random variable $\delta_R$, and are formulated as single chance constraints. The chance constraint ensures that probability of a constraint violation (e.g., a line flow exceeding the limit) remains smaller than $\varepsilon$. We will refer to $\varepsilon$ as the violation probability and to $1-\varepsilon$ as the security level. The value of $\varepsilon$ is an input parameter to the optimization.
Chance constraint reformulation {#sec:reformulations}
===============================
To obtain a tractable optimization problem, the chance constraints - must admit a deterministic and tractable reformulation. These constraints - are all univariate or single chance constraints of the general form $$\mathbb{P} [ a(P_G) + b(P_G)\delta_R \leq c] \geq 1-\varepsilon~. \label{eq:generic}$$ where $a(P_G) \in \mathbb{R}$ and $b(P_G)\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times n}$ are affine functions of the decision variables $P_G$ and $c$ is a constant. The term $a(P_G)$ represents the nominal generation output or the nominal line flows (without forecast errors) and $c$ represents the generation or line flow limit. The vector $b(P_G)$ expresses the influence of the forecast errors $\delta_R$ on the respective constraint. Regardless of the exact expressions for $b(P_G)$, and for any dimension or distribution of the random vector $\delta_R$, the left hand side of the constraint is a scalar random variable $\delta=a(P_G)+b(P_G)\delta_R$ with mean $\mu(P_G)$ and variance $\sigma(P_G)$ given by $$\mu(P_G) = a(P_G)+b(P_G)\mu_R~, \quad \sigma(P_G) = \parallel b(P_G)\Sigma_R^{1/2}\parallel_2~. \nonumber%\label{eq:stdDev}$$ What is of interest when reformulating the constraint is not the distribution of the forecast uncertainty $\delta_R$, but the distribution of $\delta$, which represents the variations in line flows or generation outputs. Depending on the system, $\delta$ might follow different distributions. We will now present different distributional assumptions for $\delta$ which are relevant in the context of the SCOPF. The applicability of each assumption depends mainly on the source of uncertainty (e.g., load, renewables or short-term trading), the time frame of the forecast (e.g., day-ahead planning or close to real-time operation) and the availability of data (e.g., historical forecast errors or probabilistic forecasts).
### Normal distribution ($\Phi$)
The normal distribution is a good distribution model in two different cases. First, when $\delta_R$ follows a multivariate normal distribution (which might be the case, e.g., for load uncertainty), which means $\delta$ will be normally distributed as well. Second, when the number of uncertainty sources is large and not highly correlated, arguments similar to the central limit theorem (e.g., [@dasgupta]) imply that the distribution of $\delta$ (which is a weighted sum of $\delta_R$) is expected to be close to a normal distribution.
### Student’s $t$-distribution ([$t$]{})
When the forecast fluctuations are heavy tailed (e.g., as for the minute-to-minute variability in the European grid [@ENTSOE]), the Student’s $t$-distribution can be a more appropriate representation. Particularly when considering small violation probabilities ($\varepsilon<0.03$), Student’s t distribution provides additional robustness compared to the normal distribution. In many cases, only limited knowledge about the distribution of $\delta$ is available. It might therefore be desirable to only assume some general properties of the distribution of $\delta$, rather than a specific distribution. This leads to the following *distributionally robust* reformulations, that are valid for all probability distributions that share the general properties:
### Symmetric, unimodal distributions ($S$)
If the distribution is likely to be close to normal, but we do not know how close, we can resort to the general assumption of unimodal, symmetric distribution with known mean and covariance.
### Unimodal distributions ($U$)
In systems where the forecast uncertainty is related mainly to load, wind and PV production, the distribution of $\delta_R$ is likely to be unimodal, with fluctuations centered around the forecasted value. Under such conditions, it is highly probable that the distribution of $\delta$ is also unimodal.
### Known mean and covariance ($C$)
In systems where intra-day electricity trading is not controlled by the transmission system operator, for example in Europe, intra-day transactions introduce uncertainty in the power injections from conventional power plants. The transactions might follow almost any probability distribution, and can even be discrete. In this case, we reformulate the chance constraint based only on a known (and finite) mean and covariance. For all distributional assumptions 1) - 5), the chance constraint can be reformulated to the following analytic expression $$a(P_G) \leq c - b(P_G)\mu_R - f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)\parallel b(P_G)\Sigma_R^{1/2}\parallel_2~. \label{eq:reformulated}$$ Analyzing , we see that the left part, $a(P_G)\leq c$, represents the “nominal” constraint, i.e., the constraint we would obtain if we neglect the forecast uncertainty. The second and third term represents a reduction of the nominally available capacity $c$, which is necessary to secure the system against forecast deviations. This reduction can thus be interpreted as a security margin against uncertainty, i.e., an *uncertainty margin*. Notice that the larger $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$, the larger the uncertainty margin.
Depending on which assumption 1) - 5) is deemed appropriate, we define $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ according to either an inverse cumulative distribution function (for known distributions 1), 2)) or a probability inequality (when only partial information is available 3) - 5)). The exact expressions for $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ are shown in Table \[tableI\], and their derivations as well as the derivation of are given in the Appendix. We note that for 1) and 2), the reformulation is tight (the chance constraint holds with equality). The distributionally robust reformulations 3)-5) are typically not tight, and will usually lead to empirical violation probabilities lower than $\varepsilon$.
\[h!\]
$\Phi$: Cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution. $t_{\nu,\sigma_T}$: Cumulative distribution function of the Student t distribution with zero mean, $\nu$ degrees of freedom and scale parameter $\textstyle{\sigma_T = (\nu-2)/\nu}$. \[tableI\]
[|l|l|]{} & $f_{\Phi}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon) = \Phi^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$\
& $f_{t}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon) = t_{\nu, \sigma_T}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$\
& $f_{S}(1-\varepsilon) = \begin{cases} \sqrt{\frac{2}{9\varepsilon}} ~ &\text{for } 0\leq\varepsilon\leq\frac{1}{6} \\
\sqrt{3}(1-2\varepsilon) ~ &\text{for } \frac{1}{6}<\varepsilon<\frac{1}{2} \\
0 ~ &\text{for } \frac{1}{2}\leq\varepsilon\leq 1 \end{cases}$\
& $f_{U}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon) = \begin{cases} \sqrt{\frac{4}{9\varepsilon}-1} \quad &\text{for } 0\leq\varepsilon\leq\frac{1}{6} \\
\sqrt{\frac{3(1-\varepsilon)}{1+3\varepsilon}} \quad &\text{for } \frac{1}{6}<\varepsilon\leq 1 \end{cases}$\
& $f_{C}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon) = \sqrt{\frac{1-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}} \quad \text{for } 0\leq \varepsilon\leq 1$\
Since the reformulations 1) - 5) differ only in the definition of $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$, we can compare them by comparing the value of $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ for different $\varepsilon$. In Fig. \[fig\_finv\], $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ is plotted against the security level $1-\varepsilon$. We observe that all $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ increase as $\varepsilon$ decreases, indicating that a larger uncertainty margin is necessary to achieve a lower violation probability. With more information, tighter probabilistic bounds can be defined and thus a lower value of $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ is necessary to ensure the desired security level (i.e., $f_C^{-1}>f_U^{-1}>f_S^{-1}$). The lowest values are obtained when we assume knowledge of the actual distribution, i.e., for the normal and the Student’s $t$ distribution. Note that all reformulations assuming symmetry have $f_S(0.5)=f_\Phi(0.5)=f_t(0.5)=0$. Finally, Student’s $t$ distribution has a more pronounced peak and heavier tails than the normal distribution. This is reflected in that for lower security levels, $f_{t}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)<f_{\Phi}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$, while at high security levels, $f_{t}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)>f_{\Phi}^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$.
![Values of $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ for the normal distribution, the Student t distribution with 4 degrees of freedom, the Chebyshev inequality, unimodal distributions and symmetric, unimodal distributions. The left part shows all security levels, while the right part is a zoom in on high security levels. []{data-label="fig_finv"}](f_plot_secLev.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Reformulated constraints
========================
With the reformulation presented above, we can reformulate the chance constraints - as $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{G(g)} + d^i_{(g)} P_{G(i)} \leq P_{G(g)}^{max}- \label{eq:generation upper_ref} \\
& \quad d^i_{(g)}\mathbf{1}_{\delta}\mu_R - f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon) \parallel d^i_{(g)}\mathbf{1}_{\delta}\Sigma_R^{1/2}\parallel_2, \nonumber \\
&P_{G(g)} + d^i_{(g)} P_{G(i)} \geq P_{G(g)}^{min}- \label{eq:generation lower_ref} \\
& \quad d^i_{(g)}\mathbf{1}_{\delta}\mu_R + f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon) \parallel d^i_{(g)}\mathbf{1}_{\delta}\Sigma_R^{1/2}\parallel_2, \nonumber \\
&A^i_{(l,\cdot)}(P_G + d^i P_{G(i)} + P_R - P_D) \leq P_{L(l)}^{max}- \label{eq:line flow upper_ref}\\
& \quad A^i_{(l,\cdot)}(I\!-\!d^i \mathbf{1}_{\delta})\mu_R - f^{-1}(1\!-\!\varepsilon)\!\parallel \! A^i_{(l,\cdot)}(I\!-\!d^i \mathbf{1}_{\delta})\Sigma_R^{1/2}\!\parallel_2, \nonumber \\
&A^i_{(l,\cdot)}(P_G + d^i P_{G(i)}+P_R - P_D) \geq -P_{L(l)}^{max}- \label{eq:line flow upper_ref}\\
& \quad A^i_{(l,\cdot)}(I\!-\!d^i \mathbf{1}_{\delta})\mu_R + f^{-1}(1\!-\!\varepsilon)\!\parallel \! A^i_{(l,\cdot)}(I\!-\!d^i \mathbf{1}_{\delta})\Sigma_R^{1/2}\!\parallel_2, \nonumber \\
& \textrm{for } g=1,...,n,~l=1,...,n,~i=1,...,n_C~, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $I\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ is the identity matrix. When comparing - to , we recognize the same structure. The first part represent the constraint we would obtain by neglecting the forecast uncertainty, where as the second and third term on the right hand side represent the uncertainty margin. Since a higher uncertainty margin leads to a reduction in the available transmission and generation capacity, a higher uncertainty margin will not only reduce the probability of violation, but also increase the nominal cost of operation (i.e., the cost of the pSCOPF). The acceptable violation probability $\varepsilon$ and the distributional assumption (which defines the function $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$) should therefore be chosen carefully to obtain a good trade-off between security against forecast errors and cost of operation.
Note that the reformulated chance constraints - are linear, since the uncertainty margin is not dependent on any decision variables and can be pre-computed. The pSCOPF problem , , - is thus a linear program with the same computational complexity as a traditional DC SCOPF.
Case Studies {#sec:case_study}
============
The purpose of this case study is to demonstrate the chance-constrained SCOPF, and investigate which distributional assumptions are most appropriate for power systems operation. We base our study on the IEEE 118-bus system [@118busdata], with a few modifications as follows. The generation cost is assumed to be linear, and is based on the linear cost coefficients of the data provided with Matpower 4.1 [@matpower]. Although the formulation could be extended to include unit commitment, it is not considered here. Therefore, the minimum generation output of the conventional generators is set to zero. The forecast uncertainty $\delta_R$ is modeled based on historical data for 1 year from the Austrian Power Grid (APG). We define the forecast error as the difference between the the so-called DACF (Day-Ahead Congestion Forecast) and the snapshot (the real-time power injections) for all hours and buses with available data (8492 data points for 28 buses). Since the system is constantly evolving and might exhibit seasonal patterns, we assume that the power system operator only uses data from the past three months. We use two three-month periods to define the forecast uncertainty for this case study, such that we obtain 2207 data samples for a total of 54 buses.
The historical data was assigned to different load buses throughout the system, and modified such that the standard deviation corresponds to 20 % of the forecasted load. The mean $\mu_R$ and covariance $\Sigma_R$ used in the pSCOPF were calculated based on this modified data (i.e, assuming perfect knowledge of $\mu_R,~\Sigma_R$). Fig. \[fig\_inputs\] shows the forecast errors from some representative nodes, including the histograms and pair-wise scatter plots of the forecast errors. By inspection, it is clear that the forecast errors are not normally distributed.
![Forecast errors for 4 selected nodes of case study. The diagonal plots show the histograms of the forecast errors (x-axis: deviation in MW, y-axis: number of occurences), while the off-diagonal plots show the scatter plots between two corresponding forecast errors (x- and y-axis: deviation in MW).[]{data-label="fig_inputs"}](FCE_2_11_18_25_v4.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
In the following, we assess how the different distributional assumptions impact the solution of the pSCOPF. We solve the pSCOPF for all five reformulations assuming an acceptable violation probability of $\epsilon = 0.1$. The results are compared with each other and to the solution of the corresponding deterministic SCOPF. To assess the quality of the solution, we compare the number of empirical constraint violations (based on the historical samples) and the relative cost of the solutions. Further, we run statistical tests to check if the data is normally or unimodally distributed, and investigate the accuracy of the estimated uncertainty margins.
### Number of empirical violations
The empirical violation probabilities $\hat\varepsilon$ are evaluated for all constraints based on the 2207 data samples. The results are shown in Fig. \[cost\] a), starting with 0) the deterministic solution, then the solution based on 1) a normal and 2) a Student t distribution, and then the distributionally robust solutions 3)-5). From left to right, we thus assume lessened knowledge about the distribution. The violation probabilities of the non-active constraints $\hat\varepsilon_{n-a}$ and active $\hat\varepsilon_{a}$ constraints are plotted in yellow and orange, respectively. The average violation probability $\hat\varepsilon_{avg}$ of the active constraints is plotted in black.
![Results derived from the different SCOPF solutions. From left to right: 0) the deterministic SCOPF, and the pSCOPF based on the assumption of 1) a normal distribution, 2) a Student t distribution, 3) a symmetric, unimodal distribution, 4) a unimodal distribution and 5) known mean and covariance. From top to bottom, the figure shows a) empirical violation probabilities for the all constraints, b) nominal dispatch cost, and c) value of the function $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ for $\varepsilon = 0.1$.[]{data-label="cost"}](Violations_Cost_PhiInv_v6.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
As seen on the left, the empirical violation probability of the deterministic solution is very high, with some constraints violating 80% of the cases. This highlights the need for probabilistic methods to avoid frequent violations of operational limits. The pSCOPF solutions have much lower violation probabilities. The active constraints (where the distance from the nominal flow to the flow limit is given by the uncertainty margin) have a higher empirical violation probability than the non-active constraints (which have some additional margin). The solution based on a normal distribution violates the accepted violation probability $\varepsilon < 0.1$ for some constraints, but the violation is small, $\hat\varepsilon<0.11$, and the average violation probability is acceptable $\hat\varepsilon_{avg}<0.1$. The solution based on a Student t distribution, which assumes a more peaked distribution, has larger empirical violation probabilities $\hat\varepsilon > 0.15$. The distributionally robust solutions oversatisfy the accepted violation probability $\varepsilon$, with $\hat\varepsilon_{avg}=0.07$ for the symmetric, unimodal solution, $0.03$ for the unimodal solution and $0.0025$ for the solution based only on mean and covariance. Although the chance constraints are satisfied, it does not necessarily imply that the underlying assumption (e.g., symmetry and unimodality) is accurate. Since the reformulations are distributionally robust, we might get a low empirical violation probability, even if we assumed the wrong family of distributions.
### Operational cost
Fig \[cost\] b) shows the generation cost obtained with the pSCOPF solutions, normalized by the cost of the deterministic problem (shown to the left). All probabilistic solutions have higher cost than the deterministic solution, showing that the consideration of uncertainties increase the nominal cost of operation. The reformulations which assume more knowledge about the distribution 1), 2) lead to lower cost than the more general reformulations 3)-5). The most expensive solution is obtained for reformulation 5), which only assumes knowledge of mean and covariance.
The cost differences are explained by the different values $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$, which defines the uncertainty margin and thus the constraint tightening. The value of $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ is plotted in Fig. \[cost\] c). Comparing Fig. \[cost\] a), b) and c), we observe how a larger $f^{-1}(1-\varepsilon)$ leads to an increase in nominal operation cost, but at the same time reduces the empirical violation probability. This highlights two important aspects of the pSCOPF. First, we need to define $\varepsilon$ such that it reflects a reasonable trade-off between cost and security. Second, we want to achieve an empirical violation probability $\hat\varepsilon$ as close as possible to the accepted violation level $\varepsilon$. A reformulation with too many violations ($\hat\varepsilon>>\varepsilon$) leads to unsecure operations, but at the same time a too conservative solution ($\hat\varepsilon<<\varepsilon$) will lead to unnecessary high cost, and possibly infeasibility if we want to ensure a low violation probability (e.g., $\varepsilon\approx 0.01$).
### Testing the distributional assumptions and the accuracy of estimated uncertainty margin
Since the transmission and generation constraints are enforced as separate chance constraints with deviations $\delta$ (defined as a weighted sum of the random variables $\delta_R$), each constraint has a univariate distribution related to it. To assess whether or not our assumptions about those distributions are correct, we run statistical tests. In particular, we use the Shapiro-Wilk test [@shapiroWilk] to test if the distribution is normal, and Hartigans dip test [@hartigan] to test unimodality, using the implementation in R [@citeR]. The test output is a p-value between 0 and 1, which indicates how probable it is that the data comes from a normal or a unimodal distribution, respectively. Typically, the hypothesis (normality or unimodality) is accepted for p-values above $p>0.95$, and rejected for p-values $p<0.05$. In between, we can neither reject nor confirm the hypothesis. In Fig. \[DipTest\], the p-values from both tests are plotted as a histogram. The bars show the percentage of constraints with p-values in the indicated p-value interval. We observe that the p-values from the Shapiro-Wilk test are below the threshold $p<0.05$ for most constraints, while the p-values from Hartigans Dip Test are above $p>0.95$ for the majority of the constraints. We thus conclude that unimodality is a reasonable assumption, while the original data is probably not normally distributed.
![P-values obtained from Hartigans dip test for unimodality and the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. The histogram show the percentage of all constraints in each 0.05 interval. A high p-value indicate a high probability that the distribution is unimodal or normal, respectively. Based on the results, it seems highly probable that the distributions are unimodal (p-values close to 1), while it is unlikely that the data comes from a normal distribution (p-values close to 0).[]{data-label="DipTest"}](DipAndNormalityTest_v2.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
Although the statistical test rejects normality, the normal distribution might still be a good assumptions for the parts of the distribution which we are interested in. In Fig. \[histMargins\], the empirical distribution of the line flow deviations for one active transmission constraint is shown. This constraint had the lowest p-value among the active constraints in the Shapiro-Wilk test. Fig. \[histMargins\] also show the empirical uncertainty margin (corresponding to an empirical violation probability $\hat\varepsilon=0.1$), as well as the uncertainty margins obtained with the five distributional assumptions. We observe that the uncertainty margins based on the normal distribution (plotted in red) match very closely to the empirical margins (plotted in green). The Student t distribution underestimates the margin and the distributionally robust reformulations lead to too high margins.
![Histogram of post-contingency line flow deviations. The uncertainty margins are computed empirically (green), and for 1) a normal distribution (red), 2) a Student t distribution (yellow), 3) a symmatric, unimodal distribution (magenta), 4) a unimodal distribution (light blue) and 5) a distribution where only the mean and covariance are known (dark blue).[]{data-label="histMargins"}](constraint1633.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
### Discussion
Based on the above results, we conclude that the reformulation based on a normal distribution can provide a good trade-off between cost and security, particularly in systems with a large number of uncertainty sources. Although assuming a normal distribution does not guarantee empirical violation probabilities $\hat\varepsilon<\varepsilon$, the assumption might be useful when $\varepsilon$ can be interpreted as a guideline rather than a hard limit. Statistical tests and assessments as in Fig. \[histMargins\] can be used to assess whether the normal distribution is a reasonable approximation. If the system operator wants a higher confidence in enforcing the actual violation level $\varepsilon$ and is willing to tolerate a larger increase in operational cost, assuming a unimodal distribution would be reasonable.
Summary and Conclusion
======================
This paper discusses different analytic reformulations for chance constraints and their applicability in the pSCOPF context. The chance constraints are reformulated either by assuming a known probability distribution (such as normal or Student t distribution) or by using distributionally robust reformulations assuming general properties of the distribution (i.e., known mean and variance, symmetry, unimodality).
The reformulated chance constraints all have a similar form, and are easily comparable. They are similar to the nominal constraints of the deterministic problem, except for the uncertainty margin (a security margin against forecast deviations), which represents a reduction of the transmission or generation capacity. With a larger uncertainty margin, the probability of violations decreases, but the nominal operational cost increases. Therefore, it is desirable to find a reformulation which leads to an uncertainty margin which is sufficiently large, yet as small as possible.
In the case study based on the IEEE 118 bus system and forecast errors from Austria, the trade-off between security and cost is highlighted. Although the choice of reformulation differs between systems with different uncertainty characteristics, we show that the normal distribution might be a good approximation in cases where the acceptable violation probability can be interpreted as a guideline, rather than a hard constraint. If the transmission system operator wants to enforce the violation probability as a strict limit, choosing a more conservative, distributionally robust reformulations based on, e.g., unimodality will provide more confidence.
In general, we believe that the pSCOPF with analytically reformulated chance constraints provides a transparent and scalable approach to assess the effect of uncertainty in power system operational planning. Future work will investigate how the approach can be extended towards corrective control actions for uncertainties (e.g., HVDC and PSTs), to further reduce the cost of handling uncertainty. Further, we plan to investigate extensions towards AC power flow.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This research work described in this paper has been partially carried out within the scope of the project “Innovative tools for future coordinated and stable operation of the pan-European electricity transmission system (UMBRELLA)”, supported under the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union, grant agreement 282775. We thank our partners, especially Austrian Power Grid, for providing historical data.
Exact tractable reformulations of single chance constraints
-----------------------------------------------------------
We discuss here how the chance constraint can be reformulated as the deterministic constraint . Using the equality $\delta = a(P_G) + b(P_G) \delta_R$ it is clear that constraint is equivalent to $$\label{eq:alternative1}
\mathbb P[\delta < c] \geq 1-\epsilon$$ where the constraint should be satisfied for all distributions $\mathbb P$ consistent with the distributional assumptions made on $\delta$. The constraint can equivalently be represented as $$\label{eq:alternative2}
\mathbb P\left[\frac{\delta-\mu(P_G)}{\sigma(P_G)} < \frac{c-\mu(P_G)}{\sigma(P_G)}\right] \geq 1-\epsilon$$ where it can be remarked that the scaled random variable $\delta_n:=\left(\delta-\mu(P_G)\right)/\sigma(P_G)$ has zero mean and unit variance by construction.
In order to unify the analysis for all distributional assumptions made in Section \[sec:reformulations\], we consider the general situation in which the distribution $\mathbb P$ of $\delta_n$ is merely known to belong to a set of distributions $\mathcal P$. Specifically, we have that $\mathcal P$ correspond to $\{N(0, 1)\}$ in the Gaussian case 1) and to $\{ t_\nu\left(0, \sqrt(\frac{\nu - 2}{\nu})\right) \}$ in the Student’s $t$ case 2) with $\nu$ degrees of freedom. In the former two cases, the set $\mathcal P$ is a singleton as the distribution of $\delta_n$ is known. In the most general case 5), the set $\mathcal P$ consists of all distributions of zero mean and unit variance. The set $\mathcal P$ is additionally required to contain only unimodal or unimodal symmetric distributions in the unimodal case 4) and the unimodal symmetric case 3), as both notions are scale invariant. That is, if $\delta$ is unimodal or symmetric unimodal than $\alpha \delta + \beta$ is unimodal or symmetric unimodal as well for any $\alpha$ and $\beta$ real numbers.
Given a set of distributions $\mathcal P$ representing the distributional assumptions made, we will first show that the chance constraint is equivalent to the deterministic constraint for $
f_\mathcal P(k) := \inf_{\mathbb P \in \mathcal P} ~\mathbb P \left [ \delta_n < k \right]
$.
We can trivially rewrite constraint equivalently as the constraint $\mathbb P[\delta_n < \left(c-\mu(P_G)\right)/\sigma(P_G)] \geq 1- \epsilon$ for all $\mathbb P\in \mathcal P$. Using the definition of $f_{\mathcal P}$ we can demand alternatively that $f_{\mathcal P}(\left(c-\mu(P_G)\right)/\sigma(P_G)) \geq 1- \epsilon$. Finally as the function $f_{\mathcal P}$ is increasing it has a well defined generalized inverse $f_{\mathcal P}^{-1}(\lambda) = \inf \,\{k ~\vert~ f_{\mathcal P}(k)\geq \lambda\}$. From the definition of $f$ it follows that we must have that $\left(c-\mu(P_G)\right)/\sigma(P_G) \geq f_{\mathcal{P}}^{-1}(1-\epsilon)$. After reordering the terms we obtain $$a(P_G) + b(P_G) \mu_R \leq c -f_{\mathcal P}^{-1}(1-\epsilon)\Vert b(P_G)\Sigma_R^{1/2}\Vert_2.$$
Finally in the remainder of this section, we show for the distributional assumptions discussed above we obtain the results mentioned in Table \[tableI\].
1. For non-atomic distributions $\mathbb P$ it follows by continuity that $f_{\{\mathbb P\}} = \mathbb P[\delta_n < k] = \mathbb P[\delta_n\leq k]$ explaining the first two entries in Table \[tableI\].
2. Let the set $\mathcal P$ corresponds to the set of all symmetric unimodal distributions $S$ with zero mean and unit variance then we can leverage the classical Gauss bound [@gauss1821theoria; @vanparys2015generalized]. Indeed, in this situation we have that the mode of the distributions is known as it coincides with the mean because of symmetry. For any $k>0$, we have again by symmetry that the equality $\mathbb P[\delta_n \geq k] = \frac12 \mathbb P[\vert \delta_n \vert \geq k]$ holds. As the mode of $\mathbb P$ is known, the classical Gauss bound [@gauss1821theoria; @vanparys2015generalized] can be used to establish $$\begin{aligned}
f_{U}(k) &=& 1 - \sup_{\mathbb P \in {S}} ~\mathbb P \left [ \delta_n \geq k \right]
\nonumber \\
&=& \left\{
\begin{array}{c l}
1- \frac12 \sup_{\mathbb P \in {U}} ~\mathbb P \left [ \vert\delta_n\vert \geq k \right] & \mathrm{if~} k> 0 \\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{c l}
\frac{9k^2-2}{9k^2} & \mathrm{if~} k\geq \sqrt{\frac43} \\
\frac12 +\frac{k}{2\sqrt 3} & \mathrm{}{k> 0} \\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$
3. The unimodal case, in which $\mathcal P = U$ consists of zero mean and unit variance unimodal measures, can be dealt with using the one-sided Vysochanskij–Petunin inequality [@vysochanskij1985improvement], i.e.$$\begin{aligned}
f_{U}(k) &=& 1 - \sup_{\mathbb P \in {U}} ~\mathbb P \left [ \delta_n \geq k \right]
\nonumber \\
&=& 1 - \left\{
\begin{array}{c l}
\frac{4}{9\left(1+k^2\right)} & \mathrm{if~} k\geq \sqrt{\frac53} \\
1 - \frac4 3 \frac{k^2}{1+k^2} & \mathrm{if ~} {k\geq 0} \\
1 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{c l}
1 - \frac{4}{9\left(1+k^2\right)} & \mathrm{if~} k\geq \sqrt{\frac53} \\
\frac4 3 \frac{k^2}{1+k^2} & \mathrm{}{k\geq 0} \\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.\end{aligned}$$
4. Lastly, when the set $\mathcal P$ corresponds to the set $C$ containing all distributions of zero mean and variance, the classical Cantelli inequality [@cantelli1910intorno] establishes that $$\begin{aligned}
%\]
f_{C}(k) &=& 1 - \sup_{\mathbb P \in {C}} ~\mathbb P \left [ \delta_n \geq k \right]
\nonumber\\
&=& 1 - \left\{
\begin{array}{c l}
\frac{1}{1+k^2} & \mathrm{if~} k\geq 0 \\
1 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
\nonumber \\
&=&
\left\{
\begin{array}{c l}
\frac{k^2}{1+k^2} & \mathrm{if~} k\geq 0 \\
0 & \mathrm{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.
%\]\end{aligned}$$ which after taking the inverse gives us the corresponding result in Table \[tableI\].
[^1]: L. Roald, F. Oldewurtel and G. Andersson are with the Power Systems Laboratory at the Department of Electrical Engineering, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Email: {roald $\mid$ oldewurtel $\mid$ andersson}@eeh.ee.ethz.ch. B. Van Parys is with the Automatic Control Laboratory at the Department of Electrical Engineering, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this work, we investigate those $B_{c}\rightarrow
D^{(*)}T$ decays in perturbative QCD approach, based on $k_T$ factorization, where T denotes a light tensor meson. For all decays considered in this work, there are no contributions from factorizable emission diagrams because the emitted meson is the tensor meson. We find that the annihilation amplitudes are dominant in these decays due to the large Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa elements, which are only calculable in the pQCD approach. The numerical results show that the predictions for the branching ratios of most decays are in the order of $10^{-6}$ or even bigger, which can be observed in the ongoing experiments. We also predict large percentage of transverse polarizations in those W annihilation diagram dominant $B_{c} \rightarrow
D^{*}T$ decay channels.
author:
- 'Zhi-Tian Zou$^a$, Xin Yu$^a$ and Cai-Dian Lü $^{(a,b)}$[^1]'
title: 'The $B_c\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays in perturbative QCD approach'
---
Introduction
============
After the first observation was reported in 1998 by the CDF collaboration [@cdf], which was confirmed until 2008 by CDF and D0 collaboration [@cdfd] at Tevatron in excess of 5$\sigma$ significance, the study of $B_{c}$ meson is becoming one of the currently interesting topics, especially since the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment ran normally. From the point of structure, the $B_{c}$ meson is a ground state of two heavy quarks’ system, with a $c$ quark and a $\bar{b}$ quark, which is very different from the symmetric heavy quarkonium ($\bar{c}c,\bar{b}b$) states, due to the flavor $B=-C=\pm1$ carried by $B_{c}$ meson. Since the $B_{c}$ meson carries explicit flavor, it can not annihilate via strong interaction or electromagnetic interaction like the mesons consisting of $\bar{c}c$ or $\bar{b}b$. It can only decay via weak interaction. Thus it provides us an ideal platform to understand the weak interaction of heavy quark flavor [@haochu1; @haochu2]. Unlike the heavy-light $B_{q}$ meson (q= u, d, s), both the $\bar{b}$ and $c$ can decay with the other as spectator, or they annihilate into pairs of leptons or light mesons. If more data become available, the $B_{c}$ physics must be a good place to study the perturbative and nonperturbative QCD dynamics, final state interactions, even the new physics beyond the standard model [@haochu1; @haochu2]. In recent years, many theoretical studies on the production and decays of $B_{c}$ meson have been done based on Operator Production Expansion [@ope1; @ope2], nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) and perturbative methods [@nr1; @nr2; @p1; @p2; @p3], QCD sum rules [@sr1; @sr2], SU(3) flavor symmetry [@su], Isgur-Scora-Grinstein-Wise (ISGW) quark model [@isgw1; @isgw2; @isgw3], QCD factorization approach [@qcdf1; @qcdf2], and the perturbative QCD (PQCD) approach [@pqcd1; @pqcd2; @pqcd3; @pqcd4; @pqcd5; @pqcd6; @pqcd7].
The $B$ meson decays involving a tensor meson have been studied in refs.[@zheng1; @zheng2; @wwprd83014008; @prd491645; @prd555581; @prd59077504; @epjc22683; @epjc22695; @prd67014002; @jpg36095004; @arxiv1010.3077; @prd67014011; @prd85051301; @zou]. In refs.[@isgw2; @isgw3], the authors have studied some analogous $B_{c}$ decays involving a tensor meson in final states, but only with the tensor meson as the recoiled meson. In this work, we focus on the $B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays, where $T$ denotes a light tensor meson with $J^{P}=2^+$, which is emitted from vacuum. We know that factorizable amplitude proportional to matrix element $<T\mid j^{\mu}\mid 0>$ ,where $j^{\mu}$ is the $(V\pm A)$ or $(S\pm P)$ current, does not contribute because this matrix element vanishes from lorentz covariance considerations [@zheng1; @zheng2; @epjc22683; @epjc22695], so these $B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays are prohibited in naive factorization. To our knowledge, these decays are never considered in the theoretical papers due to this difficulty of factorization. In order to give the predictions to these decay channels, it is necessary to go beyond the naive factorization to calculate the nonfactorizable and annihilation diagrams. What is more, the annihilation amplitudes will be dominant in considered $B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays because they depend upon the large Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) elements $V_{cb}$ and $V_{cs(d)}$. It is worth of mentioning that the PQCD approach is almost the only method can do the quantitative calculations of the annihilation type diagrams [@annihilation1; @annihilation2]. The PQCD approach have successfully predicted the pure annihilation type decays $B_{s}\rightarrow \pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ [@prd70034009; @prd76074018] and $B^0\rightarrow D_{s}^{-}K^{+}$ [@epjc28305; @prd78014018], which have been confirmed by experiments later [@10498; @jpg37075021]. So, for these annihilation dominant decays, the calculation in PQCD approach is reliable.
In this paper, we shall study these $B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays in the PQCD approach, which is based on the $k_{T}$ factorization [@plb504; @prd63074009; @pnp5185]. In this approach, we keep the transverse momentum of quarks, and as a result, the end-point singularity in collinear factorization can be avoided. On the other hand, the double logarithms will appear in QCD correction due to the additional energy scale introduced by the transverse momentum. Using the renormalization group equation, the double logarithms can be resumed, which results in the Sudakov form factor. This factor effectively suppresses the end point contribution of the distribution amplitude of mesons in the small transverse momentum region, which makes the calculation in PQCD appraoch reliable and consistent.
In these decays, there is one more intermediate energy scale, the D meson mass. As a result, another expansion series of $m_{D}/m_{B_c}$ will appear. The factorization is only approved at the leading of $m_{D}/m_{B_c}$ expansion [@fd1; @fd2], which has also been proved by soft collinear effective theory [@scet]. Therefore, we will take only the leading order contribution in account, unless explicitly mentioned.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.II, we present the formalism and wave functions of the considered decays. Then we perform the perturbative calculations for considered decay channels with the PQCD approach in Sec.III. The numerical results and phenomenological analysis are given in Sec.IV. Finally, Sec.V contains a short summary.
FORMALISM AND WAVE FUNCTION {#sec:function}
===========================
In order to give the predictions for these considered $B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays, the key step is to calculate the transition matrix elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}\propto \langle D^{(*)}T|\mathcal{H}_{eff}|B_{c}\rangle\end{aligned}$$ where the weak effective Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{eff}$ can be written as [@rmp681125] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{eff}=&&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{\sum_{q=u,c} V_{qb}^{*}V_{qX}\left[C_{1}(\mu)O_{1}^{q}(\mu)+C_{2}(\mu)O_{2}^{q}(\mu)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. -V_{tb}^{*}V_{tX}\left[\sum_{i=3}^{10}C_{i}(\mu)O_{i}(\mu)\right]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ with $V_{qb(X)}$ and $V_{tb(X)}$ ($X=d,s$) the CKM matrix elements. $O_{j}\,(j=1,...,10)$ are the local four-quark operators:
current-current (tree) operators $$\begin{aligned}
O_{1}^{q}=(\bar{b}_{\alpha}q_{\beta})_{V-A}(\bar{q}_{\beta}X_{\alpha})_{V-A},\;\;\;O_{2}^{q}=(\bar{b}_{\alpha}q_{\alpha})
_{V-A}(\bar{q}_{\beta}X_{\beta})_{V-A},\end{aligned}$$
QCD penguin operators $$\begin{aligned}
&&O_{3}=(\bar{b}_{\alpha}X_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum_{q^{\prime}}(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\beta})_{V-A},\;\;\;
O_{4}=(\bar{b}_{\alpha}X_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum_{q^{\prime}}(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V-A},\\
&&O_{5}=(\bar{b}_{\alpha}X_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum_{q^{\prime}}(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\beta})_{V+A},\;\;\;
O_{6}=(\bar{b}_{\alpha}X_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum_{q^{\prime}}(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V+A},\end{aligned}$$
electro-weak penguin operators $$\begin{aligned}
&&O_{7}=\frac{3}{2}(\bar{b}_{\alpha}X_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\beta})_{V+A},
\;\;O_{8}=\frac{3}{2}(\bar{b}_{\alpha}X_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V+A},\\
&&O_{9}=\frac{3}{2}(\bar{b}_{\alpha}X_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\beta})_{V-A},\;\;
O_{10}=\frac{3}{2}(\bar{b}_{\alpha}X_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V-A},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the color indices and $q^{\prime}$ are the active quarks at the scale $m_{b}$, i. e. $q^{\prime}=(u,d,s,c,b)$. The left-handed and right-handed currents are defined as $(\bar{b}_{\alpha}q_{\beta})_{V-A}=\bar{b}_{\alpha}\gamma_{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})q_{\beta}$ and $(\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V+A}=\bar{q}^{\prime}_{\beta}\gamma_{\mu}(1+\gamma_{5})q^{\prime}_{\alpha}$ respectively. The combinations $a_{i}$ of the Wilson coefficients are defined as [@prd58094009]: $$\begin{aligned}
&&a_{1}=C_{2}+C_{1}/3,\;\;\;\;\;\;a_{2}=C_{1}+C_{2}/3,\nonumber\\
&&a_{i}=C_{i}+C_{i+1}/3,\,i=3,5,7,9,\;\;\;a_{j}=C_{j}+C_{j-1}/3, \,j=4,6,8,10.\end{aligned}$$
In hadronic $B$ decays, there are several typical scales, and expansions with respect to the ratios of the scales are ususlly carried out. The electroweak physics higher than W boson mass can be calculated perturbatively. The physics between b quark mass scale and W boson mass scale can be included in the above Wilson coefficients $C_i(\mu)$ of the effective four-quark operators, which is obtained by using the renormalization group equation. The physics between $M_{B}$ and the factorization scale is included in the calculated hard part in the PQCD approach. The physics below the factorization scale is nonperturbative and described by the hadronic wave functions of mesons, which is universal for all decay modes. Finally, in the PQCD approach, the decay amplitude can be factorized into the convolution of the the Wilson coefficients $C(t)$, the hard scattering kernel and the light-cone wave functions $\Phi_{M_{i},(B)}$ of mesons characterized by different scales, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal
{A}\;\sim\;&&\int\,dx_{1}dx_{2}dx_{3}b_{1}db_{1}b_{2}db_{2}b_{3}db_{3}\nonumber\\
&&\times
Tr\left[C(t)\Phi_{B}(x_{1},b_{1})\Phi_{M_{2}}(x_{2},b_{2})\Phi_{M_{3}}(x_{3},b_{3})H(x_{i},b_{i},t)S_{t}(x_{i})e^{-S(t)}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $b_{i}$ is the conjugate variable of quark’s transverse momentum $k_{iT}$, $x_{i}$ is the momentum fractions of valence quarks and $t$ is the largest scale in the hard part $H(x_{i},b_{i},t)$. The jet function $S_{t}(x_{i})$, which is obtained by the threshold resummation, smears the end-point singularities on $x_{i}$ [@prd66094010]. The Sudakov form factor $e^{-S(t)}$ is from the resummation of the double logarithms, which suppresses the soft dynamics effectively i.e. the long distance contributions in the large $b$ region [@prd57443; @lvepjc23275]. Thus it makes the perturbative calculation of the hard part $H$ applicable at intermediate scale, i.e., $m_{B}$ scale.
In the PQCD approach, the initial and final state meson wave functions are the most important non-perturbative inputs. For $B_{c}$ meson, we only consider the contribution from the first Lorentz structure, like $B_{q}\,(q=u,d,s)$ meson, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{B_{c}}(x)=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_{c}}}(\makebox[-1.5pt][l]{/}P+m_{B_{c}})\gamma_{5} \phi_{B_c}(x,b).\end{aligned}$$ For the distribution amplitude, we adopt the model [@pqcd1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{B_c}(x,b)=\frac{f_{B_c}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}\,\delta(x-m_{c}/m_{B_c})\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}w^2b^2\right],\end{aligned}$$ in which $\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}w^2b^2\right]$ represents the $k_{T}$ dependence. $f_{B_c}$ and $N_c=3$ are the decay constant of $B_c$ meson and the color number respectively.
As discussion in ref.[@wwprd83014008], for these $B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays, the $\pm2$ polarizations ($J^P=2^+$) do not contribute due to the angular momentum conservation argument. Because of the simplification, the wave functions for a generic tensor meson are defined by [@wwprd83014008] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Phi_{T}^{L}\,=\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left[m_{T}\makebox[0pt][l]{/}\epsilon_{\bullet
L}^{*}\phi_{T}(x)\,+\,\makebox[0pt][l]{/}\epsilon_{\bullet
L}^{*}\makebox[-1.5pt][l]{/}P\phi_{T}^{t}(x)+m_{T}^{2}\frac{\epsilon_{\bullet}\cdot
v}{P\cdot v}\phi_{T}^{s}(x)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\Phi_{T}^{\perp}\,=\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\left[m_{T}\makebox[0pt][l]{/}\epsilon_{\bullet
\perp}^{*}\phi_{T}^{v}(x)\,+\,\makebox[0pt][l]{/}\epsilon_{\bullet
\perp}^{*}\makebox[-1.5pt][l]{/}P\phi_{T}^{T}(x)\,+\,m_{T}i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\gamma_{5}\gamma^{\mu}\epsilon_{\bullet
\perp}^{* \nu}n^{\rho}v^{\sigma}\phi_{T}^{a}(x)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{\bullet}\,\equiv\,\frac{\epsilon_{\mu\nu}v^{\nu}}{P\cdot\,
v}$, and $\epsilon_{\mu\nu}$ is the polarization tensor, which can be found in refs.[@zheng1; @zheng2; @wwprd83014008]. The distribution amplitudes can be given by [@wwprd83014008; @zheng1; @zheng2] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\phi_{T}(x)\,=\,\frac{f_{T}}{2\sqrt{2N_{c}}}\phi_{\|}(x),\;\phi_{T}^{t}\,=\,\frac{f_{T}^{\perp}}{2\sqrt{2N_{c}}}h_{\|}^{(t)}(x),
\nonumber\\
&&\phi_{T}^{s}(x)\,=\,\frac{f_{T}^{\perp}}{4\sqrt{2N_{c}}}\frac{d}{dx}h_{\|}^{(s)}(x),\;\phi_{T}^{T}(x)\,=\,\frac{f_{T}^{\perp}}{2\sqrt{2N_{c}}}\phi_{\perp}(x),\nonumber\\
&&\phi_{T}^{v}(x)\,=\,\frac{f_{T}}{2\sqrt{2N_{c}}}g_{\perp}^{(v)}(x),\;\phi_{T}^{a}(x)\,=\,\frac{f_{T}}{8\sqrt{2N_{c}}}\frac{d}{dx}g_{\perp}^{(a)}(x).\end{aligned}$$ The asymptotic twist-2 and twist-3 distributions are: [@zheng1; @zheng2; @wwprd83014008] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\phi_{\|,\perp}(x)\,=\,30x(1-x)(2x-1),\nonumber\\
&&h_{\|}^{(t)}(x)\,=\,\frac{15}{2}(2x-1)(1-6x+6x^{2}),\;h_{\|}^{(s)}(x)\,=\,15x(1-x)(2x-1),\nonumber\\
&&g_{\perp}^{(a)}(x)\,=\,20x(1-x)(2x-1),\;\;g_{\perp}^{(v)}(x)\,=\,5(2x-1)^{3}.\end{aligned}$$ These light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) of the light tensor meson are asymmetric under the interchange of momentum fractions of quark and anti-quark in the SU(3) limit because of the Bose statistics [@zheng1; @zheng2].
For $D^{(*)}$ meson, in the heavy quark limit, the two-parton LCDAs can be written as refs. [@pqcd1; @prd67054028; @liprd78014018; @zouhaojpg37; @liprd81034006] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle D(p)|q_{\alpha}(z)\bar{c}_{\beta}(0)|0\rangle
\,&=&\,\frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_{c}}}\int_{0}^{1}dx\,e^{ixp\cdot
z}\left[\gamma_{5}(\makebox[-1.5pt][l]{/}P\,+\,m_{D})\phi_{D}(x,b)\right]_{\alpha\beta},\nonumber\\
\langle D^{*}(p)|q_{\alpha}(z)\bar{c}_{\beta}(0)|0\rangle
\,&=&\,-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_{c}}}\int_{0}^{1}dx\,e^{ixp\cdot
z}\left[\makebox[-1.5pt][l]{/}\epsilon_{L}(\makebox[-1.5pt][l]{/}P\,+\,m_{D^{*}})\phi_{D^{*}}^{L}(x,b)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\,+\;\makebox[-1.5pt][l]{/}\epsilon_{T}(\makebox[-1.5pt][l]{/}P\,+\,m_{D^{*}})\phi_{D^{*}}^{T}(x,b)\right]_{\alpha\beta},\end{aligned}$$ For the distribution amplitude for D meson, we take the same model as that used in Refs. [@liprd78014018; @zouhaojpg37; @liprd81034006]. $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{D}(x,b)\,=\,\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2N_{c}}}\,f_{D}\,6x(1-x)\left[1+C_{D}(1-2x)\right]
\exp\left[\frac{-\omega^{2}b^{2}}{2}\right],\end{aligned}$$ with $C_{D}=0.5\pm0.1, \omega=0.1$ GeV and $f_{D}=207$ MeV [@fd] for $D (\bar{D}$) meson and $C_{D}=0.4\pm0.1, \omega=0.2$ GeV and $f_{D_{s}}=241$ MeV [@fd] for $D_{s} (\bar{D}_{s})$ meson. For $D^{*}$ meson, we take the same model as the $D$ meson and determine the decay constant by using the following relation based on heavy quark effective theory (HQET) [@am]. $$\begin{aligned}
f_{D_{(s)}^{*}}\,=\,\sqrt{\frac{m_{D_{(s)}}}{m_{D_{(s)}}^{*}}}\,f_{D_{(s)}}\end{aligned}$$
Perturbative calculation {#jiexi}
========================
There are 6 types of diagrams contributing to the $B_c\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays, which are shown in Fig.1. The dominant factorizable emission type diagrams in most other decay modes are not shown here, because they do not contribute for a tensor meson emission. The second line are the factorizable and nonfactorizable annihilation type diagrams.
=10 cm
After the perturbative calculation, the decay amplitudes for the non-factorizable emission diagrams in Fig.1(a) and (b) are
\(i) (V-A)(V-A) operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}&=&\frac{32}{3}\pi C_{F}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{T}(x_{2})\phi_{D}(x_3,b_{1})\nonumber\\
&& \times \left\{\left[r_{D}(1-x_{3})+x_{1}+x_{2}-1\right]E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-\left[r_{D}(1-x_{3})+x_{1}-x_{2}+x_{3}-1\right]E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right\},\end{aligned}$$
\(ii) (V-A)(V+A) operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR}&=&\frac{32}{3}\pi C_{F}r_{T}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_{c}}(x_{1},b_1)\phi_{D}(x_3,b_1)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)(x_1+x_2+r_{D}(x_1+x_2+x_3-2)-1)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_{T}^t(x_2)((x_1+x_2)(1+r_D)-r_Dx_3-1)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left[\phi_{T}^t(x_2)(x_1-x_2+r_D(x_1-x_2-x_3+1))\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.-\phi_{T}^s(x_2)(x_1-x_2+r_D(x_1-x_2+x_3-1))\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right\},\end{aligned}$$
\(iii) (S-P)(S+P) operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP}&=&-\frac{32}{3}\pi C_{F}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{T}(x_{2})\phi_{D}(x_3,b_{1})\nonumber\\
&& \times \left[(r_{D}(x_3-1)-x_1-x_2-x_3+2)E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+(r_D(1-x_3)+x_1-x_2)E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{F}=4/3$ is the group factor of $SU(3)_c$. The hard scale $t_{a(b)}$ and the functions $E_{enf}$ and $h_{enf}$ can be found in Appendix A.
Fig. 1(c) and 1(d) are the factorizable annihilation diagrams, whose contributions are
\(i) (V-A)(V-A) operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}&=&8\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}C_F\pi f_{B_c}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}dx_2dx_3\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_2db_2b_3db_3\,\phi_{D}(x_3,b_3)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[2\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)r_{D}r_{T}(x_3+1)+\phi_{T}(x_2)x_3\right]E_{af}(t_c)h_{af1}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right.\nonumber\\
&&+\left.\left[\phi_{T}(x_2)(2r_cr_D-x_2)+r_T(-\phi_{T}^{t}(x_2)(2r_D(x_2-1)+r_c)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)(-2(x_2+1)r_D+r_c))\right]E_{af}(t_d)h_{af2}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right\},\end{aligned}$$
(ii)(S-P)(S+P) operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP}&=&-16\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}C_{F}f_{B_c}\pi m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}dx_2dx_3\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}\phi_{D}(x_3,b_3)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[(2\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)r_T+r_D\phi_{T}(x_2)x_3)E_{af}(t_c)h_{af1}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+(\phi_{T}(x_2)(2r_D-r_c)+r_T(\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)(x_2-4r_Dr_c)-\phi_{T}^{t}(x_2)x_2))\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{af}(t_d)h_{af2}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right],\end{aligned}$$ with $r_c=m_c/m_{B_c}$. $m_c$ is the mass of the $c$ quark. $t_{c(d)}$, $E_{af}$ and $h_{af1(2)}$ are also listed in Appendix A.
The last two diagrams in Fig.1 are the nonfactorizable annihilation diagrams, whose contributions are
\(i) (V-A)(V-A) operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}&=&-\frac{32}{3}C_F\pi m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}(x_3,b_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[\phi_T(x_2)(1-x_1-x_2-r_b)-r_Tr_D(\phi_T^t(x_2)(x_1+x_2-x_3)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_T^s(x_2)(x_1+x_2+x_3-2+4r_b))\right]E_{anf}(t_e)h_{anf1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&+\left.\left[\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)r_Dr_T(-x_1+x_2+x_3+4r_c)+\phi_{T}^{t}(x_2)r_Dr_T(x_1-x_2+x_3)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_{T}(x_2)(x_3+r_c)\right]E_{anf}(t_f)h_{anf2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right\},\end{aligned}$$
\(ii) (V-A)(V+A) operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR}&=&-\frac{32}{3}C_F\pi m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}(x_3,b_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[-(\phi_{T}^{t}(x_{2})+\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2))r_{T}(x_{1}+x_{2}-1-r_b)+\phi_{T}(x_{2})r_{D}(x_{3}-1-r_b)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{anf}(t_e)h_{anf1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left[-(\phi_{T}^{s}(x_{2})+\phi_{T}^{t}(x_2))r_{T}(x_{1}-x_{2}+r_{c})-\phi_{T}(x_{2})r_{D}(x_{3}-r_{c})\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{anf}(t_f)h_{anf2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ with $r_b=m_b/m_{B_c}$. $t_{e(f)}$, $E_{anf}$ and $h_{anf1(2)}$ are also listed in Appendix A.
With the factorization formulae obtained in the above, for these $B_{c}\rightarrow DT$ decays, the total amplitudes containing the Wilson coefficients and CKM elements can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_{c}\rightarrow a_{2}^{+} D^{0})=&&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{ub}^{*}V_{ud}\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}C_{1}+V_{cb}^{*}V_{cd}(\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}a_{1}+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}C_{1})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-V_{tb}^{*}V_{td}[\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}(C_{3}+C_{9})+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR}(C_{5}+C_{7})+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}(a_{4}+a_{10})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP}(a_6+a_8)+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}(C_3+C_9)+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR}(C_5+C_7)]\right\},
\label{1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow K_{2}^{*+}D^{0})=\mathcal{A}(B_{c}\rightarrow a_{2}^{+} D^{0})\mid _{V_{ud}\rightarrow V_{us},V_{cd}\rightarrow V_{cs}, V_{td}\rightarrow V_{ts}, a_{2}^{+}\rightarrow K_{2}^{*+}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow a_{2}^{0} D^{+})=&&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{ub}^{*}V_{ud}\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}C_2-V_{cb}^{*}V_{cd}(\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}a_{1}+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}C_{1})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-V_{tb}^{*}V_{td}[\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}(-C_{3}+3a_{10}/2)+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR}(-C_{5}+C_{7}/2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP}(3C_{8}/2)-\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}(a_4+a_{10})-\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP}(a_6+a_8)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}(C_3+C_9)-\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR}(C_5+C_7)]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow K_{2}^{*0}D^{+})&=&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{cb}^{*}V_{cs}(\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}a_{1}+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}C_{1})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-V_{tb}^{*}V_{ts}[\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}(C_{3}-C_{9}/2)+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR}(C_{5}-C_{7}/2)+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}(a_{4}+a_{10})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP}(a_6+a_{8})+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}(C_3+C_9)+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR}(C_5+C_7)]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow f_{2}^{q}D^{+})&=&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{ub}^{*}V_{ud}\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}C_{2}+V_{cb}^{*}V_{cd}(\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}a_{1}+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}C_1)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-V_{tb}^{*}V_{td}[\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}(C_3+2C_4-C_9/2+C_{10}/2)+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR}(C_5-C_7/2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP}(2C_6+C_8/2)+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}(a_4+a_{10})+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP}(a_6+a_8)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}(C_3+C9)+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR}(C_5+C_7)]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow f_{2}^{s}D^{+})&=&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{-V_{tb}^{*}V_{td}[\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}(C_{4}-C_{10}/2)+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP}(C_6-C_8/2)]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow a_{2}^{0}D_{s}^{+})&=&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{ub}^{*}V_{us}\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}C_2-V_{tb}^{*}V_{ts}[\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}3C_{10}/2+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP}3C_{8}/2]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow \bar{K}_{2}^{*0}D_{s}^{+})&=&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{cb}^{*}V_{cd}(\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}a_1+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}C_{1})-V_{tb}^{*}V_{td}[\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}(a_4+a_{10})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP}(a_6+a_8)+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}(C_3+C_9)+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR}(C_5+C_7)]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow f_{2}^{q}D_{s}^{+})&=&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{ub}^{*}V_{us}\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}C_{2}-V_{tb}^{*}V_{ts}[\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}(2C_4+C_{10}/2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP}(2C_6+C_8/2)]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(B_c\rightarrow f_{2}^{s}D_{s}^{+})&=&\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{V_{cb}^{*}V_{cs}(\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}a_{1}+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}C_{1})-V_{tb}^{*}V_{ts}[\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR}(C_{5}-C_{7}/2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL}(C_3+C_4-C_9/2-C_{10}/2)+\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP}(C_6-C_8/2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL}(a_4+a_{10})+\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP}(a_6+a_8)+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL}(C_3+C_9)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR}(C_5+C_7)]\right\},
\label{2}\end{aligned}$$
From Eq.(\[ffpmix\]), we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal {A}(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}f_{2})\,=\,\mathcal
{A}(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}f_{2}^{q})\cos\theta+\mathcal
{A}(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}f_{2}^{s})\sin\theta,\\
\mathcal {A}(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}f_{2}^{\prime})\,=\,\mathcal
{A}(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}f_{2}^{q})\sin\theta-\mathcal
{A}(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)}f_{2}^{s})\cos\theta,\end{aligned}$$ with $\theta=7.8^{\circ}$.
The amplitudes of $B_c\rightarrow D^*T$ decay can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}(\epsilon_{D},\epsilon_{T})=i\mathcal{A}^{N}+i(\epsilon_{D}^{T*}\cdot \epsilon_{T}^{T*})\mathcal{A}^{s}+(\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}n^{\mu}v^{\nu}\epsilon_{D}^{T*\alpha}\epsilon_{T}^{T*\beta})\mathcal{A}^{p},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{A}^{N}$ contains the contribution from the longitudinal polarizations, while $\mathcal{A}^{s}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{p}$ represent the transversely polarized contributions. $\epsilon_{D}^{T}$ is the transverse polarization vector of $D^{*}$ meson, and $\epsilon_{T}^{T}$ is the vector used to construct the polarization tensors of tensor meson. For each decay process of $B_c\rightarrow D^{*}T$, the amplitudes $\mathcal{A}^N$, $\mathcal{A}^{s}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{p}$ have the same structures as eqs.(\[1\])-(\[2\]), respectively. The factorization formulae for the longitudinal and transverse polarization for the $B_c\rightarrow D^{*}T$ decays are listed in Appendix B.
NUMERICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
=================================
The decay width of a $B_c$ meson at rest decaying into $D$ and $T$ meson is $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(B_{c}\rightarrow
DT)\,=\,\frac{|\overrightarrow{P}|}{8\pi
m_{B_c}^{2}}|\mathcal {A}(B_c\rightarrow DT)|\,^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where the momentum of the final state particle is given by $$\begin{aligned}
|\overrightarrow
P|\,=\,\frac{1}{2m_{B_c}}\sqrt{\left[m_{B_c}^{2}-(m_{D}+m_{T})^{2}\right]\left[m_{B_c}^{2}-(m_{D}-m_{T})^{2}\right]} .\end{aligned}$$ The masses and decay constants of tensor mesons needed in the numerical calculations are summarized in Table \[S\]. Other parameters such as QCD scale (GeV), the mass (GeV) and the lifetime and decay constant of $B_{c}$ meson are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{f=4}=0.25,\;m_{B_{c}}=6.286,\;f_{B_c}=0.489,\nonumber\\
&&\tau_{B_{c}}= 0.46 ps,\; \omega_{B_c}=0.6,\,m_{b}=4.8,\;m_{c}=1.5.\nonumber\\
$$ For the CKM matrix elements, here we adopt the Wolfenstein parameterization, and take $A=0.808$, $\lambda=0.2253$, $\bar{\rho}=0.132$ and $\bar{\eta}=0.341$ [@jpg37075021].
[c!c!c]{} & &\
&&\
&&\
&&\
&&\
\[S\]
Like the $\eta\,-\,\eta^{\prime}$ mixing, the isoscalar tensor states $f_{2}(1270)$ and $f_{2}^{\prime}(1525)$ also have a mixing and can be given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&f_{2}\,=\,f_{2}^{q}\cos\theta\,+\, f_{2}^{s}\sin\theta,\nonumber\\
&&f_{2}^{\prime}\,=\,f_{2}^{q}\sin\theta\,-\,f_{2}^{s}\cos\theta,
\label{ffpmix}\end{aligned}$$ with $f_{2}^{q}\,=\,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u\bar{u}\,+\,d\bar{d})$, $f_{2}^{s}\,=\,s\bar{s}$ and the mixing angle $\theta\,=\,5.8^{\circ}$ [@zheng3], $7.8^{\circ}$ [@jpg27807] or $(9\,\pm\,1)^{\circ}$ [@jpg37075021].
For $B_c\rightarrow D^{*}T$ decays, with three kinds of polarization amplitudes, the decay width can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(B_c\rightarrow
D^{*}T)\,=\,\frac{|\overrightarrow{P}|}{8\pi
m_{B}^{2}}(\mid\mathcal{A}^{N}\mid^{2}+2(\mid\mathcal{A}^{s}\mid^{2}+\mid\mathcal{A}^{p}\mid^{2})).\end{aligned}$$
[l!c!c!c]{}
& & &\
&&&\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
\[s1\]
The CP averaging branching ratios and the direct CP asymmetries for the considered decay modes by using the PQCD approach are summarized in Tables \[s1\] and \[s2\]. The numerical results obtained from perturbative calculation are sensitive to many parameters. For the theoretical uncertainties in our calculations, we estimated three kinds of them: The first errors are caused by the hadronic parameters of mesons’ wave functions, such as the decay constants and the shape parameters of light tensor meson, charmed meson and the $B_{c}$ meson, which are given in Sec. \[sec:function\] and this section. The second errors are estimated from the uncertainty of $\Lambda_{QCD}\,=\,(0.25\,\pm\,0.05)$ GeV and the choice of the hard scales which vary from $0.8t$ to $1.2t$, which characterize the unknown next-to-leading order QCD corrections. The third error is from the uncertainties of the CKM matrix elements. It is easy to see that the most important theoretical uncertainty is caused by the non-perturbative hadronic parameters, which can be improved by experiments.
It is easy to find that there are large theoretical uncertainties in any of the individual decay channel calculations mostly due to the shortage of the Tensor meson property. In order to reduce the effects of the choice of input parameters, we define the ratios of the branching ratios between relevant decay modes: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)0}a_{2}^{+})}{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)+}a_{2}^{0})}\sim 2,\\
&&\frac{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)+}K_{2}^{*0})}{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)0}K_{2}^{*+})} \sim \frac{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)+}a_{2}^{0})}{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{(*)+}f_{2})}\sim1,\\
&&\frac{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D_{s}^{(*)+}\bar{K}_{2}^{*0})}{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D_{s}^{(*)+}f_{2}^{\prime})}\sim \left(\frac{f_{K_{2}^{*}}^{T}(f_{K_{2}^{*}})V_{cd}}{f_{f_{2}^{\prime}}^{T}(f_{f_{2}^{\prime}})V_{cs}}\right)^{2}\sim \frac{1}{20},\\
&&\frac{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{+}f_{2})}{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{+}K_{2}^{*0})}\sim\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_{f_{2}}^{T}V_{cd}}{f_{K_{2}^{*}}^{T}V_{cs}}\right)^{2}\sim\frac{1}{20},\\
&&\frac{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{*+}f_{2})}{Br(B_{c}\rightarrow D^{*+}K_{2}^{*0})}\sim\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{f_{f_{2}}V_{cd}}{f_{K_{2}^{*}}V_{cs}}\right)^{2}\sim\frac{1}{40}.\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that any significant deviation from the above relations will be a test of factorization or signal of new physics.
[l!c!c!c!c!c]{}
& & & &\
&&&&\
& & &&\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
\[s2\]
For all considered $B_c\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays, the factorizable emission diagrams do not contribute, because the tensor meson can not be produced through local $(V\pm A)$ and $(S\pm P)$ currents. But these decays can get contributions from nonfactorizable and annihilation diagrams. In fact, most of these decays are dominant by the W annihilation diagrams (A) as classified in the tables. There are only four decay channels, which are dominated by the color suppressed (C) or penguin (P) diagrams. As we know, usually the annihilation diagrams are power suppressed comparing with the emission diagrams in PQCD approach. But for these considered decay channels, the contributions from the annihilation type diagrams are enhanced by the large CKM elements $V_{cs(d)}$ and thus play a crucial role in amplitudes.
From Table \[s1\] and \[s2\], one can find that most of the predicted branching ratios are in the order of $10^{-6}$ or even bigger. As stated in ref.[@haochu1; @haochu2], the LHC experiment, specifically the LHCb, can produce around $5 \times 10^{10}$ $B_c$ events each year. The $B_c$ decays with a decay rate at the level of $10^{-6}$ can be detected with a good precision at LHC experiments [@su]. On the basis of our predictions, most of these $B_c\rightarrow D^{(*)}T$ decays can be observed in the experiments soon. On the other hand, since the contributions from penguin operators are so small comparing with the contributions from tree operators, the direct CP asymmetries are all very small except $B_c\rightarrow D^{+}f_{2}^{\prime}$. For $B_c\rightarrow D^{+}f_{2}^{\prime}$ decay, the tree contributions from $f_{2}^{q}$ term are suppressed by the mixing angle (see \[ffpmix\]), to be at the same level with penguin contributions from $f_{2}^{s}$ term. The interference is sizable, thus the direct CP asymmetry is around -50%. Unfortunately, this decay channel is not accessible easily by current experiments due to a too small branching ratio.
For $B_c\rightarrow D^{*}T$ decays, we also calculate the percentage of the transverse polarization $R_T$, which can be described as $$\begin{aligned}
R_{T}=\frac{2(|\mathcal{A}^{s}|^{2}+|\mathcal{A}^{p}|^{2})}{|\mathcal{A}^{N}|^{2}+2(|\mathcal{A}^{s}|^{2}+|\mathcal{A}^{p}|^{2})}.\end{aligned}$$ Usually from naive factorization expectation, the longitudinal polarizations dominate the branching ratios of $B$ decays. However, from numerical results shown in Table \[s2\], one can see that the transverse polarized contributions are about at the same level with the longitudinal polarized contributions. In fact, from eq.(\[afn\],\[afs\]), we can find that although the transverse polarized contributions are power suppressed, they are also about at the same level with the longitudinal polarized contributions because the two factorizable annihilation diagrams strongly cancel with each other in the longitudinally polarized case. As a result, for these W annihilation diagrams dominant decays, the percentages of the transverse polarization are around $70\%$ or even bigger. This large percentage can be understood as follows [@polarization]: We know that the “light quark-unti-quark" pair created from hard gluon are left-handed or right-handed with equal opportunity. What is more, the $c$ quark from four quark operator is right-handed. So the $D^{*}$ meson can be longitudinally polarized or transversely polarized with polarization $\lambda=-1$. For the tensor meson, the anti-quark from four quark operator is right-handed, and the quark produced from hard gluon can be either left-handed or right-handed. So the tensor meson can be longitudinally polarized or transversely polarized with polarization $\lambda=-1$, because of the additional contribution from the orbital angular momentum. So the transverse polarization can become so large with additional interference from other diagrams. For $B_c\rightarrow D_{s}^{*+}f_{2}$, the longitudinal contributions from color suppressed diagrams and W annihilation diagrams strongly cancel with each other, while the transverse contributions can not cancel because the transverse contributions from color suppressed tree diagrams are too small. As a result, the ratio of transverse polarizations becomes as large as 98.4%. But for the color suppressed dominant $B_c\rightarrow D_s^{*+}a_{2}^{0}$ decay, according to the power counting rules in the factorization assumption, the longitudinal contributions should be dominant due to the quark helicity analysis [@helicity1; @helicity2]. The ratio is only around 10%.
SUMMARY
=======
In this paper, we investigate $B_{c}\rightarrow
D^{(*)}T$ decays within the framework of perturbative QCD approach. We estimate and calculate the contributions of different diagrams in the leading order approximation of $m_{D}/m_{B_c}$ expansion. Most of these decays are dominant by the W annihilation diagrams, which are only calculable in the pQCD approach. After calculation, we find that the branching ratios of many decays are in the order of $10^{-6}$ or even bigger, which can be detected in the ongoing experiments. These samples of $B_c$ decays would provide an opportunity to study properties of $B_c$ meson and learn about the modes of the decays with a tensor meson emitted. Most of the direct CP asymmetries are very small because the penguin contributions are too small comparing with the tree contributions. We also predict large ratios of transverse polarizations around $70\%$ or even bigger for those W annihilation dominant decays.
$\textbf{Acknowledgment}$
We are very grateful to Dr. Xin Liu for helpful discussions. This Work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China under the Grant No.11075168. This research was supported in part by the Project of Knowledge Innovation Program (PKIP) of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Grant No. KJCX2.YW.W10
Related Hard Functions
======================
In this appendix, we summarize the functions that appear in the analytic formulas in the Section \[jiexi\]. The first two diagrams in Fig. 1 are nonfactorizable emission diagrams, whose hard scales $t_{a(b)}$ can be determined by $$\begin{aligned}
t_{a}=&&\max\{\sqrt{(x_1-r_D^2)(1-x_3)}\,m_{B_c},\sqrt{\mid(x_3-1)[(1-r_D^2)(1-x_2)-(x_1-r_D^{2})]\mid}\,m_{B_c},\nonumber\\
&&1/b_{1},1/b_{2}\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
t_{b}=&&\max\{\sqrt{(x_1-r_D^2)(1-x_3)}\,m_{B_c},\sqrt{\mid(x_3-1)[(1-r_D^2)x_2-(x_1-r_D^{2})]\mid}\,m_{B_c},\nonumber\\
&&1/b_{1},1/b_{2}\}.\end{aligned}$$ The evolution factors $E_{enf}(t_{a})$ and $E_{enf}(t_{b})$ in the analytic formulas (see Section \[jiexi\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_{enf}(t)\,=\,\alpha_{s}(t)\exp[-S_{B_c}(t)-S_{T}(t)-S_{D}(t)]| \,_{b_{1}=b_{3}}.\end{aligned}$$ The Sudakov exponents are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
S_{B_c}(t)\,=\,s\left(x_{1}\frac{m_{B_c}}{\sqrt{2}},b_{1}\right)\,+\,\frac{5}{3}\int_{1/b_{1}}^{t}\frac{d\bar{\mu}}{\bar{\mu}}\gamma_{q}(\alpha_{s}(\bar{\mu})),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{D}(t)\,=\,s\left(x_{3}\frac{m_{B_c}}{\sqrt{2}},b_{3}\right)
\,+\,2\int_{1/b}^{t}\frac{d\bar{\mu}}{\bar{\mu}}\gamma_{q}(\alpha_{s}(\bar{\mu})),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
S_{T}(t)\,=\,s\left(x_{2}\frac{m_{B_c}}{\sqrt{2}},b_{2}\right)\,+\,s\left((1-x_{2})\frac{m_{B_{c}}}{\sqrt{2}},b_{2}\right)
\,+\,2\int_{1/b}^{t}\frac{d\bar{\mu}}{\bar{\mu}}\gamma_{q}(\alpha_{s}(\bar{\mu})),\end{aligned}$$ where the $s(Q,b)$ can be found in the Appendix A in the ref.[@prd63074009]. The function $h_{enf}$ can be given as $$\begin{aligned}
h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\,&=&\,\left[\theta(b_{2}-b_{1})K_{0}(D_{0}m_{B_c}b_2)I_{0}(D_{0}m_{B_c}b_1)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\theta(b_{1}-b_{2})K_{0}(D_{0}m_{B_c}b_1)I_{0}(D_{0}m_{B_c}b_2)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\cdot \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{i\pi}{2}H_{0}^{(1)}\left(\sqrt{|D^{2}|}m_{B}b_{2}\right),& \;\;D^{2}<0;\\
K_{0}\left(Dm_{B}b_{2}\right),&\;\;D^{2}>0,
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
D_{0}^{2}&=&(1-x_3)(x_1-r_{D}^{2}),\\
D^{2}&=&(x_3-1)[(1-r_{D}^{2})x_2-(x_1-r_{D}^{2})].\end{aligned}$$
For the rest of diagrams, the related functions are summarized as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
&&t_{c}\,=\,\max\{\sqrt{(1-r_D^2)x_3}m_{B_c},1/b_{2},1/b_{3}\},\nonumber\\
&&t_{d}\,=\,\max\{\sqrt{x_{2}x_3(1-r_{D}^{2})}m_{B_c},\sqrt{(1-r_D^2)x_2+r_D^2-r_c^{2}}m_{B_c},1/b_{2},1/b_{3}\},\\
&&E_{af}(t)\,=\,\alpha_{s}(t)\cdot \exp[-S_{T}(t)-S_{D}(t)],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
h_{af1}(x_{2},x_{3},b_{2},b_{3})\,&=&\,(\frac{i\pi}{2})^{2}H_{0}^{(1)}\left(\sqrt{x_{2}x_{3}(1-r_{D}^{2})}m_{B_c}b_{2}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\left[\theta(b_{2}-b_{3})H_{0}^{(1)}\left(\sqrt{F_{1}^{2}}m_{B_c}b_{2}\right)J_{0}\left(\sqrt{F_{1}^{2}}m_{B_c}b_{3}\right)\right.\,+\nonumber\\
&&\left.\theta(b_{3}-b_{2})H_{0}^{(1)}\left(\sqrt{F_{1}^{2}}m_{B_c}b_{3}\right)J_{0}\left(\sqrt{F_{1}^{2}}m_{B_c}b_{2}\right)\right]\cdot
S_{t}(x_{3}).\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
h_{af2}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)=h_{af1}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)|\,_ {b_2\longleftrightarrow b_3, F_{1}^{2}\rightarrow F_{2}^{2}},\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}^{2}&=&(1-r_D^2)x_3,\\
F_{2}^{2}&=&(1-r_{D}^{2})x_2+r_{D}^{2}-r_{c}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The $S_{t}(x)$ is the Jet function with the expression as [@prd66094010] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{t}(x)\,=\,\frac{2^{1+2c}\Gamma(3/2+c)}{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(1+c)}[x(1-x)]^{c},\end{aligned}$$ where $c\,=\,0.3$. For the nonfactorizable diagrams, we omit the $S_{t}(x)$, because it provides a very small numerical effect to the amplitude [@plb555]. $$\begin{aligned}
t_{e}\,&=&\,\max\{\sqrt{x_{2}x_{3}(1-r_{D}^{2})}m_{B_c},\sqrt{|r_b^{2}-(1-x_3)(1-x_1-(1-r_D^2)x_2)|}m_{B_c},\nonumber\\
&&1/b_{1},1/b_{2}\},\nonumber\\
t_{f}\,&=&\,\max\{\sqrt{x_{2}x_{3}(1-r_{D}^{2})}m_{B_c},\sqrt{|r_c^{2}+x_3(x_1-(1-r_D^2)x_2)|}m_{B_c},1/b_{1},1/b_{2}\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
E_{anf}\,=\,\alpha_{s}(t)\cdot
\exp[-S_{B}(t)-S_{T}(t)-S_{D}(t)]\mid\,_{b_{2}=b_{3}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
h_{anfj}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\,&=&\,\frac{i\pi}{2}\left[\theta(b_{1}-b_{2})H_{0}^{(1)}\left(Gm_{B_c}b_{1}\right)J_{0}\left(Gm_{B_c}b_{2}\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\theta(b_{2}-b_{1})H_{0}^{(1)}\left(Gm_{B_c}b_{2}\right)J_{0}\left(Gm_{B_c}b_{1}\right)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\times \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{i\pi}{2}H_{0}^{(1)}\left(\sqrt{|G_{j}^{2}|}m_{B_c}b_{1}\right),&
G_{j}^{2}<0,\\
K_{0}\left(G_{j}m_{B_c}b_{1}\right),& G_{j}^{2}>0,
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ with $j=1,2$. $$\begin{aligned}
G^{2}&=&x_{2}x_{3}(1-r_{D}^{2}),\\
G_{1}^{2}&=&r_b^2-(1-x_3)(1-x_1-(1-r_D^2)x_2),\\
G_{2}^{2}&=&r_c^2+x_3(x_1-(1-r_D^2)x_2).\end{aligned}$$
factorization formulae for $B_{c}\rightarrow D^{*}T$
====================================================
[For longitudinal polarization, the decay amplitude of various diagrams and various effective operators are]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL(N)}&=&\frac{32}{3}\pi C_{F}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{T}(x_{2})\phi_{D}(x_3,b_{1})\nonumber\\
&& \times \left\{\left[r_{D}(1-x_{3})-x_{1}-x_{2}+1\right]E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left[r_{D}(1-x_{3})+x_{1}-x_{2}+x_{3}-1\right]E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR(N)}&=&-\frac{32}{3}\pi C_{F}r_{T}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_{c}}(x_{1},b_1)\phi_{D}(x_3,b_1)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)((r_D-1)(x_1+x_2)-r_Dx_3+1)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_{T}^t(x_2)(-x_1-x_2+r_D(x_1+x_2+x_3-2)+1)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left[-\phi_{T}^s(x_2)(x_2-x_1+r_D(x_1-x_2-x_3+1))\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_{T}^t(x_2)(x_2-x_1+r_D(x_1-x_2+x_3-1))\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP(N)}&=&\frac{32}{3}\pi C_{F}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{T}(x_{2})\phi_{D}(x_3,b_{1})\nonumber\\
&& \times \left[(r_{D}(x_3-1)-x_1-x_2-x_3+2)E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+(r_D(x_3-1)+x_1-x_2)E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL(N)}&=&8\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}C_F\pi f_{B_c}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}dx_2dx_3\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_2db_2b_3db_3\,\phi_{D}(x_3,b_3)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[2\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)r_{D}r_{T}(1-x_3)-\phi_{T}(x_2)x_3\right]E_{af}(t_c)h_{af1}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right.\nonumber\\
&&+\left.\left[\phi_{T}(x_2)x_2+r_Tr_c(\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)-\phi_T^{t}(x_2))\right]E_{af}(t_d)h_{af2}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right\},
\label{afn}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP(N)}&=&-16\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}C_{F}f_{B_c}m_{B_c}^4\pi\int_{0}^{1}dx_2dx_3\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}\phi_{D}(x_3,b_3)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left[(2\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)r_T-r_D\phi_{T}(x_2)x_3)E_{af}(t_c)h_{af1}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+((\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)-\phi_{T}^{t}(x_2))r_Tx_2+\phi_{T}(x_2)r_c)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{af}(t_d)h_{af2}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right],\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL(N)}&=&-\frac{32}{3}C_F\pi m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}(x_3,b_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[\phi_T(x_2)(x_1+x_2-1+r_b)+r_Tr_D(\phi_T^t(x_2)(x_1+x_2+x_3-2)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_T^s(x_2)(x_1+x_2-x_3))\right]E_{anf}(t_e)h_{anf1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&+\left.\left[-\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2)r_Dr_T(x_1-x_2+x_3)+\phi_{T}^{t}(x_2)r_Dr_T(x_1-x_2-x_3)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.-\phi_{T}(x_2)(x_3+r_c)\right]E_{anf}(t_f)h_{anf2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR(N)}&=&-\frac{32}{3}C_F\pi m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}(x_3,b_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[-(\phi_{T}^{t}(x_{2})+\phi_{T}^{s}(x_2))r_{T}(x_{1}+x_{2}-1-r_b)+\phi_{T}(x_{2})r_{D}(x_{3}-1-r_b)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{anf}(t_e)h_{anf1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left[-(\phi_{T}^{s}(x_{2})+\phi_{T}^{t}(x_2))r_{T}(x_{1}-x_{2}+r_{c})-\phi_{T}(x_{2})r_{D}(x_{3}-r_{c})\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{anf}(t_f)h_{anf2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right\},\end{aligned}$$
For [transverse polarization]{}, the corresponding decay amplitudes are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL(s)}&=&-\frac{16}{\sqrt{3}}\pi C_{F}m_{B_c}^{4}r_{T}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}^{T}(x_3,b_{1})\nonumber\\
&& \times \left\{\left[(\phi_{T}^{a}(x_2)+\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2))(x_1+x_2-1)\right]E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left[\phi_{T}^{a}(x_2)(x_1-x_2)+\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2)(-2(x_1-x_2+x_3-1)r_D+x_1-x_2)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\cdot E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL(p)}=\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LL(s)}\mid_{\phi_{T}^{a}\leftrightarrow \phi_{T}^{v}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR(s)}&=&-\frac{16}{\sqrt{3}}\pi C_{F}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}^{T}(x_3,b_{1})\phi_{T}^{T}(x_2)\nonumber\\
&& \times \left\{\left[r_{D}(r_{D}-1)(x_3-1)\right]E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left[r_{D}(r_{D}-1)(x_3-1)\right]E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR(p)}=\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{LR(s)},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP(s)}&=&-\frac{16}{\sqrt{3}}\pi C_{F}m_{B_c}^{4}r_{T}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}^{T}(x_3,b_{1})\nonumber\\
&& \times \left\{\left[\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2)(2r_D(x_1+x_2+x_3-2)-x_1-x_2+1)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_{T}^{a}(x_2)(x_1+x_2-1)\right]E_{enf}(t_{a})h_{enf}(x_{1},(1-x_{2}),x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\left[(\phi_{T}^{a}(x_2)-\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2))(x_1-x_2)\right]E_{enf}(t_b)h_{enf}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},b_{1},b_{2})\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP(p)}=-\mathcal{M}_{enf}^{SP(s)}\mid_{\phi_{T}^{a}\leftrightarrow \phi_{T}^{v}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL(s)}&=&4\sqrt{2}C_F\pi f_{B_c}r_{D}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}dx_2dx_3\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_2db_2b_3db_3\,\phi_{D}^{T}(x_3,b_3)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[-r_{T}(\phi_{T}^{a}(x_{2})(1-x_3)+\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2)(1+x_3))\right]E_{af}(t_c)h_{af1}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right.\nonumber\\
&&+\left.\left[r_{T}(\phi_T^a(x_2)(x_2-1)+\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2)(x_2+1))\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.-\phi_{T}^{T}(x_2)r_c\right]E_{af}(t_d)h_{af2}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right\},
\label{afs}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL(p)}=\mathcal{M}_{af}^{LL(s)}\mid_{\phi_{T}^{a}\leftrightarrow \phi_{T}^{v}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP(s)}&=&8\sqrt{2}C_F\pi f_{B_c}m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}dx_2dx_3\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_2db_2b_3db_3\,\phi_{D}^{T}(x_3,b_3)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[r_{T}(\phi_{T}^{a}(x_2)+\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2))\right]E_{af}(t_c)h_{af1}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right.\nonumber\\
&&-\left.\left[r_{D}(\phi_{T}^{T}(x_{2})(r_{D}^{2}-1)+2\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2)r_{T}r_{c})\right]E_{af}(t_d)h_{af2}(x_2,x_3,b_2,b_3)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP(p)}=\mathcal{M}_{af}^{SP(s)}\mid_{\phi_{T}^{a}\leftrightarrow \phi_{T}^{v}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL(s)}&=&\frac{16}{\sqrt{3}}C_F\pi r_D m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}^{T}(x_3,b_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[-\phi_{T}^{T}(x_2)r_{D}(x_3-1)-2\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2)r_{T}r_b\right]E_{anf}(t_e)h_{anf1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&+\left.\left[\phi_{T}^{T}(x_2)r_Dx_3+2\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2)r_Tr_c\right]E_{anf}(t_f)h_{anf2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL(p)}=\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LL(s)}\mid_{\phi_{T}^{v}\rightarrow \phi_{T}^{a}},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR(s)}&=&\frac{16}{\sqrt{3}}C_F\pi m_{B_c}^{4}\int_{0}^{1}d[x]\int_{0}^{1/\Lambda}b_1db_1b_2db_2\phi_{B_c}(x_1,b_1)\phi_{D}^{T}(x_3,b_2)\nonumber\\
&&\times\left\{\left[-(\phi_{T}^{a}(x_2)+\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2))r_T(x_1+x_2-1-r_b)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_{T}^{T}(x_2)r_D(x_3-1-r_b)\right]E_{anf}(t_e)h_{anf1}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right.\nonumber\\
&&-\left.\left[r_T(\phi_{T}^{a}(x_2)+\phi_{T}^{v}(x_2))(x_1-x_2+r_c)\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left.+\phi_{T}^{T}(x_2)r_D(x_3-r_c)\right]E_{anf}(t_f)h_{anf2}(x_1,x_2,x_3,b_1,b_2)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR(p)}=\mathcal{M}_{anf}^{LR(s)}.\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} F. Abe *et* *al*.(CDF Collaboration). Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 2432 (1998); Phys. Rev. D **58**, 112004 (1998). T. Aaltonen *et* *al*. (CDF Collabortation), Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 182002 (2008); V. M. Abazov *et* *al*. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 012001 (2008). N. Brambilla *et* *al*. (Quarkonium Working Group), Report No. CERN-2005-005. N. Brambilla *et* *al*.,Eur. Phys. J. C **71**, 1534 (2011). I. I. Bigi, Phys. Lett. B **371**, 105 (1996). M. Beneke and G. Buchalla, Phys. Rev. D **53**, 4991 (1996). C. H. Chang and Y. Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. D **49**, 3399 (1994). C. H. Chang, Y. Q. Chen and R. J. Oakes, Phys. Rev. D **54**, 4344 (1996). M. Lusignoli, M. Masetti and S. Petrarca, Phys. Lett. B **266**, 142 (1991). N. Brambilla and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D **62**, 094019 (2000). N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Rev. Mod. Phys. **77**,1423 (2005). V. V. Kiselev, A. E. Kovalsky and A. K. Likhoded, Nucl. Phys. **B585**, 353 (2000). V. V. Kiselev, J. Phys. G **30**, 1445 (2004). S. Descotes-Genon, J. He, E. Kou and P. Robbe, Phys. Rev. D **80**, 114031 (2009). N. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 014027 (2010). N. Sharma and R. C. Verma, Phys. Rev. D **82**, 094014 (2010). G López Castro, H. B. Mayorga and J. H. Munoz, J. Phys. G **28** 2241-2248 (2002). J. F. Sun *et* *al*., Phys. Rev. D **77**, 074013 (2008); Phys. Rev. D **77**, 114004 (2008); Eur. Phys. J. C **60**, 107 (2009). Y. L. Yang, J. F. Sun and N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 074012 (2010). J. F. Cheng, D. S. Du and C. D. Lü, Eur, Phys. J. C **45**, 711-720 (2006). X. Liu, Z. J. Xiao and C. D. Lü, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 014022 (2010). X. Liu and Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D **82**, 054029 (2010). X. Liu and Z. J. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 074017 (2010). X. Liu and Z. J. Xiao, J. Phys. G **38**, 035009 (2011). Z. J. Xiao and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 074033 (2011). Zhou rui, Z. T. Zou and C. D. Lü, arXiv:1112.1257 \[hep-ph\]; arXiv:1203.2303 \[hep-ph\]. Wei Wang, Phys. Rev. D **83**, 014008 (2011). H. Y. Cheng, Y. Koike and K. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D **82**, 054019 (2010). Hai-Yang Cheng and Kwei-Chou Yang, Phys. Rev. D **83**, 034001 (2011). A. C. Katoch and R. C. Verma, Phys. Rev. D **49**, 1645 (1994); **52**, 1717 (1995); **55**, 7315(E) (1997). G. López Castro and J. H. Muñoz, Phys. Rev. D **55**, 5581 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9702238\]. J. H. Muñoz, A. A. Rojas, and G. López Castro, Phys. Rev. D **59**, 077504 (1999). C. S. Kim, B. H. Lim and S. Oh, Eur. Phys. J. C **22**, 683 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0101292\]. C. S. Kim, B. H. Lim and S. Oh, Eur. Phys. J. C **22**, 695 (2002) \[Erratum-ibid. C **24**, 665 (2002)\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/01080504\]. C. S. Kim, B. H. Lim and S. Oh, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 014002 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0205263\]. J. H. Munoz and N. Quintero, J. Phys. G **36**, 095004 (2009) \[arXiv:0903.3701 \[hep-ph\]\]. N. Sharma, R. Dhir and R. C. Verma, Phys. Rev. D **83**, 014007 (2011). C. S. Kim, B. H. Lim and S. Oh, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 014011 (2003). Wei Wang, Phys. Rev. D **85**, 051301 (2012). Z. T. Zou, X. Yu and C. D. Lü, arXiv:1203.4120 \[hep-ph\]; arXiv:1205.2971 \[hep-ph\]; Z. T. Zou, Zhou Rui and C. D. Lü, arXiv:1204.3144 \[hep-ph\]. C. D. Lu, K. ukai, Eur. Phys. J. C **28**, 305 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0210206\]. Y. Li, C. D. Lu, J. Phys. G **29**, 2115 (2003); High Energy Phys. & Nucl. Phys. **27**, 1062 (2003). Y. Li, C. D. Lü, Z. J. Xiao and X. Q. Yu, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 034009 (2004). A. Ali *et* *al*., Phys. Rev. D **76**, 074018 (2007). C. D. Lü and K. Ukai, Eur. Phys. J. C **28**, 305 (2003). R. H. Li, C. D. Lu and H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D **78** 014018 (2008). M. J. Morello *et* *al*. (CDF Collaboration), CDF public note Report No.10498,2011. K. Nakamura *et* *al*. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G **37**, 075021 (2010). Y. Y. Keum, H-n. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B **504**, 6 (2001); Phys. Rev. D **63**, 054008 (2001). C. D. Lü, K. Ukai and M. Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D **63**, 074009 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0004213\]. H-n. Li, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. **51**, 85 (2003), and reference therein. H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D **52**, 3958 (1995); C. Y. Wu, T. W. Yeh and H. n. Li, Phys. Rev. D **53**, 4982 (1996); Y. Y. Keum et al., Phys. Rev. D **69**, 094018 (2004); C. D. Lü, Phys. Rev. D **68**, 097502 (2003). C. D. Lü, Eur. Phys. J. C **24**, 121-126 (2002); J. F. Cheng, D. S. Du and C. D. Lü, Eur. Phys. J. C **45**, 711 (2006). C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D **70**, 054015 (2004). G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. **68**, 1125 (1996). A. Ali, G.kramer and C. D. Lü, Phys. Rev. D **58**, 094009 (1998). H. N. Li, Phys. Rev. D **66**, 094010 (2002) H. N. Li and B. Tseng, Phys. Rev. D **57**, 443 (1998) C. D. Lü and M. Z. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C **23**, 275-287 (2002). T. Kurimoto, H. n. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D **67** 054028 (2003). R. H. Li, C. D. Lü and H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D **78**, 014018 (2008). H. Zou, R. H. Li, X. X. Wang and C. D. Lu, J. Phys. G **37**, 015002 (2010). R. H. Li, C. D. Lu, A. I. Sanda, X. X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D **81**, 034006 (2010). E. Follana, C. T. H. Davies, G. P.Lepage and J. Shigemitsu \[HPQCD Collaboration and UKQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. **100**, 062002 (2008). A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 10, 1 (2000).
T. M. Aliev and M. A. Shifman, Phys. Lett. B **112**, 401 (1982); Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. **36**, 981 (1982) \[Yad. Fiz. **36**, 1532 (1982)\]. T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and V. Bashiry, J. Phys. G **37**, 025001 (2010). **48**, 339 (1993). Hai-Yang Cheng and Robert Shrock, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 094008 (2011). D. M. Li, H. Yu, and Q. X. Shen, J. Phys. G **27**, 807 (2001). H.-n. Li and K. Ukai, Phys. Lett. B **555**, 197 (2003). A. V. Gritsan, eConf. C **070512**,001 (2007). J. G. Körner and G. R. Goldstein, Phys. Lett. **B79**, 105 (1979). A. L. Kagan, Phys. Lett. **B601**, 151 (2004).
[^1]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have found a correlation betwen the global gradients and the structural parameters of the luminous components of a sample of 19 early-type galaxies. Such a correlation supports the hypothesis that there is a connection between the dark matter content and the evolution of the baryonic component in such systems.'
author:
- 'N.R. Napolitano$^1$, M. Capaccioli$^2$, M. Arnaboldi$^3$, M.R. Merrifield$^4$, N.G. Douglas$^1$, K. Kuijken$^{1,5}$, A.J. Romanowsky$^4$, K.C. Freeman$^6$'
title: 'Is there a dichotomy in the Dark Matter as well as in the Baryonic Matter properties of ellipticals?'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Background and new evidence
===========================
There are several lines of evidence for a dichotomy in the properties of early-type galaxies: fainter systems have pointed (disky) isophotes and central power-law surface brightness profiles, while bright galaxies are boxy and show central cores (Nieto & Bender 1989, Faber et al. 1997). This dichotomy has been interpreted in an evolutionary framework: disky/faint systems have not experienced merger events in the recent past (Nieto & Bender 1989), or alternatively are remnants of gas-rich merging events (Faber et al. 1997), while bright/boxy systems are probable merger remnants (Nieto & Bender 1989, Faber et al. 1997). This scheme is supported by X-ray properties of early-types (Pellegrini (1999) showed that faint/disky/power-law early-type galaxies are also fainter in X-ray luminosity, while bright/boxy/core galaxies are X-ray bright) and GCs number densities (Kissler-Patig 1997). What then is the actual mechanism which has triggered the evolution of both the stellar and hot gas components in galaxies?
In Fig. 1 we plot the global M/L radial gradients, $\Delta \Gamma/\Delta \mathrm{R}$ ($\Gamma=M/L_B$), based on planetary nebulae kinematics and long-slit spectroscopy archive data, as a function of the intrinsic absolute magnitude, the isophotal shape parameter $a_4$, and the $\gamma$ parameter, i.e. the slope of the surface brightness profile in the galaxy core ($\sim R^{-\gamma}$). Fig. 1 suggests a general regularity of the gradients with respect to the structural parameters for the majority of the galaxies in the sample, except for a few cases (open symbols): these are noted in literature as interacting candidates since they show dynamical peculiarities suggesting they are not in equilibrium. If we exclude this subsample, with very steep “apparent” gradients, we see that smaller gradients ($\Delta \Gamma_B/\Delta R \le
0.8$) are found for systems with faint total magnitudes ($M_B>-20$), mostly disky ($100\times a_4/a>0.2$) and power-law ($\gamma>0.15$), while bright/boxy/core galaxies show larger gradients ($0.8<\Delta \Gamma_B/\Delta R \le 2.7$). We have found these trends significant at better than 95% c.l. via the Spearman Rank test.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
Following an earlier suggestion (Capaccioli et al. 2002), we have found that the dichotomy in the early-type galaxies with respect to their structural parameters and X-ray properties, see Pellegrini 1999) seems to correspond to a trend in the global radial gradients. This possibly indicates that the dark matter has triggered the evolution of both the stellar and hot gas components in galaxies. For instance, Eskridge et al. (1995) and Matsushita (2001) have suggested that the correlation of the hot gas assembly in early-type galaxies and the depth of the potential wells could explain the correlation of the X-ray luminosity with the shape and dynamical parameters ($a_4$, axial ratio and central velocity dispersion). Here we can confirm that faint/disky galaxies do, indeed, have shallower potential wells when compared to bright/boxy galaxies.
Capaccioli, M., Napolitano, N. R., Arnaboldi, M. 2002, Sakharov Conference of Physics, Moskow, June 2002, in press, \[preprint:astro-ph/0211323\] Eskridge, P.B., Fabbiano, G., & Dond- Woo, K. 1995, , 442, 523 Faber, S.M., et al. 1997, , 114, 1771 Kissler-Patig, M., et al., 1997, A&A, 319, 83 Matsushita, K. 2001, , 547, 693 Nieto, J.L., & Bender, R. 1989, , 215, 266 Pellegrini, S. 1999, , 351, 487
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A connected regular surface in Lorentz-Minkowski 3-space is called a [*mixed type surface*]{} if the spacelike, timelike and lightlike point sets are all non-empty. Lightlike points on mixed type surfaces may be regarded as singular points of the induced metrics. In this paper, we introduce the *L-Gauss map* around non-degenerate lightlike points, and show the fundamental theorem of surface theory for mixed type surfaces at non-degenerate lightlike points. As an application, we prove that a real analytic mixed type surface admits non-trivial isometric deformations around generic lightlike points.'
address: ' Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University, 79-5 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan '
author:
- Atsufumi Honda
date: 'August 6, 2019'
title: 'Isometric deformations of mixed type surfaces in Lorentz-Minkowski space'
---
Introduction
============
Let us denote by ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ the Lorentz-Minkowski $3$-space of signature $(++-)$. Consider an embedded surface $S$ in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. The induced metric of $S$ might be either positive definite, indefinite, or degenerate. According to such properties, a point on the surface $S$ is said to be spacelike, timelike, or lightlike. If the spacelike, timelike and lightlike point sets are all non-empty, the surface $S$ is said to be a *mixed type surface*.
[[c@c]{}]{} &
It is known that every closed surface, i.e. a compact surface without boundary, in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ must be of mixed type [@Tari2013]. The first fundamental form of a mixed type surface is a type-changing metric. Type-changing metrics are of interest both in mathematics and theoretical physics, see references in [@Pavlova-Remizov; @HST]. Recently, mixed type surfaces of zero mean curvature, especially the so-called Bernstein-type property, have been investigated intensively (see [@FKKRUY_qj; @AUY1; @AUY2; @AHUY] and the references therein). As a broader class, mixed type surfaces of bounded mean curvature are also being studied [@HKKUY; @UY_geloma; @UY_2018].
Since lightlike points may be regarded as [*singular points*]{} of the induced metric, methods to study singularities have also been applied to investigate lightlike points of mixed type surfaces, cf. [@Tari2012; @IzumiyaTari2010; @IzumiyaTari2013; @Rem-Tari]. In [@HST], the author with K. Saji and K. Teramoto investigated lightlike points of mixed type surfaces in the way similar to the case of [*wave fronts*]{} [@SUY1]. To study the behavior of the Gaussian curvature at lightlike points, in [@HST], the invariants named the [*lightlike singular curvature*]{} $\kappa_L$ and the [*lightlike normal curvature*]{} $\kappa_N$ were introduced (cf. Definition \[def:invariants\]).
Here, we briefly review the intrinsic and extrinsic invariants. Let $S$ be a mixed type surface given by an embedding $f:\Sigma \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ of a connected smooth $2$-manifold $\Sigma$. We denote by $ds^2$ the first fundamental form of $f$, and by $LD\subset \Sigma$ the set of lightlike points. Then, an [*invariant*]{} is a function $I : \Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{R}}$, or $I : LD\to {\boldsymbol{R}}$, that is, $I$ does not depend on the choice of coordinate system of the source. Moreover,
- an invariant $I$ is called [*intrinsic*]{} if it depends only on $ds^2$. Namely, $I$ can be locally represented by a function of $E$, $F$, $G$ and their derivatives, where $ds^2=E\,du^2+2F\,du\,dv+G\,dv^2$, and $(u,v)$ is a coordinate defined in terms of the first fundamental form $ds^2$.
- an invariant $I$ is called [*extrinsic*]{} if there exists a mixed type surface $\tilde{f}$ such that the first fundamental form of $\tilde{f}$ is the same as for $f$, but $I$ does not coincide on $\tilde{f}$ and $f$.
To determine the intrinsicity and extrinsicity of invariants is one fundamental problem. In [@HST], it is proved that the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L$ is an intrinsic invariant. Moreover, it is also proved that the lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N$ is also intrinsic if $\kappa_L$ is identically zero along $LD$ ([@HST Corollary C], Fact \[fact:N-int\]). However, it is not known whether $\kappa_N$ is intrinsic or extrinsic, in general.
In this paper, we prove that every real analytic [*generic*]{} mixed type surface admits non-trivial local isometric deformations, which yields the extrinsicity of the lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N$.
Statement of results
--------------------
To be more precise, let $f:\Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface. Denote by $ds^2$ the first fundamental form of $f$. Lightlike points can be characterized as the points where $ds^2$ degenerates. On a coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$, the first fundamental form $ds^2$ is expressed as $ds^2=E\,du^2+2F\,du\,dv+G\,dv^2$, and then the lightlike set $LD$ is locally written as the zero set of $\lambda:=EG-F^2$. A lightlike point $p$ satisfying $d\lambda(p)\ne0$ is said to be [*non-degenerate*]{}. By the implicit function theorem, $LD$ can be locally parametrized by a regular curve $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$, called the [*characteristic curve*]{}, passing through $p=c(0)$, where $\delta>0$. Then, $\hat{c}(t):=f \circ c(t)$ is a regular curve in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. If $\hat{c}'(0)$ is spacelike (resp. lightlike), then $p\in LD$ is said to be a [*lightlike point of the first kind*]{} (resp [*the second kind*]{}). If $p$ is a lightlike point of the first kind, $\hat{c}(t)$ is a spacelike regular curve in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ near $p$.
A regular curve $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ passing through $p=c(0)$ is called non-null at $p$ if $c'(0)$ is not a null vector, where $\delta>0$. Then, we define the genericity of lightlike points as follows:
\[def:generic-surface\] Let $f:\Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface. A non-degenerate lightlike point $p\in LD$ is called [*generic*]{} if $p$ satisfies one of the following conditions:
- If $p$ is of the first kind, the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L$ does not vanish at $p$.
- If $p$ is of the second kind, there exists a non-null curve $c(t)$ $(|t|< \delta)$ at $p=c(0)$ such that the geodesic curvature function $\kappa_g(t)$ along $c(t)$ defined for $t\ne0$ is unbounded at $t=0$.
If all lightlike points are generic, the mixed type surface is said to be [*generic*]{}.
The condition (II) of the genericity can be characterized by an invariant called the [*limiting geodesic curvature*]{} $\mu_c$, cf. Proposition \[prop:limiting-geod-2nd\] and Corollary \[prop:limiting-geod-2nd\]. The main result of this paper is as follows:
\[thm:main\] Let $f: \Sigma \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a real analytic generic mixed type surface with the first fundamental form $ds^2$, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a lightlike point. We also let $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be either
- a characteristic curve passing through $p=c(0)$, if $p$ is of the first kind, or
- a regular curve which is non-null at $p=c(0)$ such that the geodesic curvature function is unbounded at $t=0$, if $p$ is of the second kind,
where $\delta>0$. Take a real analytic spacelike curve $\gamma : I \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ with non-zero curvature passing through $\gamma(0)={\boldsymbol{0}}$ and set the image $\Gamma:=\gamma(I)$ of $\gamma$, where $I$ is an open interval including the origin $0$. Set $Z_\gamma$ as $$Z_\gamma :=
\begin{cases}
\{1,2,3,4\} & (\text{if $\gamma$ is a Frenet curve}),\\
\{1,2\} & (\text{if $\gamma$ is a non-Frenet curve}).
\end{cases}$$ Then, there exist a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ and real analytic mixed type surfaces $f_i : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ $(i\in Z_\gamma)$ such that, for each $i\in Z_\gamma$,
- the first fundamental form of $f_i$ coincides with $ds^2$,
- $f_i(p)={\boldsymbol{0}}$, and the image of $f_i\circ c(t)$ is included in $\Gamma$.
Moreover, there are no such surfaces other than $f_i$ $(i\in Z_\gamma)$. More precisely, if $\tilde{f} : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ is a real analytic generic mixed type surface which satisfies the conditions $(1)$ and $(2)$, then there exists an open neighborhood $O$ of $p$ such that the image $\tilde{f}(O)$ is a subset of $f_i(U)$ for some $i\in Z_\gamma$.
For the definition of Frenet curves, see Definition \[def:non-Frenet\]. Example \[ex:four\] gives such the surfaces $f_i$ $(i=1,2,3,4)$ in the case of $\#Z_\gamma=4$, namely, the case that $\gamma$ is a Frenet curve, cf. Figures \[fig:four\] and \[fig:four-sep\]. See Example \[ex:two\] for the case that $\gamma$ is a non-Frenet curve.
[[c@c]{}]{} &
As pointed out in [@HST], lightlike points of the first kind of mixed type surfaces are similar to the cuspidal edge singularity of wave fronts [@KRSUY]. The invariants $\kappa_L$ and $\kappa_N$ of lightlike points of the first kind have several properties similar to the invariants of cuspidal edges, called the [*singular curvature*]{} $\kappa_s$ and the [*limiting normal curvature*]{} $\kappa_\nu$ introduced in [@SUY1] (cf. [@MS; @MSUY]). However, sometimes $\kappa_L$ and $\kappa_N$ behave quite differently than $\kappa_s$ and $\kappa_\nu$, cf. [@HST Theorem A]. Isometric realizations of a class of positive semidefinite metrics (called the [*Kossowski metrics*]{} [@Kossowski; @HHNSUY]), and isometric deformations of wave fronts at non-degenerate singular points, including cuspidal edges, are discussed in [@Kossowski; @NUY; @HNUY; @HNSUY1; @HNSUY2; @Honda-Saji]. In particular, we remark that, for a real analytic generic cuspidal edge $f$ with the induced metric $ds^2$ in the Euclidean $3$-space, there exist four cuspidal edges $f_1$, $f_2$, $f_3$ and $f_4$ such that the each induced metric of $f_i$ $(i=1,2,3,4)$ coincides with $ds^2$ and share a common prescribed singular set images [@NUY; @HNUY; @HNSUY1]. Hence, Theorem \[thm:main\] may be considered as a similar result, in the case of Frenet curves. However, in the case of non-Frenet curves, Theorem \[thm:main\] provides a phenomena different from cuspidal edges.
As a corollary of Theorem \[thm:main\], we have the following:
\[cor:deformation\] Every real analytic generic mixed type surface admits non-trivial local isometric deformations at their lightlike points.
Using this isometric deformation, we obtain the desired extrinsicity of the lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N$:
\[cor:ext-kappa-N\] The lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N$ is an extrinsic invariant for real analytic generic mixed type surfaces.
Organization of this paper
--------------------------
To prove Theorem \[thm:main\], we prepare a theorem so-called ‘fundamental theorem of surface theory’ for mixed type surfaces (Theorem \[thm:fundamental\]). Since the unit normal vector field along the surfaces cannot be bounded at their lightlike points, we use an alternative transversal vector field called the [*L-Gauss map*]{} (Lemma \[lem:L-Gauss\]). More detailed summary of this paper is as follows.
First, in Section \[sec:prelim\], we review the fundamental properties of lightlike points of mixed type surfaces. The definitions of the invariants of lightlike points of the first kind, such as the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L$ and the lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N$, are also given (Definition \[def:invariants\]).
In Section \[sec:metric\], we shall discuss a class of type-changing metric called [*admissible mixed type metrics*]{} (Definition \[def:admissible-metric\]), which is modeled on the first fundamental form of mixed type surfaces. In particular, the existence of a special orthogonal coordinate system called an [*L-coordinate system*]{} is proved (Proposition \[prop:L-orthogonal\]). We also introduce invariants called the intrinsic lightlike singular curvature $\tilde{\kappa}_L$ at type I semidefinite points (Definition \[def:kappa\_int\]), and the limiting geodesic curvature $\mu_c$ at type II semidefinite points (cf. ), which are related to the definition of the genericity of metrics (cf. Definitions \[def:generic-typeI\], \[def:generic-typeII\]).
Section \[sec:L-Gauss\] is the core of this paper. Here, we prove the existence of a transversal vector field $\psi$ along a mixed type surface in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$, which we call the [*L-Gauss map*]{} (Lemma \[lem:L-Gauss\]), where we use L-coordinate systems and the division lemma (cf. [@UY_geloma Appendix A]). Then, we consider a frame associated with the L-Gauss map. The compatibility condition of the frame (Lemma \[lem:integrability\]) yields the fundamental theorem of mixed type surfaces (Theorem \[thm:fundamental\]).
In Section \[sec:curve\], we calculate the invariants of the spacelike curve $\hat{c}(t):=f\circ c(t)$ given by a non-null curve $c(t)$ on $\Sigma$ for the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. We remark that the curvature vector ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(t)$ of a spacelike curve may be of mixed type, cf. [@Honda-Lk]. The definition of spacelike Frenet/non-Frenet curves, and their invariants, such as the curvature function, the torsion function and the pseudo-torsion function, are also reviewed here.
Finally, in Section \[sec:proofs\], we prove the isometric realization theorem of real analytic generic mixed type metrics (Theorem \[thm:realization\], Corollary \[cor:realization\]). Such the realization theorem may be regarded as an analogue of the well-known Janet–Cartan theorem [@Janet; @Cartan]. See [@Bergner] for isometric embeddings of Riemannian or Lorentzian metrics as first fundamental forms for regular surfaces in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. As a corollary, we prove Theorem \[thm:main\], and Corollaries \[cor:deformation\] and \[cor:ext-kappa-N\]. We also prove the extrinsicity of the lightlike geodesic torsion $\kappa_G$ (Corollary \[cor:ext-kappa-G\]).
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
We denote by ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ the Lorentz-Minkowski $3$-space with the standard Lorentz metric $${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}\right\rangle}
= {\boldsymbol{x}}^T S {\boldsymbol{x}}
= (x_1)^2 + (x_2)^2 - (x_3)^2
\qquad
\left({\boldsymbol{x}}=\sum_{i=1}^3 x_i {\boldsymbol{e}}_i\in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3\right),$$ where $$\label{eq:S}
S:=
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & -1
\end{pmatrix},\quad
{\boldsymbol{e}}_1:=\begin{pmatrix}1\\0\\0\end{pmatrix},\quad
{\boldsymbol{e}}_2:=\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\0\end{pmatrix},\quad
{\boldsymbol{e}}_3:=\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\1\end{pmatrix},$$ and ${\boldsymbol{x}}^T$ stands for the transpose of the column vector ${\boldsymbol{x}}$. A vector ${\boldsymbol{x}}\in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ $({\boldsymbol{x}} \ne {\boldsymbol{0}})$ is said to be [*spacelike*]{} if ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}\right\rangle}>0$. Similarly, if ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}\right\rangle}<0$ (resp. ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}\right\rangle}=0$), then ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ is [*timelike*]{} (resp. [*lightlike*]{}). For ${\boldsymbol{x}}\in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$, we set $|{\boldsymbol{x}}|:= \sqrt{|{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}\right\rangle}|}$. For vectors ${\boldsymbol{v}}, {\boldsymbol{w}} \in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$, the vector product ${\boldsymbol{v}}\times {\boldsymbol{w}}$ is given by $$\label{eq:CROSS}
{\boldsymbol{v}}\times {\boldsymbol{w}}:=S {\boldsymbol{v}}\times_E {\boldsymbol{w}},$$ where $\times_E$ means the standard cross product of the Euclidean $3$-space ${\boldsymbol{R}}^3$. Then, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:scalar-triplet}
\det({\boldsymbol{u}},{\boldsymbol{v}},{\boldsymbol{w}})&={\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{u}}},{{\boldsymbol{v}}\times {\boldsymbol{w}}}\right\rangle},\\
\label{eq:vector-triplet}
{\boldsymbol{u}}\times ({\boldsymbol{v}}\times {\boldsymbol{w}})
&={\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{u}}},{{\boldsymbol{v}}}\right\rangle}{\boldsymbol{w}}-{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{u}}},{{\boldsymbol{w}}}\right\rangle}{\boldsymbol{v}},\\
\label{eq:area-formula}
{\left\langle{ {\boldsymbol{v}}\times {\boldsymbol{w}} },{ {\boldsymbol{v}}\times {\boldsymbol{w}} }\right\rangle}
&= - {\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{v}}},{{\boldsymbol{v}}}\right\rangle} {\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{w}}},{{\boldsymbol{w}}}\right\rangle}
+ {\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{v}}},{{\boldsymbol{w}}}\right\rangle}^2\end{aligned}$$ for ${\boldsymbol{u}},{\boldsymbol{v}},{\boldsymbol{w}}\in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. In particular, ${\boldsymbol{v}}\times {\boldsymbol{w}}$ is orthogonal to ${\boldsymbol{v}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{w}}$. To calculate the vector product of a lightlike vector, the following formula is useful.
\[fact:gaiseki\] Let ${\boldsymbol{v}}\in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a spacelike vector. Take a lightlike vector ${\boldsymbol{w}}\in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ such that ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{v}}},{{\boldsymbol{w}}}\right\rangle}=0$. Then, either ${\boldsymbol{v}} \times {\boldsymbol{w}} = |{\boldsymbol{v}}| \, {\boldsymbol{w}}$ or ${\boldsymbol{v}} \times {\boldsymbol{w}} = -|{\boldsymbol{v}}| \, {\boldsymbol{w}}$ holds.
Hence, we use the following terminology.
\[def:pn-orient\] Let $\{{\boldsymbol{v}},{\boldsymbol{w}}\}$ be a pair of vectors in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ such that ${\boldsymbol{v}}$ is spacelike, and ${\boldsymbol{w}}$ is lightlike and orthogonal to ${\boldsymbol{v}}$. Then, $\{{\boldsymbol{v}},{\boldsymbol{w}}\}$ is called [*p-oriented*]{} (resp. [*n-oriented*]{}) if ${\boldsymbol{v}} \times {\boldsymbol{w}} = |{\boldsymbol{v}}| \, {\boldsymbol{w}}$ (resp. ${\boldsymbol{v}} \times {\boldsymbol{w}} = -|{\boldsymbol{v}}| \, {\boldsymbol{w}}$) holds.
The isometry group ${\rm Isom}({\boldsymbol{L}}^3)$ of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ is described as the semidirect product $
{\rm Isom}({\boldsymbol{L}}^3)={\operatorname{O}}(1,2) \ltimes {\boldsymbol{L}}^3,
$ where ${\operatorname{O}}(1,2)$ is the Lorentz group which consists of $3\times 3$ matrices $A$ such that $A^T S A = S$, where $S$ is the matrix given by . We call $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{SO}}(1,2)&:=\left\{ A \in {\operatorname{O}}(1,2)\,;\, \det A =1 \right\},\\
{\operatorname{SO}}^+(1,2)&:=\left\{ A=(a_{ij}) \in {\operatorname{SO}}(1,2)\,;\, a_{33} >0 \right\}\end{aligned}$$ the special Lorentz group and the restricted Lorentz group, respectively. We remark that ${\operatorname{SO}}^+(1,2)$ is the identity component of ${\operatorname{O}}(1,2)$, and the subgroup ${\operatorname{SO}}(1,2)\ltimes {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ of ${\rm Isom}({\boldsymbol{L}}^3)$ is the orientation preserving isometry group of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$.
A basis $\{{\boldsymbol{v}}_1,{\boldsymbol{v}}_2,{\boldsymbol{v}}_3\}$ of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ is orthonormal (i.e. ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{v}}_i},{{\boldsymbol{v}}_j}\right\rangle}=\sigma_i\delta_{ij}$, where $\sigma_1=\sigma_2=1$, and $\sigma_3=-1$) if and only if the square matrix $({\boldsymbol{v}}_1,{\boldsymbol{v}}_2,{\boldsymbol{v}}_3)$ is an element of ${\operatorname{O}}(1,2)$. For each orthonormal basis $\{{\boldsymbol{v}}_i\}_{i=1,2,3}$, there exists $T\in {\operatorname{SO}}(1,2)$ such that $$T({\boldsymbol{v}}_1,{\boldsymbol{v}}_2,{\boldsymbol{v}}_3)
=
\begin{cases}
({\boldsymbol{e}}_1,{\boldsymbol{e}}_2,{\boldsymbol{e}}_3)
& (\text{if $\det({\boldsymbol{v}}_1,{\boldsymbol{v}}_2,{\boldsymbol{v}}_3)=1$}),\\
({\boldsymbol{e}}_1,{\boldsymbol{e}}_2,-{\boldsymbol{e}}_3)
& (\text{if $\det({\boldsymbol{v}}_1,{\boldsymbol{v}}_2,{\boldsymbol{v}}_3)=-1$}),
\end{cases}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{e}}_i$ $(i=1,2,3)$ are given in . A basis $\{{\boldsymbol{w}}_1,{\boldsymbol{w}}_2,{\boldsymbol{w}}_3\}$ of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ is said to be a [*null basis*]{} if $${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{w}}_1},{{\boldsymbol{w}}_1}\right\rangle}
={\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{w}}_2},{{\boldsymbol{w}}_3}\right\rangle}
=1,\qquad
{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{w}}_1},{{\boldsymbol{w}}_i}\right\rangle}
={\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{w}}_i},{{\boldsymbol{w}}_i}\right\rangle}
=0$$ for $i=2,3$. For each null basis $\{{\boldsymbol{w}}_1,{\boldsymbol{w}}_2,{\boldsymbol{w}}_3\}$, there exists $T\in {\operatorname{SO}}(1,2)$ such that $$\label{eq:null-basis}
T({\boldsymbol{w}}_1,{\boldsymbol{w}}_2,{\boldsymbol{w}}_3)
= \begin{cases}
\left({\boldsymbol{e}}_1,
\frac1{\sqrt{2}} {\boldsymbol{e}}_-, \frac1{\sqrt{2}} {\boldsymbol{e}}_+ \right)
& (\text{if $\det({\boldsymbol{w}}_1,{\boldsymbol{w}}_2,{\boldsymbol{w}}_3)=1$}),\\
\left({\boldsymbol{e}}_1,
\frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}} {\boldsymbol{e}}_+, \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}} {\boldsymbol{e}}_-\right)
& (\text{if $\det({\boldsymbol{w}}_1,{\boldsymbol{w}}_2,{\boldsymbol{w}}_3)=-1$}),
\end{cases}$$ where ${\boldsymbol{e}}_+:={\boldsymbol{e}}_2+{\boldsymbol{e}}_3$, ${\boldsymbol{e}}_-:={\boldsymbol{e}}_2-{\boldsymbol{e}}_3$.
Lightlike points of mixed type surfaces
---------------------------------------
In this paper, a [*surface*]{} in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ is defined to be an embedding $$f:\Sigma\longrightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$$ of a connected differentiable $2$-manifold $\Sigma$. A point $p\in \Sigma$ is said to be a *lightlike* (resp. *spacelike*, *timelike*) *point* if the image $V_p:=df_p(T_p\Sigma)$ of the tangent space $T_p\Sigma$ is a lightlike (resp. spacelike, timelike) $2$-subspace of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. We denote by $LD$ (resp. $\Sigma_+$, $\Sigma_-$) the set of lightlike (resp. spacelike, timelike) points. We also call $LD$ the [*lightlike set*]{} of $f$. If both the spacelike sets $\Sigma_+$ and the timelike sets $\Sigma_-$ are non-empty, the surface is called a [*mixed type surface*]{}.
Denote by $ds^2$ the [*first fundamental form*]{} (or the [*induced metric*]{}) of $f$, namely $ds^2$ is the smooth metric on $\Sigma$ defined by $ds^2:=f^*{\left\langle{~},{~}\right\rangle}$. Then, $p\in \Sigma$ is a lightlike point if and only if $(ds^2)_p$ is degenerate as a symmetric bilinear form on $T_p\Sigma$. Similarly, $p\in \Sigma$ is a spacelike (resp. timelike) point if and only if $(ds^2)_p$ is positive definite (resp. indefinite). Take a local coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ of $\Sigma$. Set $$f_u:=df(\partial_u),\quad
f_v:=df(\partial_u),\quad
\text{where} \quad
\partial_u:= \frac{\partial}{\partial u},\quad
\partial_v:= \frac{\partial}{\partial v}.$$ Then, $ds^2$ is written as $$\label{eq:1st-FF}
ds^2 = E\,du^2 +2F\,du\,dv + G\,dv^2,$$ where $E:={\left\langle{f_u},{f_u}\right\rangle}$, $F:={\left\langle{f_u},{f_v}\right\rangle}$ and $G:={\left\langle{f_v},{f_v}\right\rangle}$. Setting the function $\lambda$ as $\lambda := EG-F^2$, a point $q\in U$ is a lightlike (resp. spacelike, timelike) point if and only if $\lambda(q)=0$ (resp. $\lambda(q)>0$, $\lambda(q)<0$) holds. We call $\lambda$ the [*discriminant function*]{}.
A lightlike point $p\in LD$ is called [*non-degenerate*]{} if $d\lambda(p) \neq0$. By the implicit function theorem, there exists a regular curve $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ in $\Sigma$ such that $p= c(0)$ and ${\rm Image}( c)=LD$ holds on a neighborhood of $p$. We call $c(t)$ a [*characteristic curve*]{}. Define a regular curve $\hat{c}(t)$ in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ by $$\hat{c}(t):=f\circ c(t).$$ Since $c(t)$ is a lightlike point for each $t$, the image $V_{c(t)}=df_{c(t)}(T_{c(t)}\Sigma)$ is a degenerate $2$-subspace of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. In particular, each tangent vector $\hat{c}'(t)$ cannot be timelike, where the prime $'$ means the derivative $d/dt$.
\[def:first-kind\] Let $p\in LD$ be a non-degenerate lightlike point, and let $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be a characteristic curve passing through $p=c(0)$, where $\delta>0$. If $ \hat{c}'(0)$ is spacelike (resp. lightlike), then $p$ is said to be a *lightlike point of the first kind* (resp. a *lightlike point of the second kind*).
A vector field $\eta(t)$ along $c(t)$ is called a [*null vector field along $c(t)$*]{} if $$\label{eq:vf-L}
L(t):=df(\eta(t))$$ gives a lightlike vector field of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ along $\hat{c}(t)$. Then, a non-degenerate lightlike point $p\in LD$ is of the first kind (resp. the second kind) if and only if $ c'(0)$ and $\eta(0)$ are linearly independent (resp. linearly dependent).
A vector field $\eta$ defined on a neighborhood of a non-degenerate lightlike point $p\in LD$ is called a [*null vector field*]{} if the restriction $
\eta(t):=\eta_{c(t)}\in T_{c(t)}\Sigma
$ gives a null vector field along $c(t)$. Then, it was proved that $p$ is a lightlike point of the first kind if and only if $\eta_p {\left\langle{df(\eta)},{df(\eta)}\right\rangle}\neq0$ in [@HST Proposition 2.6].
Invariants of lightlike points
------------------------------
We review here the fundamental properties of the invariants of the lightlike points of the first kind introduced in [@HST].
### Invariants of lightlike points of the first kind
Let $f:\Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface. We also let $p\in \Sigma$ be a non-degenerate lightlike point, and let $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be a characteristic curve passing through $p= c(0)$. If $p$ is of the first kind, taking sufficiently small $\delta>0$ if necessary, $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ consists of lightlike points of the first kind. Then, we have that $\hat{c}(t)=f\circ c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ is a spacelike regular curve in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. The unit tangent vector field is given by ${\boldsymbol{e}}(t):= \hat{c}'(t) / |\hat{c}'(t)|$. We set the lightlike vector field $L(t)$ of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ along $\hat{c}(t)$ as in . Then, there exists a (uniquely determined) lightlike vector field $N(t)$ of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ along $\hat{c}(t)$ such that $${\left\langle{N(t)},{N(t)}\right\rangle}=
{\left\langle{N(t)},{{\boldsymbol{e}}(t)}\right\rangle}=0,\qquad
{\left\langle{N(t)},{L(t)}\right\rangle}=1.$$
\[def:invariants\] We set $\kappa_L(p)$, $\kappa_N(p)$, $\kappa_G(p)$ as (cf. [@HST Definition 3.2, Lemma 3.5]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:L-singular-curvature}
&\kappa_L(p):=
\frac{ {\left\langle{\hat{c}''(0)},{L(0)}\right\rangle} }
{ \beta(0)^{1/3} |\hat{c}'(0)|^2 },\\
\label{eq:L-normal-curvature}
&\kappa_N(p)
:= \frac{ \beta(0)^{1/3} {\left\langle{\hat{c}''(0)},{N(0)}\right\rangle} }
{ |\hat{c}'(0)|^2 },\\
\label{eq:L-geodesic-torsion}
&\kappa_G(p)
:= \frac{1}{ |\hat{c}'(0)| }
\left( {\left\langle{L(0)},{N'(0)}\right\rangle}
+ \frac{\beta'(0)}{3\beta(0)} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta(t):=\eta(t){\left\langle{ df(\eta) },{ df(\eta) }\right\rangle}$. We call $\kappa_L(p)$ the [*lightlike singular curvature*]{}, $\kappa_N(p)$ the [*lightlike normal curvature*]{}, and $\kappa_G(p)$ the [*lightlike geodesic torsion*]{}.
These invariants are introduced in [@HST] to investigate the behavior of the Gaussian curvature $K$ at non-degenerate lightlike points. In [@HST], it is shown that these definitions are independent of the choice of parametrization $c(t)$ and null vector field $\eta$. For a characteristic curve $c(t)$ which consists of lightlike points of the first kind, we also denote the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L(c(t))$ (resp. the lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N(c(t))$, the lightlike geodesic torsion $\kappa_G(c(t))$) along $c(t)$, as $\kappa_L(t)$ (resp. $\kappa_N(t)$, $\kappa_G(t)$), unless otherwise noted.
### Lightlike singular curvature is intrinsic
A local coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ is called [*adjusted*]{} at $p$ if $\partial_v$ is a null vector at $p=(0,0)$. Such a coordinate system is obtained by rotating the $uv$-plane. If we represent $ds^2$ as , then $(u,v)$ is called adjusted at $p$ if and only if $$\label{eq:condition-EFG}
E(0,0)>0,\quad
F(0,0)=G(0,0)=0$$ holds. By a direct calculation, we have the following:
\[lem:kappa\_L\] Let $f : \Sigma \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, $p\in \Sigma$ be a lightlike point of the first kind, and let $(U;u,v)$ be a coordinate system adjusted at $p=(0,0)$. Then, we have $$\label{eq:kappa_L}
\kappa_L(p)
= \left. \frac1{E \sqrt[3]{G_v}} \left(
F_u - \frac1{2}E_v -
\frac{G_u^2}{2G_v}
\right)\right|_{u=v=0}.$$
Since the adjustedness depends only on the first fundamental form $ds^2$, Lemma \[lem:kappa\_L\] implies that the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L$ is an intrinsic invariant (cf. [@HST Lemma 3.9]).
Mixed type metrics {#sec:metric}
==================
In this section, we shall discuss a class of type-changing metrics called [*admissible mixed type metrics*]{} (Definition \[def:admissible-metric\]), which is modeled on the first fundamental form of mixed type surfaces. We introduce type I and type II semidefinite points (Definition \[def:typeI-II\]), and an invariant called the [*intrinsic lightlike singular curvature*]{} $\tilde{\kappa}_L$ (Definition \[def:kappa\_int\]). Then, we show the existence of a special orthogonal coordinate system called an [*L-coordinate system*]{} (Proposition \[prop:L-orthogonal\]). Using such an L-coordinate system, we investigate the asymptotic behavior of geodesic curvature function at type II semidefinite points (Corollary \[cor:limiting-geod-2nd\]).
Semidefinite points of mixed type metrics
-----------------------------------------
Let $\Sigma$ be a smooth $2$-manifold. A [*metric*]{} $g$ on $\Sigma$ is a smooth symmetric covariant tensor of rank 2. Namely, at each point $p\in \Sigma$, $g_p$ is a symmetric bilinear form on the tangent space $T_p\Sigma$, and $\Sigma \ni q \mapsto g_q(V_q,W_q) \in {\boldsymbol{R}}$ is a smooth function for smooth vector fields $V, W$ on $\Sigma$. To fix the notations, first we introduce some terminologies.
\[def:semidefinite\] Let $g$ be a metric on a connected smooth $2$-manifold $\Sigma$, and take a point $p\in \Sigma$.
- If $g_p$ is definite, then $p$ is called a [*definite point*]{}. Similarly, if $g_p$ is indefinite (i.e. $g_p$ is neither definite nor degenerate), then $p$ is said to be an [*indefinite point*]{}. Definite and indefinite points are also called [*regular points*]{}.
- If $g_p$ is degenerate, then $p$ is said to be a [*semidefinite point*]{}, or a [*singular point*]{}. The set of semidefinite points, denote by $S(g)$, is called the [*semidefinite set*]{}.
- A semidefinite point $p\in S(g)$ is called a [*type-changing point*]{} if every open neighborhood $U$ of $p$ contains both definite and indefinite points.
On a coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ of $p\in \Sigma$, the metric $g$ is written by $$\label{eq:g-coord}
g = E\,du^2 +2F\,du\,dv + G\,dv^2.$$ We set $\lambda := EG - F^2$ and call it the [*discriminant function*]{}. Then $q\in U$ is a semidefinite point of $g$ if and only if $\lambda(q)=0$. A semidefinite point $p\in S(g)$ is called [*admissible*]{} if $d\lambda(p)\neq0$.
\[def:admissible-metric\] Let $\Sigma$ be a connected smooth $2$-manifold. A metric $g$ on $\Sigma$ is called a [*mixed type metric*]{} if $g$ admits all three cases of definite points, indefinite points, and semidefinite points. A mixed type metric $g$ is called [*admissible*]{} if $g$ is not negative definite on $\Sigma$, and all semidefinite points of $g$ are admissible.
Here, we give fundamental examples of mixed type metrics.
\[ex:mixed-surface-metric\] Let $f: \Sigma\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, where $\Sigma$ is a connected smooth $2$-manifold. Then, the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of $f$ is a mixed type metric. If $p\in LD$ is non-degenerate, then there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $p$ such that $LD\cap U$ consists of non-degenerate lightlike points. Hence, $ds^2$ is an admissible mixed type metric on $U$. In particular, if every lightlike point of $f$ is non-degenerate, then $ds^2$ is an admissible mixed type metric on $\Sigma$.
\[ex:2ndFF-metric\] Let $f: \Sigma\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{R}}^3$ be an oriented regular surface with a unit normal vector field $\nu : \Sigma\to S^2$. Assume that the zero set of the Gaussian curvature $K$, $Z_K:=\{p\in \Sigma \,;\, K(p)=0\}$, is not empty, and $dK(p)\neq0$ holds for each $p\in Z_K$. Then the second fundamental form $I\!I$ of $f$ is an admissible mixed type metric, changing $\nu$ to $-\nu$ if necessary.
A concrete example is given by tori of revolution. Set $T^2:=S^1\times S^1$, where $S^1:={\boldsymbol{R}}/2\pi{\boldsymbol{Z}}$. For $r>1$, let $f : T^2 \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{R}}^3$ be the torus of revolution given by $$f(u,v):= ( (r + \cos u)\cos v,\, (r + \cos u)\sin v,\, \sin u)^T.$$ The second fundamental form $I\!I$ is written as $I\!I = du^2 + (\cos u) (r +\cos u)\,dv^2$. Since the discriminant function $\lambda$ is given by $\lambda = (r +\cos u) \cos u$, the semidefinite set $S(I\!I)$ of $I\!I$ is $S(I\!I)=\{ (u,v) \in T^2 \,;\, \cos u=0 \}$, which coincides with the zero set $Z_K$ of the Gaussian curvature $K$. Since $\partial\lambda/ \partial u\ne0$ holds on $S(I\!I)$, every semidefinite point $p\in S(I\!I)$ is admissible. And hence, the second fundamental form $I\!I$ is an admissible mixed type metric on $T^2$.
Let $p\in S(g)$ be a semidefinite point of an admissible mixed type metric $g$. By the implicit function theorem, there exists a regular curve $ c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ on $\Sigma$ such that $p= c(0)$ and $ c(t)$ parametrizes $S(g)$ near $p$. We call $ c(t)$ a [*characteristic curve*]{}. By a proof similar to that of [@HST Lemma 2.1], we obtain the following:
Any semidefinite point of an admissible mixed type metric is a type-changing point.
At a point $p \in \Sigma$, the subspace $$\mathcal{N}_p:= \left\{
{\boldsymbol{v}} \in T_p\Sigma\,;\,
g_p({\boldsymbol{v}},{\boldsymbol{x}})=0 \text{ holds for any } {\boldsymbol{x}} \in T_p\Sigma
\right\}$$ of $T_p\Sigma$ is called the [*null space*]{} at $p$. Then, $p$ is a semidefinite point if and only if $\mathcal{N}_p\ne\{{\boldsymbol{0}}\}$. A non-zero tangent vector ${\boldsymbol{v}} \in \mathcal{N}_p$ is called a [*null vector*]{} at $p$.
\[lem:null-space\] Let $g$ be an admissible mixed type metric on $\Sigma$. For each semidefinite point $p \in S(g)$, the null space $\mathcal{N}_p$ is a $1$-dimensional subspace of $T_p\Sigma$.
If the dimension of $\mathcal{N}_p$ is $2$, we have $E(p)=F(p)=G(p)=0$. Since the partial derivatives of $\lambda=EG-F^2$ are given by $$\lambda_u=E_uG+EG_u - 2FF_u,\qquad
\lambda_v=E_vG+EG_v - 2FF_v,$$ we have $\lambda_u(p)=\lambda_v(p)=0$, which contradicts the non-degeneracy.
Let $p\in S(g)$ be a semidefinite point. A non-zero smooth vector field $\eta(t)$ along the characteristic curve $ c(t)$ is called a [*null vector field along $ c(t)$*]{} if $\eta(t)$ is a null vector of $T_{ c(t)}\Sigma$ for each $t$. A non-zero smooth vector field $\eta$ defined on a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ is said to be a [*null vector field*]{} if the restriction $\eta|_{S(g)}$ gives a null vector field along the semidefinite set $S(g)$.
\[def:typeI-II\] Let $p\in S(g)$ be a semidefinite point of an admissible mixed type metric $g$. Then, $p$ is said to be [*type I*]{} (resp. [*type II*]{}), if $ c'(0)$ and $\eta(0)$ are linearly independent (resp. linearly dependent).
If $g$ is an admissible mixed type metric given by the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of a mixed type surface $f:\Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$, a point $p\in \Sigma$ is a type I semidefinite point of $g$ if and only if $p$ is a lightlike point of the first kind.
By a proof similar to that of [@HST Proposition 2.6], we obtain the following:
\[prop:type1\] Let $p\in S(g)$ be a semidefinite point of an admissible mixed type metric $g$. On a local coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ of $p$, set $\lambda := EG-F^2$. Let $\eta$ be a vector field on a neighborhood of $p\in S(g)$ such that $\eta_p$ is a null vector at $p$. Then, $p$ is a type I semidefinite point if and only if $\eta \lambda(p)\neq0$. Moreover, such the condition is equivalent to $\eta_p (g(\eta,\eta))\neq0$.
Intrinsic lightlike singular curvature
--------------------------------------
Let $p\in S(g)$ be a semidefinite point of an admissible mixed type metric $g$. A local coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ centered at $p$ is called [*adjusted at $p$*]{} if $\partial_v$ gives a null vector at $p$. Such an adjust coordinate system can be obtained by rotating the $uv$-plane. As a direct corollary of Proposition \[prop:type1\], we have the following:
\[cor:type1\] Let $p\in S(g)$ be a semidefinite point of an admissible mixed type metric $g$. Take a local coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ adjusted at $p=(0,0)$. Then, $p\in S(g)$ is a type I semidefinite point if and only if $G_v(0,0)\ne0$.
We now introduce an invariant which plays an important role in this paper.
\[def:kappa\_int\] For a type I semidefinite point $p$, let $(U;u,v)$ be a coordinate system adjusted at $p=(0,0)$. Then, $$\label{eq:kappa_int}
\tilde{\kappa}_L(p)
:= \left. \frac1{E \sqrt[3]{G_v}} \left(
F_u - \frac1{2}E_v -
\frac{G_u^2}{2G_v}
\right)\right|_{u=v=0}$$ is called the [*intrinsic lightlike singular curvature*]{} at $p$.
Let $g$ be an admissible mixed type metric given by the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of a mixed type surface $f:\Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. Then the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L(p)$ of $f$ at a lightlike point $p\in LD$ of the first kind coincides with the intrinsic lightlike singular curvature $\tilde{\kappa}_L(p)$ by Lemma \[lem:kappa\_L\].
\[prop:ks-welldef\] The definition of intrinsic lightlike singular curvature $\tilde{\kappa}_L$ in does not depend on the choice of adjusted coordinate system.
We remark that $E(0,0)\ne0$ and $G_v(0,0)\ne0$ by Lemma \[lem:null-space\] and Corollary \[cor:type1\]. Take coordinate neighborhoods $(U;u,v)$, $(V;x,y)$ adjusted at $p=(0,0)$. Denote the coordinate transformation by $(u,v)=(u(x,y),v(x,y))$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Exy}
\hat{E} &= E u_x^2 +2F u_x v_x +G v_x^2,\\
\label{eq:Fxy}
\hat{F} &= E u_x u_y +F (u_x v_y+u_y v_x) +G v_xv_y,\\
\label{eq:Gxy}
\hat{G} &= E u_y^2 +2F u_y v_y +G v_y^2\end{aligned}$$ hold, where we set $$g = E du^2 + 2 F du\,dv + G dv^2
= \hat{E} dx^2 + 2\hat{F} dx\,dy + \hat{G} dy^2.$$ Hence, we have $F=G=\hat{F}=\hat{G}=u_y=0$ at $p=(0,0)$. Since $(u(x,y),v(x,y))$ is a coordinate change, $u_x\ne0$, $v_y\ne0$ hold. By , , , $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{E}=Eu_x,\quad
\hat{E}_y=2 E u_x u_{xy}+E_v u_x^2 v_y+2 F_v u_x v_x v_y+G_v v_x^2 v_y,\\
\hat{F}_x=E u_x u_{xy}+F_u u_x^2 v_y +F_v u_x v_x v_y +G_u u_x v_x v_y +G_v v_x^2 v_y ,\\
\hat{G}_x=G_u u_xv_y^2 +G_v v_xv_y^2 ,\quad
\hat{G}_y=G_v v_y^3\end{gathered}$$ hold at $(0,0)$. Then, we can verify the identity $$\left. \frac1{\hat{E} \sqrt[3]{\hat{G}_y}} \left(
\hat{F}_x - \frac1{2}\hat{E}_y -
\frac{\hat{G}_x^2}{2\hat{G}_y}
\right)\right|_{x=y=0}
=
\left. \frac1{E \sqrt[3]{G_v}} \left(
F_u - \frac1{2}E_v -
\frac{G_u^2}{2G_v}
\right)\right|_{u=v=0},$$ which implies the assertion.
In this paper, we mainly deal with the case that $\tilde{\kappa}_L$ does not vanish.
\[def:generic-typeI\] Let $g$ be an admissible mixed type metric on $\Sigma$. A type I semidefinite point $p\in S(g)$ is said to be [*generic*]{} if the intrinsic lightlike singular curvature $\tilde{\kappa}_L$ does not vanish at $p$.
For the definition of genericity of type II semidefinite points, see Definition \[def:generic-typeII\].
L-coordinate system
-------------------
Fix an admissible mixed type metric $g$ defined on $\Sigma$. Let $p\in \Sigma$ be a semidefinite point of $g$. A regular curve $ c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ on $\Sigma$ is called a [*non-null curve*]{} at $p$ if $p= c(0)$ and $ c'(0)$ is not a null vector. Here, we prove the existence of a special orthogonal coordinate system associated with a given non-null curve (Proposition \[prop:L-orthogonal\]).
\[lem:L-orthogonal\] Let $p\in \Sigma$ be a semidefinite point of $g$, and let $ c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be a non-null curve at $p$. Then, there exists a coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ of $p$ such that
- $(u,v)$ is an orthogonal coordinate system, that is, $g(\partial_u,\partial_v)=0$,
- the image of $ c(t)$ coincides with the $u$-axis near $p=(0,0)$, and
- $\partial_v$ gives a null vector field.
Let $\eta$ be a null vector field. Set vector fields $W_1$, $W_2$ defined on a neighborhood of $p$ so that $$(W_1)|_{ c(t)}= c'(t),\qquad
W_2=\eta$$ holds. Since $(W_1)_p$ and $(W_2)_p$ are linearly independent, there exists a coordinate neighborhood $(V; x,y)$ of $p$ such that $W_1$ (resp. $W_2$) is parallel to $\partial_x$ (resp. $\partial_y$) (cf. [@UYbook Lemma B.5.4]). By this construction, the $x$-axis parametrizes the image of $c(t)$. On $V$, we set vector fields $Z_1$, $Z_2$ defined on a neighborhood of $p$ as $$Z_1 := \partial_x,\qquad
Z_2 := -\tilde{F}\partial_x+\tilde{E}\partial_y,$$ where $\tilde{E}$, $\tilde{F}$ are defined by $
g=\tilde{E}\,dx^2 + 2\tilde{F}\,dx\,dy+\tilde{G}\,dy^2.
$ Then, $g(Z_1,Z_2)=0$ holds. As $\partial_y$ is a null vector at $p$, $\tilde{F}(p)=\tilde{G}(p)=0$ holds. By Lemma \[lem:null-space\], we have $\tilde{E}(p)\ne0$. And hence, $Z_1$, $Z_2$ are linearly independent on a neighborhood of $p$. So, there exists a coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ of $p$ such that $Z_1$ (resp. $Z_2$) is parallel to $\partial_u$ (resp. $\partial_v$). By $g(Z_1,Z_2)=0$, we have $g(\partial_u,\partial_v)=0$. Since $Z_1$ is parallel to $W_1$, the $u$-axis also parametrizes the image of $ c(t)$. Moreover, $\partial_v$ is parallel to $\eta$ on the semidefinite set $S(g)$. Hence, we obtain the desired coordinate system.
Let $p\in \Sigma$ be a semidefinite point of an admissible mixed type metric $g$. We remark that we can always take a non-null curve passing through $p$. In fact, if $(U;u,v)$ is a coordinate system centered at $p$ such that the $u$-axis coincides with the semidefinite set near $p=(0,0)$, then the $u$-axis (resp. the $v$-axis) gives a non-null curve in the case that $p$ is type I (resp. type II).
\[lem:PSD\] Let $g$ be an admissible mixed type metric on $\Sigma$, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a semidefinite point of $g$. Then, $g$ is positive semi-definite at $p$.
By Lemma \[lem:L-orthogonal\], there exists a coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ centered at $p$ such that $g$ is expressed as $$g=E\,du^2 + G\,dv^2,\qquad
G|_{S(g)}=0.$$ In particular, $G(p)=0$ holds. The discriminant function is given by $\lambda=EG$. Set $U_+:=\{p\in U\,;\, \lambda(p)>0 \}$. Assume that $E(p)<0$ holds. Then $E<0$ on a neighborhood of $p$. Hence, for $q\in U_+$ sufficiently close to $p$, we have $E(q)<0$, $G(q)<0$, and hence $g_q$ is negative definite, which contradicts the admissibility of $g$. Thus, $E(p)>0$ holds, which implies that $g_p$ is positive semi-definite.
\[prop:L-orthogonal\] Let $p\in \Sigma$ be a semidefinite point of $g$, and let $ c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be a non-null curve at $p$. Then, there exists a coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ of $p$ such that
- $(u,v)$ is an orthogonal coordinate system, that is, $g(\partial_u,\partial_v)=0$,
- the image of $ c(t)$ coincides with the $u$-axis near $p=(0,0)$,
- $\partial_v$ gives a null vector field, and
- $u\mapsto (u,0)$ gives a parametrization $ c(t)$ by arclength $($i.e., $E(u,0)=1)$.
$($Such a coordinate system is called an *L-coordinate system associated with $ c(t)$*.$)$
By Lemmas \[lem:L-orthogonal\] and \[lem:PSD\], there exists a coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ centered at a semidefinite point $p\in S(g)$ such that $$g = E\,du^2+G\,dv^2,\qquad
E>0,\qquad
G|_{S(g)}=0,$$ and the image of $ c(t)$ coincides with the $u$-axis near $p=(0,0)$. We set $\omega(u,v):=\log E(u,v)$. Then, there exists a smooth function $\omega_1(u,v)$ such that $\omega(u,v) - \omega(u,0) = v \, \omega_1(u,v)$. We have $E(u,v)
= E(u,0)\,e^{v \, \omega_1(u,v)}$. Setting a coordinate system $(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})$ as $$\tilde{u}:=\int_0^u \sqrt{E(t,0)}dt,\qquad
\tilde{v}:=v,$$ we have $
g
= e^{v \, \omega_1(u,v)}\,d\tilde{u}^2+G\,d\tilde{v}^2.
$ Hence, $$\label{eq:L-arclength}
g = \tilde{E}\,d\tilde{u}^2+\tilde{G}\,d\tilde{v}^2,
\qquad
\tilde{E}(\tilde{u},0)=1,
\qquad
\tilde{G}|_{S(g)}=0$$ hold, where $\tilde{E}:=e^{v \, \omega_1(u,v)}$, $\tilde{G}:=G$. Thus, we obtain the desired coordinate system.
Let $p\in \Sigma$ be a semidefinite point of $g$. By Proposition \[prop:L-orthogonal\], there exists a coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ centered at $p$ such that
- $g(\partial_u,\partial_v)=0$ on $U$, and
- $\partial_v$ gives a null vector field.
On $(U;u,v)$, the metric $g$ is expressed as $$\label{eq:L-orthogonal}
g = E\,du^2+G\,dv^2,\qquad
E>0,\qquad
G|_{S(g)}=0.$$ Such a coordinate system is called an *L-coordinate system*.
Behavior of the geodesic curvature function
-------------------------------------------
Let $g$ be an admissible mixed type metric defined on a $2$-manifold $\Sigma$, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a type II semidefinite point of $g$. Let $ c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be a non-null curve at $p= c(0)$. Here, we consider the asymptotic behavior of geodesic curvature function $\kappa_g(t)$ along $c(t)$ which is related to the definition of the genericity of type II semidefinite points (cf. Definition \[def:generic-typeII\]).
Proposition \[prop:L-orthogonal\] yields that there exists an L-coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ associated with $ c(t)$. That is, $ c(u)=(u,0)$, and $$\label{eq:coordinate}
g = E\,du^2+G\,dv^2,\qquad
E(u,0)=1$$ holds. Since ${\left\langle{ c'(u)},{ c'(u)}\right\rangle}=E(u,0)=1$, we have that $u$ is an arclength parameter.
\[lem:geodesic-curvature\] The geodesic curvature function $\kappa_g(u)$ along $ c(u)$ $(u\neq0)$ is given by $$\label{eq:geod-curv}
\kappa_g(u) = - \frac{E_v(u,0)}{2\sqrt{|\lambda(u,0)|}}.$$
Since ${\boldsymbol{n}}_g=\frac1{\sqrt{|G|}} \partial_v=\frac1{\sqrt{|\lambda|}} \partial_v$ gives the unit normal vector field along $ c(u)=(u,0)$ with respect to $g$, we have $$\kappa_g(u)
={\left\langle{\nabla_{u} c'(u)},{{\boldsymbol{n}}_g(u)}\right\rangle}
=\frac1{\sqrt{|\lambda|}}\Gamma_{11}^2 G
=\frac1{\sqrt{|\lambda|}}\frac{-EE_v}{2\lambda} \frac{\lambda}{E}
=\frac{-E_v}{2\sqrt{|\lambda|}},$$ where $\Gamma_{11}^2$ is a Christoffel’s symbol. Hence, we obtain .
On $(U;u,v)$ such that the metric $g$ is expressed as , the discriminant function is given by $\lambda=EG$. Since $p$ is type II, the characteristic curve is given by the graph $u=\varphi(v)$. As the graph $u=\varphi(v)$ passes through $p=(0,0)$, we have $\varphi(0)=0$. Since the discriminant function $\lambda$ vanishes along the graph of $u=\varphi(v)$, there exists a smooth function $\tilde{\lambda}(u,v)$ such that $\lambda=(u-\varphi(v))\tilde{\lambda}(u,v)$ holds. The non-degeneracy of $p=(0,0)$ yields $\tilde{\lambda}(0,0)\neq0$. Hence, it holds that $$\label{eq:Lambda-2nd}
\lambda(u,v) = (u-\varphi(v))\tilde{\lambda}(u,v)
\qquad
(\tilde{\lambda}(0,0)\neq0).$$ Substituting $v=0$ into , and setting $\hat{\lambda}(u):=\tilde{\lambda}(u,0)$, we have $$\label{eq:Lambda-2nd-2}
\lambda(u,0) = u\,\hat{\lambda}(u)
\qquad
(\hat{\lambda}\neq0).$$
\[prop:limiting-geod-2nd\] Let $g$ be an admissible metric on $\Sigma$, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a type II semidefinite point. Take a non-null curve $ c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ passing through $p \,(= c(0))$. Let $\kappa_g(t)$ $(t\neq0)$ be the geodesic curvature function of $ c(t)$ $(t\neq0)$, and let $s_g(t)$ be the arclength $s_g(t):=\int_0^t \sqrt{{\left\langle{ c'(\tau)},{ c'(\tau)}\right\rangle}} \,d\tau$ of $ c(t)$ from $p$. Then $$\sqrt{|s_g(t)| } \kappa_g(t)$$ can be smoothly extended across $t=0$.
Let $(U;u,v)$ be an L-coordinate system associated with $ c(t)$. By Lemma \[lem:geodesic-curvature\] and , there exists a smooth function $\hat{\lambda}(u)$ $(\hat{\lambda}(0)\ne0)$ such that $$\label{eq:kappa-g-2nd}
\sqrt{|s_g(t)| } \kappa_g(t)
=\sqrt{|u|}\frac{- E_v(u,0)}{2\sqrt{|u\,\hat{\lambda}(u)|}}
=- \frac{E_v(u,0)}{2\sqrt{|\hat{\lambda}(u)|}},$$ which proves the assertion.
We call the limit $$\label{eq:limiting-g-curvature}
\mu_{ c}:=\lim_{t\rightarrow 0}\sqrt{|s_g(t)| } \kappa_g(t)$$ the [*limiting geodesic curvature*]{}.
As in the case of type I semidefinite points, we define the genericity of type II semidefinite points as follows:
\[def:generic-typeII\] Let $g$ be an admissible mixed type metric on $\Sigma$. A type II semidefinite point $p\in S(g)$ is said to be [*generic*]{} there exists a non-null curve $c(t)$ $(|t|< \delta)$ at $p=c(0)$ such that the geodesic curvature function $\kappa_g(t)$ along $c(t)$ defined for $t\ne0$ is unbounded at $t=0$. Moreover, if $g$ admits only generic type I semidefinite points or generic type II semidefinite points, then $g$ is said to be a [*generic mixed type metric*]{}.
By , we have $\mu_{ c}=- E_v(0,0)/(2\sqrt{|\hat{\lambda}(0)|})$, which implies the following:
\[cor:limiting-geod-2nd\] Let $g$ be an admissible metric on $\Sigma$, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a type II semidefinite point. Take a non-null curve $ c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ passing through $p = c(0)$, where $\delta>0$. Let $(U;u,v)$ be an L-coordinate system associated with $ c(t)$ centered at $p=(0,0)$. Then the following conditions are mutually equivalent:
- the geodesic curvature function $\kappa_g(t)$ along $ c(t)$ is unbounded at $p$,
- the limiting geodesic curvature $\mu_{ c}$ is non-zero,
- $E_v(0,0)\neq0$.
Fundamental theorem of mixed type surfaces {#sec:L-Gauss}
==========================================
In this section, we prove the existence of a transversal vector field $\psi$ along a mixed type surface in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$, which we call the [*L-Gauss map*]{} (Lemma \[lem:L-Gauss\]). Then, we consider a frame associated with the L-Gauss map. The compatibility condition of the frame (Lemma \[lem:integrability\]) yields the fundamental theorem of mixed type surfaces (Theorem \[thm:fundamental\]).
L-Gauss map
-----------
Let $f:\Sigma \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, and take a non-degenerate lightlike point $p\in LD$. As seen in Example \[ex:mixed-surface-metric\], there exists an open neighborhood $V$ of $p$ such that the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of $f$ is an admissible mixed type metric on $V$. As a direct corollary of Proposition \[prop:L-orthogonal\], we have the following.
\[cor:L-coordinate\] Let $f:\Sigma \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, and take a non-degenerate lightlike point $p\in LD$. Let $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be a non-null curve at $p=c(0)$, where $\delta>0$. Then, there exists a coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ of $p$ such that
- $(u,v)$ is an orthogonal coordinate system, that is, ${\left\langle{f_u},{f_v}\right\rangle}=0$,
- the image of $c(t)$ coincides with the $u$-axis near $p=(0,0)$,
- $\partial_v$ gives a null vector field, and
- $\hat{c}(u):=f(u,0)$ is a unit-speed spacelike curve in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$.
As in the case of admissible mixed type metrics, we call such a coordinate system an *L-coordinate system associated with $c(t)$*. In the case that $p\in LD$ is of the first kind, the characteristic curve $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ is a non-null curve at $p=c(0)$. In such a case, an L-coordinate system associated with $c(t)$ is said to be an [*L-coordinate system associated with the lightlike set $LD$.*]{}
Even if we do not specify the non-null curve $c(t)$, we have the following orthogonal coordinate system: Let $p\in \Sigma$ be a non-degenerate lightlike point of a mixed type surface $f:\Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. By Corollary \[cor:L-coordinate\], there exists a coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ centered at $p$ such that
- ${\left\langle{\partial_u},{\partial_v}\right\rangle}=0$ on $U$, and
- $\partial_v$ gives a null vector field.
On $(U;u,v)$, the metric $ds^2$ is expressed as $$\label{eq:L-orthogonal-pn}
ds^2 = E\,du^2+G\,dv^2,\qquad
E>0,\qquad
G|_{LD}=0.$$ As in the case of admissible mixed type metrics, such a coordinate system is called an *L-coordinate system*.
At each point on $LD$ near $p$, it holds that $f_u$ is spacelike, $f_v$ is lightlike and ${\left\langle{f_u},{f_v}\right\rangle}=0$, which satisfies the condition of Definition \[def:pn-orient\]. Hence, the L-coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ is said to be [*p-oriented*]{} (resp. [*n-oriented*]{}) if $\{f_u,f_v\}$ is p-oriented (resp. n-oriented) along $LD$ near $p$.
\[lem:L-Gauss\] Let $f: \Sigma\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, $p\in \Sigma$ a non-degenerate lightlike point, and $(\bar{U};u,v)$ an L-coordinate system centered at $p$. Set the sign ${\epsilon}\in \{1,-1\}$ so that ${\epsilon}=1$ $($resp. ${\epsilon}=-1)$ if $(u,v)$ is p-oriented $($resp. n-oriented$)$. Then, there exist an open neighborhood $U\subset \bar{U}$ of $p$ and a smooth map $\psi : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{R}}^3_1$ such that $$\label{eq:gaiseki-1}
f_u\times f_v = {\epsilon}\sqrt{E}\left(f_v - G\psi\right).$$ [(]{}We call such a map $\psi$ an *L-Gauss map*.[)]{} Moreover, $\psi$ satisfies $$\label{eq:psi-frame}
{\left\langle{\psi},{\psi}\right\rangle}=0,\quad
{\left\langle{\psi},{f_u}\right\rangle}=0,\quad
{\left\langle{\psi},{f_v}\right\rangle}=1.$$
Let $q\in LD$ be a non-degenerate lightlike point. By Fact \[fact:gaiseki\], $f_u(q)\times f_v(q) = {\epsilon}\sqrt{E(q)} f_v(q)$ holds, where ${\epsilon}\in \{1,-1\}$. By the division lemma[^1], there exists a smooth map $\hat{\psi}_{{\epsilon}} : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ such that $
f_u\times f_v= {\epsilon}\sqrt{E} f_v + \lambda\,\hat{\psi}_{{\epsilon}},
$ where $U\subset \bar{U}$ is an open neighborhood of $p$. Setting $\psi := -{\epsilon}\sqrt{E} \hat{\psi}_{{\epsilon}}$, we have . Since $$\psi = -\frac{\sqrt{E}}{\lambda} \left( {\epsilon}f_u\times f_v - \sqrt{E} f_v \right)$$ holds on $U\setminus LD$, we can check . By continuity, we have on $U$.
Denote by $\Lambda^2$ the $2$-dimensional lightcone $$\Lambda^2
:=\{{\boldsymbol{x}}\in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3\,;\,
{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}\right\rangle}=0,\,{\boldsymbol{x}}\neq {\boldsymbol{0}} \}.$$ Since ${\left\langle{\psi},{\psi}\right\rangle}=0$ and $\psi\ne{\boldsymbol{0}}$, we have that $\psi$ is a $\Lambda^2$-valued map.
\[lem:gaiseki-other\] Let $f: \Sigma\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface and $\psi : U \rightarrow \Lambda^2$ an L-Gauss map defined on an L-coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ centered at a non-degenerate lightlike point $p\in \Sigma$. Then it holds that $$\label{eq:gaiseki-2}
f_u \times \psi = -{\epsilon}\sqrt{E}\psi,\quad
f_v \times \psi = \frac{{\epsilon}}{\sqrt{E}}f_u.$$
By , we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_u\times (f_u\times f_v)
&={\left\langle{f_u},{f_u}\right\rangle}f_v - {\left\langle{f_u},{f_v}\right\rangle}f_u =Ef_v,\\
f_v\times (f_u\times f_v)
&={\left\langle{f_v},{f_u}\right\rangle}f_v - {\left\langle{f_v},{f_v}\right\rangle}f_u =-Gf_u.\end{aligned}$$ Then the vector product of $f_u$ (resp. $f_v$) and yields .
The following lemma gives a criterion of the orientation of L-coordinate systems.
\[lem:detF\] Let $f: \Sigma\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface and $\psi : U \rightarrow \Lambda^2$ an L-Gauss map defined on an L-coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ centered at a non-degenerate lightlike point $p\in \Sigma$. Then, $(u,v)$ is p-oriented $($resp. n-oriented$)$ if and only if $\det (f_u,f_v,\psi)>0$ $($resp. $\det (f_u,f_v,\psi)<0)$ holds on $U$. In particular, $f_u$, $f_v$ and $\psi$ are linearly independent at each point of $U$.
By the scalar triple product formula , we have $$\label{eq:frame-det}
\det(f_u,f_v,\psi)
={\left\langle{f_u \times f_v},{\psi}\right\rangle}
={\left\langle{ {\epsilon}\sqrt{E} \left(f_v - G \psi \right)},{\psi}\right\rangle}
={\epsilon}\sqrt{E},$$ which implies the assertion.
With Lemma \[lem:detF\], we have the linear independence of $f_u$, $f_v$ and $\psi$. We call ${\mathcal{F}}:=(f_u,f_v,\psi)$ the [*adapted frame*]{} along $f$. For an L-Gauss map $\psi$, set $$X:= {\left\langle{f_{uu}},{\psi}\right\rangle},\qquad
Y:= {\left\langle{f_{uv}},{\psi}\right\rangle},\qquad
Z:= {\left\langle{f_{vv}},{\psi}\right\rangle}.$$ Then, we call $$I\!I_\psi:=X\,du^2+2Y\,du\,dv+Z\,dv^2$$ the [*second fundamental form associated with $\psi$*]{}.
\[lem:GW-matrix\] Let $f: \Sigma\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface and $\psi : U \rightarrow \Lambda^2$ an L-Gauss map defined on an L-coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ centered at a non-degenerate lightlike point $p\in \Sigma$. Also, let $I\!I_\psi$ be the second fundamental form associated with $\psi$. Then, the adapted frame ${\mathcal{F}}=\left( f_u,\, f_v ,\, \psi \right)$ satisfies $$\label{eq:GW-matrix}
{\mathcal{F}}_u = {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{U}},\qquad
{\mathcal{F}}_v = {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{V}},$$ where $I\!I_\psi=X\,du^2+2Y\,du\,dv+Z\,dv^2$, and $$\label{eq:GW-coeff}
{\mathcal{U}}:= \begin{pmatrix}
\vspace{2mm}
\dfrac{E_u}{2E} & \dfrac{E_v}{2E} & -\dfrac{X}{E}\\
\vspace{2mm}
X & Y & 0\\
-\dfrac{E_v}{2}-XG & \dfrac{G_u}{2}-YG & -Y
\end{pmatrix},\quad
{\mathcal{V}}:= \begin{pmatrix}
\vspace{2mm}
\dfrac{E_v}{2E} & -\dfrac{G_u}{2E} & -\dfrac{Y}{E}\\
\vspace{2mm}
Y & Z & 0\\
\dfrac{G_u}{2}-YG & \dfrac{G_v}{2}-ZG & -Z
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Since $\det{\mathcal{F}}\neq0$ by Lemma \[lem:detF\], $f_{uu}$, $f_{uv}$, $f_{vv}$, $\psi_{u}$, $\psi_{v}$ are written as linear combinations of $f_u$, $f_v$, $\psi$ at each point on $U$. By a standard method using , we obtain [$$\begin{aligned}
&f_{uu} = \frac{E_u}{2E} f_u + X f_v - \left( \frac{E_v}{2}+XG \right)\psi,\\
&f_{uv} = \frac{E_v}{2E} f_u + Y f_v + \left( \frac{G_u}{2}-YG \right)\psi,\\
&f_{vv} = - \frac{G_u}{2E} f_u + Z f_v + \left( \frac{G_v}{2}-ZG \right)\psi,\\
&\psi_{u} = - \frac{X}{E} f_u - Y\psi,\quad
\psi_{v} = - \frac{Y}{E} f_u - Z\psi,\end{aligned}$$]{}which yields .
\[lem:integrability\] The integrability condition $
{\mathcal{U}}_v-{\mathcal{V}}_u = {\mathcal{U}}{\mathcal{V}}- {\mathcal{V}}{\mathcal{U}}$ of is given by the following system of partial differential equations: [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Cod1}\tag{C1}
&X_v - Y_u = \frac1{2E} \left( E_v X - E_u Y \right) + Y^2 - XZ, \\
\label{eq:Cod2}\tag{C2}
&Y_v - Z_u = -\frac1{2E} \left( G_u X +E_v Y \right),\\
\label{eq:Gauss}\tag{G}
&E_{vv}+G_{uu} - \frac{E_u G_u +E_v^2}{2E}
= 2G(XZ-Y^2) - G_v X + 2 G_u Y +E_vZ.\end{aligned}$$]{}
As Lemma \[lem:integrability\] is proved by direct calculation, and we omit the proof. We call the [*Gauss equation*]{}, and , the [*Codazzi equations*]{}.
Fundamental theorem
-------------------
Let $f: \Sigma\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a non-degenerate lightlike point. We also let $\psi : U \rightarrow \Lambda^2$ be an L-Gauss map defined on an L-coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ centered at $p=(0,0)$. Since $\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{E}} f_u,\, f_v,\, \psi \}$ is a null basis at $p=(0,0)$, there exists $T \in {\operatorname{SO}}(2,1)$ such that $$T{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)
=
\begin{cases}
F_0^+ & (\text{if $(u,v)$ is p-oriented}),\\
F_0^- & (\text{if $(u,v)$ is n-oriented}),
\end{cases}$$ where ${\mathcal{F}}:=(f_u,f_v,\psi)$, and $$\label{eq:Frame-ini}
F_0^+:=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{E(0,0)} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\
0 & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{pmatrix},
\quad
F_0^-:=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{E(0,0)} & 0 & 0\\
0 & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\
0 & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Note that $RF_0^-=F_0^+$, where $$\label{eq:R}
R:= \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & -1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix},$$ cf. . Hence, we may conclude that there exists $T \in {\operatorname{O}}(2,1)$ such that $T{\mathcal{F}}(0,0) = F_0^+.$ Then, we have the following:
\[thm:fundamental\] Let $g$ be an admissible mixed type metric on a smooth $2$-manifold $\Sigma$, and $p\in S(g)$ a semidefinite point. Take a simply connected L-coordinate neighborhood $(U;u,v)$ centered at $p$ and set $$\label{eq:ds2}
g = E\,du^2+G\,dv^2.$$ Moreover, let $h$ be a symmetric $(0,2)$-tensor $$\label{eq:2ff}
h=X\,du^2+2Y\,du\,dv+Z\,dv^2$$ defined on $U$. If $g$ and $h$ satisfy the Gauss and Codazzi equations, , and , then there exist a mixed type surface $f : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ and an L-Gauss map $\psi : U \rightarrow \Lambda^2$ such that
- the first fundamental form of $f$ coincides with $g$, and
- the second fundamental form $I\!I$ associated with $\psi$ coincides with $h$.
Moreover, such $f$ and $\psi$ are unique up to isometries of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$.
Let ${\mathcal{U}}$, ${\mathcal{V}}$ be the matrices given by , where $E$, $G$, $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ are as in and . Then, by Lemma \[lem:integrability\], the integrability condition of ${\mathcal{F}}_u = {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{U}}$, ${\mathcal{F}}_v = {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{V}}$ is given by the Gauss and Codazzi equations, , and . Hence, setting $F_0^+$ as in , we have that $$\label{eq:GW-matrix-ini}
{\mathcal{F}}_u = {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{U}},\qquad
{\mathcal{F}}_v = {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{V}},\qquad
{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)
=F_0^+$$ has a unique solution ${\mathcal{F}}$. Then, we set $f_1(u,v):={\mathcal{F}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_1$, $f_2(u,v):={\mathcal{F}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_2$. By the definition of ${\mathcal{U}}$ and ${\mathcal{V}}$, we can check that ${\mathcal{V}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_1 = {\mathcal{U}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_2$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
(f_1)_v
= {\mathcal{F}}_v{\boldsymbol{e}}_1
= {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{V}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_1,\quad
(f_2)_u
= {\mathcal{F}}_u{\boldsymbol{e}}_2
= {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{U}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_2\end{aligned}$$ implies $(f_1)_v=(f_2)_u$. Hence, there exists a map $f:U\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ such that $f_u=f_1$, $f_v=f_2$.
Set $\psi(u,v):={\mathcal{F}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_3$. We shall prove that the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of $f$ coincides with $g$, and $\psi$ is an L-Gauss map of $f$. Set $$P:=\begin{pmatrix}
E & 0 & 0\\
0 & G & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\qquad
Q:= {\mathcal{F}}^T S {\mathcal{F}},$$ where $S$ is the matrix given in . By a direct calculation, we have that $$Q_u
={\mathcal{F}}^T_u S {\mathcal{F}}+ {\mathcal{F}}^T S {\mathcal{F}}_u
=({\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{U}})^T S {\mathcal{F}}+ {\mathcal{F}}^T S {\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{U}}={\mathcal{U}}^T Q + Q{\mathcal{U}},$$ and similarly $Q_v={\mathcal{V}}^T Q + Q{\mathcal{V}}$ holds. On the other hand, since $$P{\mathcal{U}}= \begin{pmatrix}
E & 0 & 0\\
0 & G & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{E_u}{2E} & \frac{E_v}{2E} & -\frac{A}{E}\\
X & Y & Z\\
-\frac{E_v}{2}-XG & \frac{G_u}{2}-YG & -Y
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{E_u}{2} & \frac{E_v}{2} & -X\\
-\frac{E_v}{2} & \frac{G_u}{2} & -Y\\
X & Y & 0
\end{pmatrix},$$ we have $
{\mathcal{U}}^T P + P{\mathcal{U}}= (P{\mathcal{U}})^T + P{\mathcal{U}}= P_u.
$ Similarly, we can check that $P_v={\mathcal{V}}^T P + P{\mathcal{V}}$ holds. Moreover, by $$Q(u_0,v_0)
= {\mathcal{F}}(u_0,v_0)^T S {\mathcal{F}}(u_0,v_0)
= \begin{pmatrix}
E(u_0,v_0) & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
= P(u_0,v_0),$$ $P, Q$ are solutions to the following initial value problem $${\mathcal{G}}_u={\mathcal{U}}^T{\mathcal{G}}+ {\mathcal{G}}{\mathcal{U}},\quad
{\mathcal{G}}_v={\mathcal{V}}^T{\mathcal{G}}+ {\mathcal{G}}{\mathcal{V}},\quad
{\mathcal{G}}(u_0,v_0)
= \begin{pmatrix}
E(u_0,v_0) & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Hence, we have $P=Q$ by the uniqueness. Since ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{y}}}\right\rangle}={\boldsymbol{x}}^T S {\boldsymbol{y}}$ for any ${\boldsymbol{x}}, {\boldsymbol{y}}\in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$, we have $$Q
= {\mathcal{F}}^T S {\mathcal{F}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
f_u^T \\
f_v^T \\
\psi^T
\end{pmatrix}
S \left( f_u,\, f_v,\, \psi \right)
=
\begin{pmatrix}
{\left\langle{f_u},{f_u}\right\rangle} & {\left\langle{f_u},{f_v}\right\rangle} & {\left\langle{f_u},{\psi}\right\rangle} \\
{\left\langle{f_v},{f_u}\right\rangle} & {\left\langle{f_v},{f_v}\right\rangle} & {\left\langle{f_v},{\psi}\right\rangle} \\
{\left\langle{\psi},{f_u}\right\rangle} & {\left\langle{\psi},{f_v}\right\rangle} & {\left\langle{\psi},{\psi}\right\rangle}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ So, by $P=Q$, we have $${\left\langle{f_u},{f_u}\right\rangle}=E,\quad
{\left\langle{f_v},{f_v}\right\rangle}=G,\quad
{\left\langle{f_v},{\psi}\right\rangle}=1,\quad
{\left\langle{f_u},{f_v}\right\rangle}={\left\langle{f_u},{\psi}\right\rangle}={\left\langle{\psi},{\psi}\right\rangle}=0.$$ Moreover, using ${\mathcal{F}}^T S {\mathcal{F}}= P$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle{f_{uu}},{\psi}\right\rangle}
= {\left\langle{{\mathcal{F}}_u{\boldsymbol{e}}_1},{{\mathcal{F}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_3}\right\rangle}
&= {\left\langle{{\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{U}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_1},{{\mathcal{F}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_3}\right\rangle}
= ({\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{U}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_1)^T S{\mathcal{F}}{\boldsymbol{e}}_3\\
&=
\left(\dfrac{E_u}{2E} ,\, X,\, -\dfrac{E_v}{2}-XG \right)
\begin{pmatrix}
E & 0 & 0\\
0 & G & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0\\ 1
\end{pmatrix}
=X.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, it holds that ${\left\langle{f_{uv}},{\psi}\right\rangle}=Y$, ${\left\langle{f_{vv}},{\psi}\right\rangle}=Z$. Thus, the second fundamental form $I\!I_{\psi}$ with respect to $\psi$ coincides with $h$.
Finally, with respect to the uniqueness, let $f,\,\check{f} : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be mixed type surfaces such that the first fundamental forms of $f,\,\check{f}$ are both , and let $\psi,\,\check{\psi} : U \rightarrow \Lambda^2$ be the L-Gauss maps of $f,\,\check{f}$, respectively, such that both $I\!I$ and $\check{I\!I}$ coincide with , where $I\!I$ (resp. $\check{I\!I}$) is the second fundamental form of $f$ (resp. $\check{f}$) with respect to $\psi$ (resp. $\check{\psi}$). We set ${\mathcal{F}}:=(f_u,f_v,\psi)$, $\check{{\mathcal{F}}}:=(\check f_u, \check f_v, \check\psi)$. Applying suitable isometries of ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ to $f$, $\check f$, we may assume that ${\mathcal{F}}(u_0,v_0)=\check{{\mathcal{F}}}(u_0,v_0)=F_0^+$, where $F_0^+$ is given by . Then, both ${\mathcal{F}}$ and $\check{{\mathcal{F}}}$ are solutions to the initial value problem . Hence, by the uniqueness, we have ${\mathcal{F}}=\check{{\mathcal{F}}}$, which gives the desired result.
By a proof similar to that of Theorem \[thm:fundamental\], we have the following.
\[cor:fundamental\] Let $g$ be an admissible mixed type metric on a smooth $2$-manifold $\Sigma$, and $p\in S(g)$ a semidefinite point. Moreover, let $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be a non-null curve in $\Sigma$ passing through $p=c(0)$, where $\delta>0$. Take a simply connected L-coordinate system $(U;u,v)$ centered at $p=(0,0)$, which is associated with $c(t)$, and set $g = E\,du^2+G\,dv^2$. In addition, let $h$ be a symmetric $(0,2)$-tensor $h=X\,du^2+2Y\,du\,dv+Z\,dv^2$ defined on $U$, and take a null basis $\{ {\boldsymbol{w}}_1,{\boldsymbol{w}}_2,{\boldsymbol{w}}_3 \}$. If $g$ and $h$ satisfy the Gauss and Codazzi equations, , and , then there exist a unique mixed type surface $f : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ and an L-Gauss map $\psi : U \rightarrow \Lambda^2$ such that
- the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of $f$ coincides with $g$,
- the second fundamental form $I\!I_{\psi}$ associated with $\psi$ coincides with $h$,
- $f(0,0)={\boldsymbol{0}}$, and ${\mathcal{F}}(0,0)=\left( {\boldsymbol{w}}_1,{\boldsymbol{w}}_2,{\boldsymbol{w}}_3 \right)$.
Spacelike curves on mixed type surfaces in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ {#sec:curve}
===============================================================
As in the introduction, a mixed type surface is said to be [*generic*]{} if its first fundamental form is a generic mixed type metric, cf. Definitions \[def:generic-surface\], \[def:generic-typeI\] and \[def:generic-typeII\]. In this section, as a preparation for the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], we calculate the invariants, such as the curvature and torsion functions, of spacelike curves on generic mixed type surfaces.
Spacelike curves in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$
----------------------------------------
Here, we review the fundamental properties of spacelike curves in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. See [@Walrave; @Lopez; @Honda-Lk] for details.
Let $I$ be an open interval. A regular curve $\gamma : I \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ is called [*spacelike*]{} if each tangent vector is spacelike. By a coordinate change, we may assume that $\gamma$ is parametrized by arclength. That is, ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u):=\gamma'(u)$ gives the unit spacelike tangent vector field, where the prime means $d/du$. We call $${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u):=\gamma''(u)$$ the [*curvature vector field*]{} along $\gamma(u)$. If ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$ is nowhere zero, then $\gamma(u)$ is said to have [*non-zero curvature*]{}. For a general parametrization, $\gamma(t)$ has non-zero curvature if and only if $d\gamma/dt$ and $d^2\gamma/dt^2$ are linearly independent [@Honda-Lk Lemma 2.2].
From now on, we assume that every spacelike curve is parametrized by arclength. To measure the causal character of the curvature vector field ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$, set $$\theta(u):=
{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)}\right\rangle}
~(={\left\langle{\gamma''(u)},{\gamma''(u)}\right\rangle}).$$ We call $\theta(u)$ the [*causal curvature function*]{} along $\gamma(u)$.
\[def:non-Frenet\] Let $\gamma : I \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a unit-speed spacelike curve with non-zero curvature ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u) \ne {\boldsymbol{0}}$. Let $\theta(u)$ be the causal curvature function, and let $k\in {\boldsymbol{Z}}$ be a positive integer. Then, $\gamma(u)$ is said to be
- of [*type $S$*]{} if ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$ is a spacelike vector field, that is $\theta(u)>0$ holds on $I$,
- of [*type $T$*]{} if ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$ is a timelike vector field, that is $\theta(u)<0$ holds on $I$,
- of [*type $L$*]{} if ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$ is a lightlike vector field, that is $\theta(u)=0$ holds on $I$,
- of [*type $L_k$*]{} at $u_0\in I$ if $\theta(u)$ satisfies the following: $$\theta(u_0)=\theta'(u_0)= \cdots= \theta^{(k-1)}(u_0)=0, \qquad
\theta^{(k)}(u_0)\neq0.$$
If the curve $\gamma(u)$ is of type $S$ or type $T$, then $\gamma(u)$ is said to be a [*Frenet curve*]{} [@Lopez]. In the case of type $L$ or type $L_k$, we call $\gamma(u)$ a [*non-Frenet curve*]{}.
We remark that, every real analytic spacelike curve $\gamma(u)$ with non-zero curvature must be either a Frenet curve (i.e. type $S$ or type $T$) or a non-Frenet curve (i.e. type $L$ or type $L_k$).
Here, we briefly review the fundamental properties of spacelike curves of type $S$, $T$, $L$ and $L_k$. We fix a spacelike curve $\gamma : I \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ which is parametrized by arclength. We denote the unit tangent vector field (resp. the curvature vector field) along $\gamma(u)$ by ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)=\gamma'(u)$ $\left({\rm resp}.\ {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)=\gamma''(u) \right)$.
### Spacelike Frenet curves {#sec:type-ST}
In the case that $\gamma$ is a Frenet curve, the function $\kappa(u):=\sqrt{|\theta(u)|}\,(=|{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)|)$ is called the curvature function [@Lopez]. However, for the purpose of unified treatment, we use $\theta(u)$ instead of $\kappa(u)$. Then, the function $$\label{eq:torsion-det}
\tau = -\frac1{\theta}\det (\gamma' ,\, \gamma'',\, \gamma''')$$ is called the *torsion function*. Moreover, the principal normal vector field ${\boldsymbol{n}}(u)$ and the binormal vector field ${\boldsymbol{b}}(u)$ are defined as $${\boldsymbol{n}}(u):=\frac1{\sqrt{|\theta(u)|}}{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u),\qquad
{\boldsymbol{b}}(u):= \sigma{\boldsymbol{e}}(u) \times {\boldsymbol{n}}(u),$$ respectively, where $$\sigma
:= \begin{cases}
-1 & (\text{if $\gamma(u)$ is of type $S$}), \\
1 & (\text{if $\gamma(u)$ is of type $T$}).
\end{cases}$$ By the fundamental theorem for spacelike Frenet curves (cf. [@Lopez Theorems 2.6, 2.8]), the following holds.
\[prop:fund-ST\] Let $I$ be an open neighborhood of the origin $0$, and let $\gamma(u), \bar{\gamma}(u) : I \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be two unit-speed spacelike Frenet curves such that $\gamma(0)=\bar{\gamma}(0)$. Let $\theta$, $\tau$ $($resp. $\bar{\theta}$, $\bar{\tau})$ be the causal curvature and torsion function of $\gamma$ $($resp. $\bar{\gamma})$, respectively. Moreover, we let ${\boldsymbol{e}}$, ${\boldsymbol{n}}$, ${\boldsymbol{b}}$ $($resp. $\bar{{\boldsymbol{e}}}$, $\bar{{\boldsymbol{n}}}$, $\bar{{\boldsymbol{b}}})$ be the unit tangent vector field, the principal normal vector field, and the binormal vector field along $\gamma(u)$ $($resp. $\bar{\gamma}(u))$, respectively. Then, $\gamma(u)=\bar\gamma(u)$ holds if and only if $\theta(u)=\bar{\theta}(u)$, $\tau(u)=\bar\tau(u)$, and $({\boldsymbol{e}}(0), {\boldsymbol{n}}(0), {\boldsymbol{b}}(0))=
(\bar{{\boldsymbol{e}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{n}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{b}}}(0))$ hold.
### Spacelike curves of type $L$ {#sec:type-L}
Let $\gamma : I \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a spacelike curve of type $L$. By definition, ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$ is a lightlike vector field. By Fact \[fact:gaiseki\], ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)\times{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u) = \epsilon {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$ holds for $\epsilon\in \{1,-1\}$. Such $\epsilon$ is called the [*signature*]{} of $\gamma$. If ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)\times{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u) = {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$ (resp. ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)\times{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u) = -{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$) holds, then $\gamma$ is called of type $L^+$ (resp. type $L^-$). Let ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)$ be the vector field which satisfies $${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}
= {\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{e}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}
=0,\qquad
{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}=1.$$ Such a vector field ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)$ is uniquely determined. We call ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)$ the [*pseudo-binormal vector field*]{}. Then, $\mu(u) := - {\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}'(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}$ is called the [*pseudo-torsion function*]{}. The Frenet-Serret type formula is given as $$\label{eq:Frenet-L}
{\boldsymbol{e}}' = {\boldsymbol{\kappa}},\qquad
{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}' = -\mu {\boldsymbol{\kappa}},\qquad
{\boldsymbol{\beta}}' = - {\boldsymbol{e}} + \mu {\boldsymbol{\beta}}.$$ Set ${\mathcal{C}}:=({\boldsymbol{e}},{\boldsymbol{\kappa}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$. By , $
\det{\mathcal{C}}=
{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{e}}\times{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}\right\rangle}
= \epsilon
$ holds. Hence, $\det{\mathcal{C}}>0$ (resp. $\det{\mathcal{C}}<0$) if and only if $\gamma$ is of type $L^+$ (resp. type $L^-$).
By the fundamental theorem for spacelike curves of type $L$ (cf. [@Lopez Theorems 2.7, 2.8]), the following holds.
\[prop:fund-L\] Let $I$ be an open neighborhood of the origin $0$, and let $\gamma(u), \bar{\gamma}(u) : I \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be two unit-speed spacelike curves of type $L$ such that $\gamma(0)=\bar{\gamma}(0)$. Let $\mu$ $($resp. $\bar{\mu})$ be the pseudo-torsion function of $\gamma$ $($resp. $\bar{\gamma})$. Moreover, we let ${\boldsymbol{e}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ $($resp. $\bar{{\boldsymbol{e}}}$, $\bar{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}$, $\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})$ be the unit tangent vector field, the curvature vector field, and the pseudo-binormal vector field along $\gamma(u)$ $($resp. $\bar{\gamma}(u))$, respectively. Then, $\gamma(u)=\bar\gamma(u)$ holds if and only if $\mu(u)=\bar\mu(u)$, and $({\boldsymbol{e}}(0), {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(0), {\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0))=
(\bar{{\boldsymbol{e}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}(0))$ hold.
We remark that, by the condition $({\boldsymbol{e}}(0), {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(0), {\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0))=
(\bar{{\boldsymbol{e}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}(0))$, the signature $\epsilon$ of $\gamma(u)$ coincides with that $\bar{\epsilon}$ of $\bar{\gamma}(u)$.
### Spacelike curves of type $L_k$ {#sec:Lk}
Let $\gamma : I \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a spacelike curve of type $L_k$ at $u_0\in I$. By definition, ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u_0)$ is a lightlike vector. By Fact \[fact:gaiseki\], ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u_0)\times{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u_0) = \epsilon {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u_0)$ holds for $\epsilon\in \{1,-1\}$. Such $\epsilon$ is called the [*signature*]{} of $\gamma$. If ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u_0)\times{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u_0) = {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u_0)$ (resp. ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u_0)\times{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u_0) = -{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u_0)$) holds, then $\gamma$ is called of type $L_k^+$ (resp. type $L_k^-$) at $u_0\in I$. As seen in [@Honda-Lk Corollary 3.4], $${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u):=\frac1{\theta}
\left( \epsilon {\boldsymbol{e}}(u) \times {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)
-{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u) \right)$$ can be smoothly extended across $u_0\in I$. Such the vector field ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)$ is called the [*pseudo-binormal vector field*]{}. It satisfies (cf. [@Honda-Lk Proposition 3.5]) $${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}
= {\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{e}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}
=0,\qquad
{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}=1.$$ Then, $\mu(u) := - {\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}'(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}$ is called the [*pseudo-torsion function*]{}. The Frenet-Serret type formula is given as $$\label{eq:Frenet-Lk}
{\boldsymbol{e}}' = {\boldsymbol{\kappa}},\qquad
{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}' = -\theta {\boldsymbol{e}} -\mu {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}
+\left( \theta\mu +\frac1{2}\theta' \right){\boldsymbol{\beta}},\qquad
{\boldsymbol{\beta}}' = - {\boldsymbol{e}} + \mu {\boldsymbol{\beta}}.$$ Set ${\mathcal{C}}:=({\boldsymbol{e}},{\boldsymbol{\kappa}},{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$. By , $
\det{\mathcal{C}}= \epsilon
$ holds. Hence, $\det{\mathcal{C}}>0$ (resp. $\det{\mathcal{C}}<0$) if and only if $\gamma$ is of type $L_k^+$ (resp. type $L_k^-$).
By the fundamental theorem for spacelike curves of type $L_k$ (cf. [@Honda-Lk Lemma 3.7, Theorem 3.8]), the following holds.
\[prop:fund-Lk\] Let $I$ be an open neighborhood of the origin $0$, and let $\gamma(u), \bar{\gamma}(u) : I \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be two unit-speed spacelike curves of type $L_k$ at $u=0$, such that $\gamma(0)=\bar{\gamma}(0)$. Let $\theta$, $\mu$ $($resp. $\bar{\theta}$, $\bar{\mu})$ be the causal curvature and pseudo-torsion function of $\gamma$ $($resp. $\bar{\gamma})$, respectively. Moreover, we let ${\boldsymbol{e}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ $($resp. $\bar{{\boldsymbol{e}}}$, $\bar{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}$, $\bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}})$ be the unit tangent vector field, the curvature vector field, and the pseudo-binormal vector field along $\gamma(u)$ $($resp. $\bar{\gamma}(u))$, respectively. Then, $\gamma(u)=\bar\gamma(u)$ holds if and only if $\theta(u)=\bar{\theta}(u)$, $\mu(u)=\bar\mu(u)$, and $({\boldsymbol{e}}(0), {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(0), {\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0))=
(\bar{{\boldsymbol{e}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}(0))$ hold.
As in the case of spacelike curves of type $L$, the condition $({\boldsymbol{e}}(0), {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(0), {\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0))=
(\bar{{\boldsymbol{e}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}}(0), \bar{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}(0))$ implies that the signature $\epsilon$ of $\gamma(u)$ coincides with that $\bar{\epsilon}$ of $\bar{\gamma}(u)$.
Spacelike curves on generic mixed type surfaces
-----------------------------------------------
Here, we calculate the invariants (such as the causal curvature, the torsion, and the pseudo-torsion) of spacelike curves on generic mixed type surfaces.
As in Definitions \[def:generic-surface\] and \[def:generic-typeI\], a lightlike point $p$ of the first kind is said to be generic if the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L$ does not vanish at $p$.
\[prop:STL\] Let $f: \Sigma \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a generic lightlike point of the first kind. Let $(U;u,v)$ be an L-coordinate system associated with the lightlike set $LD$ such that $$ds^2 = E\,du^2 + G\,dv^2,\quad
E(u,0)=1,\quad
G(u,0)=0$$ hold. Let $\psi$ be an L-Gauss map and set $$x(u):=X(u,0),\qquad
y(u):=Y(u,0),$$ where $X:={\left\langle{f_{uu}},{\psi}\right\rangle}, Y:={\left\langle{f_{uv}},{\psi}\right\rangle}$. Then $\hat{c}(u):=f(u,0)$ is a unit-speed spacelike curve of non-zero curvature. Moreover, $\theta(u)$ is the causal curvature function of $\hat{c}(u)$ if and only if $$\label{eq:a-1st}
x(u) = -\frac{\theta(u)}{ E_v(u,0) }$$ holds. Furthermore, set ${\mathcal{F}}:=(f_u,f_v,\psi)$ and ${\epsilon}\in \{1,-1\}$ as ${\epsilon}=1$ $($resp. ${\epsilon}=-1)$ if the L-coordinate system $(u,v)$ is p-oriented $($resp. n-oriented$)$. Then we have the following:
- Consider the case that $\hat{c}(u)$ is a Frenet curve. Then, $\tau(u)$ is the torsion function of $\hat{c}(u)$ if and only if $$\label{eq:tau-ST-1}
y(u) = {\epsilon}\tau(u)
+\frac{E_{uv}(u,0)}{E_v(u,0)} - \frac{\theta'(u)}{2\theta(u)}.$$ Moreover, it holds that $$\label{eq:frame0-ST-1}
{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)=
\left( {\boldsymbol{e}}(0),
\frac{\sqrt{|\theta(0)|}}{2a(0)}({\boldsymbol{n}}(0)+{\epsilon}\sigma{\boldsymbol{b}}(0) ),
\frac{\sqrt{|\theta(0)|}}{E_v(0,0)}(-{\boldsymbol{n}}(0)+{\epsilon}\sigma{\boldsymbol{b}}(0) )
\right),$$ where ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)$ $($resp. ${\boldsymbol{n}}(u)$, ${\boldsymbol{b}}(u))$ is the unit tangent vector field $($resp. the principal normal vector field, the binormal vector field$)$ along $\hat{c}(u)$, and $\sigma=-1$ $($resp. $\sigma=1)$ if $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $S$ $($resp. type $T)$.
- Consider the case that $\hat{c}(u)$ is a non-Frenet curve. Then, the coordinate system $(u,v)$ is p-oriented $($resp. n-oriented$)$ if and only if $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L^-$ or $L_k^-$ $($resp. type $L^+$ or $L_k^+)$. Moreover, $\mu(u)$ is the pseudo-torsion function of $\hat{c}(u)$ if and only if $y(u)$ is written as $$\label{eq:tau-L-1}
y(u) = \mu(u) +\frac{E_{uv}(u,0)}{E_v(u,0)}.$$ Furthermore, it holds that $$\label{eq:frame0-L-1}
{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)=
\left( {\boldsymbol{e}}(0),
-\frac{E_v(0,0)}{2} {\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0),
-\frac{2}{E_v(0,0)} {\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(0)
\right),$$ where ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)$ $($resp. ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u))$ is the unit tangent vector field $($resp. the curvature vector field, the pseudo-binormal vector field$)$ along $\hat{c}(u)$.
To prove Proposition \[prop:STL\], we prepare the following lemma:
\[lem:kappa-L-N\] Let $f: \Sigma \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a lightlike point of the first kind. Let $(U;u,v)$ be an L-coordinate system associated with the lightlike set at $p$. Set $ds^2 = E\,du^2 + G\,dv^2$. Then, the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L$ is written as $$\label{eq:kappa-ell-uaxis}
\kappa_L(u)
= - \frac{ E_v(u,0)}{2\sqrt[3]{G_v(u,0)} }.$$ In particular, $p\in \Sigma$ is a generic lightlike point of the first kind if and only if $E_v(0,0)\neq0$.
The lightlike set image is given by $\hat{c}(u)=f(u,0)$. Since ${\left\langle{\hat{c}'(u)},{\hat{c}'(u)}\right\rangle}=E(u,0)=1$, we have that $\hat{c}(u)$ is a spacelike curve parametrized by arclength. By Lemma \[lem:kappa\_L\], we have that .
By Lemma \[lem:GW-matrix\], $$\label{eq:GW-sub}
f_{uu}(u,0) = x f_v -\frac{E_v}{2}\psi,\quad
f_{uv}(u,0) \equiv y f_v,\quad
\psi_{u}(u,0) \equiv -y\psi$$ holds along the $u$-axis, where ${\boldsymbol{a}} \equiv {\boldsymbol{b}}$ if ${\boldsymbol{a}}- {\boldsymbol{b}}$ is parallel to ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)=f_u(u,0)$. Then, the causal curvature function $\theta(u)$ of $\hat{c}(u)$ is written as $$\theta
= {\left\langle{f_{uu}(u,0)},{f_{uu}(u,0)}\right\rangle}
= -E_v x.$$ Since $E_v(0,0)\ne0$ holds by Lemma \[lem:kappa-L-N\], we obtain .
[*Case I [:]{} $\hat{c}(u)$ is a Frenet curve.*]{} By , we have $\hat{c}'(u)=f_u(u,0)$, $\hat{c}''(u) = f_{uu}(u,0) = - x f_v +\frac{E_v}{2}\psi$, and $$\hat{c}'''(u)
=f_{uuu}(u,0)
\equiv (x' + xy) f_v + \frac{1}{2}(E_{v}y - E_{uv})\psi.$$ Then, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\det(\hat{c}',\,\hat{c}'',\,\hat{c}''')
&= \left( E_{v}xy - \frac1{2}E_{uv}x + \frac1{2}E_{v}x' \right)
\det\left( f_u,\, f_v,\, \psi \right)\\
&= {\epsilon}\left( - \theta y - \frac1{2}E_{uv}x + \frac1{2}E_{v}x' \right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\epsilon}=\det\left( f_u(u,0),\, f_v(u,0),\, \psi(u,0) \right)
\in \{1,-1\}$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:detF\]). On the other hand, yields that $ - \theta \tau
= \det(\hat{c}',\,\hat{c}'',\,\hat{c}''')$, which implies . With respect to , we have ${\boldsymbol{e}}(0)=f_u(0,0)$, $${\boldsymbol{n}}(0)
=\left.\frac1{\sqrt{|\theta|}}f_{uu}\right|_{(u,v)=(0,0)}
=\left.\frac1{\sqrt{|\theta|}}\left(xf_v-\frac{E_v}{2}\psi\right)\right|_{(u,v)=(0,0)}$$ and $${\boldsymbol{b}}(0)
=\sigma {\boldsymbol{e}}(0) \times {\boldsymbol{n}}(0)
=\left.\frac{{\epsilon}\sigma}{\sqrt{|\theta|}}
\left(x f_v+\frac{E_v}{2}\psi\right)\right|_{(u,v)=(0,0)},$$ where we applied Lemma \[lem:gaiseki-other\]. Thus, we obtain .
[*Case II [:]{} $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L$.*]{} Since $\theta(u)=0$, we have $x(u)=0$. By , the curvature vector field ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)=\hat{c}''(u)$ is written as ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u) = -\frac{E_v}{2}\psi(u,0)$. Hence, the pseudo-binormal vector field ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)$ is parallel to $f_v(u,0)$. Since ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)}\right\rangle}=1$, we have ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u) = -\frac{2}{E_v}f_v$. The derivative ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}'(u)$ can be calculated as $${\boldsymbol{b}}'(u) \equiv
\left( y-\frac{E_{uv}}{E_v} \right){\boldsymbol{b}}(u).$$ Since ${\boldsymbol{b}}'(u)\equiv \mu(u){\boldsymbol{b}}(u)$ by , we have . Moreover, since $$\det({\boldsymbol{e}},\,{\boldsymbol{\kappa}},\,{\boldsymbol{\beta}})
= \det\left( f_u\,-\frac{E_v}{2}\psi,\,-\frac{2}{E_v}f_v \right)
= -\det\left( f_u\,f_v,\,\psi \right)
=-{\epsilon},$$ we have the desired result. Since ${\boldsymbol{e}}(0)=f_u(0,0)$, and $$\label{eq:frame0-L}
{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(0) = -\frac{E_v(0,0)}{2}\psi(0,0),\qquad
{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0) =-\frac{2}{E_v(0,0)}f_v(0,0),$$ we obtain .
[*Case III [:]{} $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L_k$.*]{} By , the curvature vector field ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)=\hat{c}''(u)$ is written as ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)
= x f_v - \frac{E_v}{2}\psi(u,0).$ Since the pseudo-binormal vector field ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)$ is orthogonal to $\hat{c}'(u)$, we may set $
{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u) = P(u)\,f_v + Q(u)\,\psi,
$ where $P(u)$, $Q(u)$ are functions. Then, the conditions ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)}\right\rangle}=1$, ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}=0$ imply that $$0=PQ,\quad
1=-\frac{E_v}{2} P + x Q.$$ If $P(0)=0$, then $1=x(0) Q(0)$. On the other hand, by , we have $x(0)=0$, which is a contradiction. Hence, we have $P(0)\ne0$. Then, we have $Q=0$, $P=-\frac2{E_v}$, and hence $
{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u) = -\frac2{E_v}\,f_v.
$ The derivative ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}'(u)$ can be calculated as $${\boldsymbol{b}}'(u) \equiv
\left( y-\frac{E_{uv}}{E_v} \right){\boldsymbol{b}}(u).$$ Since ${\boldsymbol{b}}'(u)\equiv \mu(u){\boldsymbol{b}}(u)$ by , we have . Moreover, since $$\det({\boldsymbol{e}},\,{\boldsymbol{\kappa}},\,{\boldsymbol{\beta}})
= \det\left( f_u\,x f_v-\frac{E_v}{2}\psi,\,-\frac{2}{E_v}f_v \right)
= -\det\left( f_u\,f_v,\,\psi \right)
=-{\epsilon},$$ we have the desired result. Since ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(0)$ and ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0)$ can be calculated as , we obtain .
Let $p\in LD$ be a lightlike point of the second kind of a mixed type surface $f:\Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$. As in Definitions \[def:generic-surface\] and \[def:generic-typeII\], $p$ is generic if there exists a non-null curve $ c(t)\,(|t|<\delta)$ passing through $p= c(0)$ such that the geodesic curvature function along $ c(t)$ is unbounded at the origin.
\[prop:STL-2\] Let $f: \Sigma \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a generic lightlike point of the second kind. Let $ c(t)\,(|t|<\delta)$ be a non-null curve passing through $p= c(0)$ such that the geodesic curvature function along $ c(t)$ is unbounded at the origin. Let $(U;u,v)$ be an L-coordinate system associated with $ c(t)$ such that the image of $ c(t)$ is included in the $u$-axis, and $$ds^2 = E\,du^2 + G\,dv^2,\qquad
E(u,0)=1$$ hold. Let $\psi$ be an L-Gauss map and set $$x(u):=X(u,0),\qquad
y(u):=Y(u,0),$$ where $X:={\left\langle{f_{uu}},{\psi}\right\rangle}, Y:={\left\langle{f_{uv}},{\psi}\right\rangle}$. Then $\hat{c}(u):=f(u,0)$ is a unit-speed spacelike curve of non-zero curvature. Moreover, $\theta(u)$ is the causal curvature function of $\hat{c}(u)$ if and only if $$\label{eq:a-3}
x(u) = -\frac{2\theta(u)}{E_v(u,0) + {\rm sgn}(E_v(0,0))
\sqrt{E_v(u,0)^2 - 4\lambda(u,0) \theta(u)}}$$ holds. Furthermore, set ${\mathcal{F}}:=(f_u,f_v,\psi)$ and ${\epsilon}\in \{1,-1\}$ as ${\epsilon}=1$ $($resp. ${\epsilon}=-1)$ if the L-coordinate system $(u,v)$ is p-oriented $($resp. n-oriented$)$. Then we have the following:
- Consider the case that $\hat{c}(u)$ is a Frenet curve. Then, $\tau(u)$ is the torsion function of $\hat{c}(u)$ if and only if $y(u)$ is written as $$\label{eq:tau-ST-3}
y(u) = {\epsilon}\tau(u)
+ \frac1{2\theta}
\left( E_v x' - \lambda_u x^2 - E_{uv}x \right).$$ Moreover, denote by ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)$ $($resp. ${\boldsymbol{n}}(u)$, ${\boldsymbol{b}}(u))$ the unit tangent vector field $($resp. the principal normal vector field, the binormal vector field$)$ along $\hat{c}(u)$. We also set $\sigma=-1$ $($resp. $\sigma=1)$ if $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $S$ $($resp. type $T)$. Then, ${\mathcal{F}}(0,0)$ is given by .
- Consider the case that $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L$. Then, the L-coordinate system $(u,v)$ is p-oriented $($resp. n-oriented$)$ if and only if $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L^-$ $($resp. $L^+)$. Moreover, $\mu(u)$ is the pseudo-torsion function of $\hat{c}(u)$ if and only if $y(u)$ is written as $$\label{eq:tau-L-3}
y(u) = \mu(u) +\frac{E_{uv}}{E_v}.$$ Furthermore, denote by ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)$ $($resp. ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u))$ the unit tangent vector field $($resp. the curvature vector field, the pseudo-binormal vector field$)$ along $\hat{c}(u)$. Then, ${\mathcal{F}}(0,0)$ is given by .
- Consider the case that $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L_k$ at $u=0$. Then, the L-coordinate system $(u,v)$ is p-oriented $($resp. n-oriented$)$ if and only if $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L_k^-$ $($resp. $L_k^+)$. Moreover, $\mu(u)$ is the pseudo-torsion function of $\hat{c}(u)$ if and only if $y(u)$ is written as $$\label{eq:tau-Lk-3}
y(u) = \mu(u)
+\frac{E_{uv} + \lambda x' + \lambda_u x}{E_v+\lambda x}.$$ Furthermore, denote by ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)$ $($resp. ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)$, ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u))$ the unit tangent vector field $($resp. the curvature vector field, the pseudo-binormal vector field$)$ along $\hat{c}(u)$. Then, ${\mathcal{F}}(0,0)$ is given by .
By Lemma \[lem:GW-matrix\], $$f_{uu} = x f_v - \left( \frac{E_v}{2} + \lambda x \right)\psi,\quad
f_{uv} \equiv y f_v + \left( \frac{\lambda_u}{2} - \lambda y \right)\psi,\quad
\psi_{u} \equiv -y \psi$$ hold along the $u$-axis. Here, ${\boldsymbol{a}} \equiv {\boldsymbol{b}}$ if ${\boldsymbol{a}}- {\boldsymbol{b}}$ is parallel to ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)=f_u(u,0)$. Moreover, we used the identity $G(u,0)=\lambda(u,0)/E(u,0)=\lambda(u,0)$. Since $\lambda(0,0)=0$, $$\hat{c}''(0)
=f_{uu}(0,0)
=x(0) f_v(0,0) - \frac{E_v(0,0)}{2}\psi(0,0)$$ holds. By Lemma \[cor:limiting-geod-2nd\], the genericity of $ c$ at $p$ implies $E_v(0,0)=0$. And hence, $\hat{c}''(0)\ne {\boldsymbol{0}}$ holds.
The causal curvature function $\theta(u):= {\left\langle{\hat{c}''(u)},{\hat{c}''(u)}\right\rangle}$ can be calculated as $$\theta
= {\left\langle{f_{uu}(u,0)},{f_{uu}(u,0)}\right\rangle}
= -E_v x - x^2 \lambda.$$ Namely, $$\label{eq:binary}
\lambda(u,0) x(u)^2 + E_v(u,0) x(u) + \theta(u) =0$$ holds. Since the intersection of ${\rm Image}( c)$ and $LD$ is $\{p\}$, it holds that $\lambda(u,0)\neq0$ for $u\neq0$. Then, $x(u)$ is given by $$x(u)
=\frac{-E_v(u,0)\pm\sqrt{E_v(u,0)^2-4\lambda(u,0) \theta(u)}
}{2\lambda(u,0)}.$$ Since the denominator converges to $0$ and $x(u)$ is bounded at $u=0$, the limit of the numerator $$\lim_{u\to 0} \left(-E_v(u,0)\pm\sqrt{
E_v(u,0)^2-4\lambda(u,0) \theta(u)} \right)
= -E_v(0,0)\pm|E_v(0,0)|$$ must be $0$. Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned}
x(u)
&= \frac{-E_v(u,0) + {\rm sgn}(E_v)
\sqrt{E_v(u,0)^2 - 4\lambda(u,0) \theta(u)}}{2\lambda(u,0)}\\
&= -\frac{2\theta(u)}{E_v(u,0) + {\rm sgn}(E_v)
\sqrt{E_v(u,0)^2 - 4\lambda(u,0) \theta(u)}},\end{aligned}$$ which yields .
[*Case I [:]{} $\hat{c}(u)$ is a Frenet curve.*]{} By , we have $\hat{c}'(u)=f_u(u,0)$, $\hat{c}''(u) = f_{uu}(u,0) = x f_v -(\frac{E_v}{2}+\lambda x)\psi$, and $$\hat{c}'''(u)
=f_{uuu}(u,0)
\equiv (x' + xy) f_v
+ \left(\frac1{2}E_v y
-\frac{1}{2}E_{uv} - \lambda x'
- \frac1{2} \lambda_u x \right)\psi.$$ Applying , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\det(\hat{c}',\,\hat{c}'',\,\hat{c}''')
&= \left( -\theta y
+\frac1{2}\left( E_v x' -E_{uv} x - \lambda_u x^2 \right) \right)
\det\left( f_u,\, f_v, \, \psi \right)\\
&= {\epsilon}\left( -\theta y
+\frac1{2}\left( E_v x' -E_{uv} x - \lambda_u x^2 \right) \right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\epsilon}=\det\left( f_u(u,0),\, f_v(u,0),\, \psi(u,0) \right)
\in \{1,-1\}$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:detF\]). Hence, yields .
[*Case II [:]{} $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L$.*]{} Since $\theta(u)=0$, we have $x(u)=0$. By , the curvature vector field ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)=\hat{c}''(u)$ is written as ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)=-\frac{E_v}{2}\psi(u,0)$. On the other hand, since the pseudo-binormal vector field ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)$ is orthogonal to ${\boldsymbol{e}}(u)=f_u(u,0)$, we may set ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)=P f_v +Q \psi$. By ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)}\right\rangle}=1$ and ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}=0$, we have $P=-2/E_v$, $Q=\lambda/E_v$. Hence $${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)=\frac1{E_v}\left(-2f_v + \lambda \psi \right)$$ holds. Then, substituting $
{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}'(u)
\equiv -\frac{1}{2}\left( E_{uv} -E_v y \right)\psi
$ into $\mu = -{\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u) },{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}'(u) }\right\rangle}$, we have .
[*Case III [:]{} $\hat{c}(u)$ is of type $L_k$.*]{} By , the curvature vector field ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)=\hat{c}''(u)$ is written as ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)
= x f_v - \left( \frac{E_v}{2} + \lambda x \right)\psi.$ Since the pseudo-binormal vector field ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)$ is orthogonal to $\hat{c}'(u)$, we may set $
{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u) = P(u)\,f_v + Q(u)\,\psi,
$ where $P(u)$, $Q(u)$ are functions. If $P(0)=0$, then ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}(0)$ is parallel to $\psi(0,0)$. On the other hand, by , we have $x(0)=0$. Hence, ${\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(0)$ is also parallel to $\psi(0,0)$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, $P(0)\ne0$. Then, the conditions ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}(u)}\right\rangle}=1$, ${\left\langle{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)},{{\boldsymbol{\beta}}(u)}\right\rangle}=0$ imply that $
P=-2/(E_v+\lambda x), Q=\lambda/(E_v+\lambda x),
$ namely, $${\boldsymbol{b}}(u) = \frac1{E_v + \lambda x}\left(-2f_v + \lambda\psi\right)$$ holds. The derivative ${\boldsymbol{\beta}}'(u)$ can be calculated as $${\boldsymbol{b}}'(u) \equiv
\left( y - \frac{E_{uv}+\lambda x' + \lambda_u x}{E_v+\lambda x} \right){\boldsymbol{b}}(u).$$ Since ${\boldsymbol{b}}'(u)\equiv \mu(u){\boldsymbol{b}}(u)$ by , we have .
Finally, by a calculation similar to that done in the proof of Proposition \[prop:STL\], we obtain that ${\mathcal{F}}(0,0)$ is given by (resp. ) if $\hat{c}(u)$ is of a Frenet curve (resp. a non-Frenet curve), which yields the desired result.
Proof of main results {#sec:proofs}
=====================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[thm:main\], Corollaries \[cor:deformation\] and \[cor:ext-kappa-N\] in the introduction. We also prove the extrinsicity of the lightlike geodesic torsion $\kappa_G$ (Corollary \[cor:ext-kappa-G\]).
Isometric realizations of generic mixed type metrics
----------------------------------------------------
Using Propositions \[prop:STL\] and \[prop:STL-2\], we have the following.
\[thm:realization\] Let $g$ be a real analytic generic mixed type metric on a real analytic $2$-manifold $\Sigma$, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a semidefinite point. We also let $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be either
- a characteristic curve passing through $p=c(0)$, if $p$ is type I, or
- a regular curve which is non-null at $p=c(0)$ such that the geodesic curvature function is unbounded at $t=0$, if $p$ is type II,
where $\delta>0$. Take a real analytic spacelike curve $\gamma : I \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ with non-zero curvature passing through $\gamma(0)={\boldsymbol{0}}$ and set the image $\Gamma:=\gamma(I)$ of $\gamma$, where $I$ is an open interval including the origin $0$. Set $Z_\gamma$ as $$Z_\gamma :=
\begin{cases}
\{1,2,3,4\} & (\text{if $\gamma$ is a Frenet curve}),\\
\{1,2\} & (\text{if $\gamma$ is a non-Frenet curve}).
\end{cases}$$ Then, there exist a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ and real analytic mixed type surfaces $f_i : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ $(i\in Z_\gamma)$ such that, for each $i\in Z_\gamma$,
- the first fundamental form of $f_i$ coincides with $g$,
- $f_i(p)={\boldsymbol{0}}$, and the image of $f_i\circ c(t)$ is included in $\Gamma$.
Moreover, there are no such surfaces other than $f_i$ $(i\in Z_\gamma)$. More precisely, if $\tilde{f} : U \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ is a real analytic generic mixed type surface which satisfies the conditions $(1)$ and $(2)$, then there exists an open neighborhood $O$ of $p$ such that the image $\tilde{f}(O)$ is a subset of $f_i(U)$ for some $i\in Z_\gamma$.
Let $(V;u,v)$ be an L-coordinate system along $ c(u)=(u,0)$. Then, the metric $g$ can be represented as $$g=E\,du^2+G\,dv^2,\qquad
E(u,0)=1,\qquad
E_v\neq0.$$ Without loss of generality, we may assume that the spacelike curve $\gamma(u)$ is parametrized by arclength and $I$ is given by $I=(-\delta,\delta)$, where $\delta$ is a positive real number. Since $\gamma(u)$ has non-zero curvature and is real analytic, the spacelike curve $\gamma(u)$ is either a Frenet curve (i.e. type $S$ or type $T$) or a non-Frenet curve (i.e. type $L$ or type $L_k$ $(k=1,2,3,\dots)$). Let $\theta(u)$ be the causal curvature function, and let $\tau(u)$ (resp. $\mu(u)$) be the torsion (resp. pseudo-torsion) function of $\gamma(u)$, respectively.
\(i) [*The case that $\gamma(u)$ is a Frenet curve*]{}: Take ${\epsilon}\in \{1,-1\}$, arbitrarily.
- If $p$ is type I, we set functions $x(u)$, $y(u)$ as in , , respectively.
- If $p$ is type II, we set functions $x(u)$, $y(u)$ as in , , respectively.
Consider the system of partial differential equations $$\label{eq:normalform}
X_v = \frac1{2E} \left( E_v X +E_u Y \right) + X\Delta - Y^2 +Y_u ,\quad
Y_v = -\frac1{2E} \left( G_u X +E_v Y \right) +\Delta_u$$ with unknown functions $X(u,v)$, $Y(u,v)$, where $$\label{eq:C-Delta}
\Delta := \frac1{2GX -E_v}\left(
E_{vv}+G_{uu} - \frac{E_u G_u +E_v^2}{2E}
-G_v X+2 G_u Y + 2 GY^2
\right).$$ We remark that $2GX -E_v\neq0$ holds on a neighborhood of the origin $(0,0)$, since $G(0,0)=0$ and $E_v\neq0$. By the Cauchy-Kowalevski theorem, we have the unique solution $X(u,v)$, $Y(u,v)$, defined on a neighborhood $U$ of $(0,0)$, to with the initial condition $$X(u,0)=x(u),\qquad
Y(u,0)=y(u).$$ We set $Z(u,v):=\Delta$ and $h:=X\,du^2+2Y\,du\,dv+Z\,dv^2$. Then, we have that $X(u,v)$, $Y(u,v)$ and $Z(u,v)$ solve , , . Note that the Gauss equation is equivalent to $Z=\Delta$. By Corollary \[cor:fundamental\] with the initial condition $$f(0,0)={\boldsymbol{0}},\quad
{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)=\eqref{eq:frame0-ST-1},$$ there exist an open neighborhood $U$ of $(0,0)$, and a unique real analytic mixed type surface $f_1 : U\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ (resp. $f_2 : U\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$) having the L-Gauss map $\psi_1 : U\rightarrow \Lambda^2$ (resp. $\psi_2 : U\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$) such that
- the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of $f_1$ (resp. $f_2$) coincides with $g$,
- the second fundamental form $I\!I_{\psi_1}$ (resp. $I\!I_{\psi_2}$) associated with $\psi_1$ (resp. $\psi_2$) is given by $h$, and
- $\det {\mathcal{F}}_1>0$, namely, ${\epsilon}=1$ (resp. $\det{\mathcal{F}}_2<0$, namely, ${\epsilon}=-1$),
where we set ${\mathcal{F}}_i:=((f_i)_u, (f_i)_u, \psi_i)$ for $i=1,2$. By Propositions \[prop:STL\] and \[prop:STL-2\], we have that $\hat{c}_i(u):=f_i(u,0)$ is a unit-speed spacelike curve whose causal curvature function (resp. torsion function, pseudo-torsion function) coincides with $\theta(u)$ (resp. $\tau(u)$, $\mu(u)$). By Proposition \[prop:fund-ST\], we have $\hat{c}_i(u)=\gamma(u)$ for $i=1,2$.
\(ii) [*The case that $\gamma(u)$ is a non-Frenet curve*]{}: Although the steps to follow are almost the same as in the case (i), we do not have the ambiguity of ${\epsilon}\in \{1,-1\}$.
- If $p$ is type I, we set functions $x(u)$, $y(u)$ as in , , respectively.
- If $p$ is type II, we set $x(u)$ as in . Also set $y(u)$ as in (resp. ) if $\gamma(t)$ is of type $L$ (resp. type $L_k$ at $u=0$).
Consider the system of partial differential equations with unknown functions $X(u,v)$, $Y(u,v)$, where $\Delta$ is given by . By the Cauchy-Kowalevski theorem, we have the unique solution $X(u,v)$, $Y(u,v)$, defined on a neighborhood $U$ of $(0,0)$, to with the initial condition $
X(u,0)=x(u),~
Y(u,0)=y(u).
$ We set $Z(u,v):=\Delta$ and $h:=X\,du^2+2Y\,du\,dv+Z\,dv^2$. Then, we have that $X(u,v)$, $Y(u,v)$ and $Z(u,v)$ solve , , . By Corollary \[cor:fundamental\] with the initial condition $$f(0,0)={\boldsymbol{0}},\quad
{\mathcal{F}}(0,0)=\eqref{eq:frame0-L-1},$$ there exist an open neighborhood $U$ of $(0,0)$, and a unique real analytic mixed type surface $f_1: U\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ having the L-Gauss maps $\psi_1 : U\rightarrow \Lambda^2$ such that
- the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of $f_1$ coincides with $g$,
- the second fundamental form $I\!I_{\psi_1}$ associated with $\psi_1$ is given by $h$.
By Propositions \[prop:STL\] and \[prop:STL-2\], we have that $\hat{c}_1(u):=f_1(u,0)$ is a unit-speed spacelike curve whose causal curvature function (resp. torsion function, pseudo-torsion function) coincides with $\theta(u)$ (resp. $\tau(u)$, $\mu(u)$). By Propositions \[prop:fund-L\] and \[prop:fund-Lk\], we have $\hat{c}_1(u)=\gamma(u)$.
On the other hand, $\bar{\gamma}(u):=\gamma(-u)$ also parametrizes $\Gamma$. Hence, replacing $\gamma(u)$ with $\bar{\gamma}(u)$ in the above argument, we obtain $f_3, f_4 : U\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ (resp. $f_2 : U\rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$) if $\gamma$ is a Frenet curve (resp. a non-Frenet curve), which yields the desired result.
As a direct corollary of Theorem \[thm:realization\], we obtain the following.
\[cor:realization\] Let $g$ be a real analytic generic mixed type metric on a connected real analytic $2$-manifold $\Sigma$. For a semidefinite point $p\in S(g)$, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ and a real analytic mixed type surface $f:U\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ such that $g$ coincides with the first fundamental form $ds^2$ of $f$.
Corollary \[cor:realization\] may be regarded as an analogue of the well-known Janet–Cartan theorem [@Janet; @Cartan].
Set $g$ as the first fundamental form $g:=ds^2$ of $f$. Applying Theorem \[thm:realization\], we obtain the desired surfaces $f_i$ $(i\in Z_\gamma)$.
\[ex:four\] Let $f_1 : U \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface defined by $$f_1(u,v)=
\begin{pmatrix}
(1 - \alpha_+(u,v)) \cos u - 1\\
(1 - \alpha_+(u,v)) \sin u\\
\alpha_-(u,v)
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\left(
\alpha_\pm(u,v):=(u+2)\left(v \pm \frac1{2} v^2\right)
\right),$$ where $U:=(-1,1)\times (-1/4,1/4)$. Figure \[fig:f1-mixed\] shows the image of $f_1$. The lightlike point set $LD$ of $f_1$ is given by the $u$-axis, and $\partial_v$ gives the null vector field, which implies that every lightlike point $(u,0)\in LD$ of $f_1$ is of the first kind. Moreover, every lightlike point $(u,0)$ is generic (i.e. the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L(u)$ does not vanish). The lightlike set image $f_1(LD)$ is contained in the unit circle $$\Gamma:=\left\{(x_1,x_2,0)^T \in {\boldsymbol{L}}^3
\,;\, (x_1+1)^2+(x_2)^2=1 \right\}.$$ We remark that $\Gamma$ is parametrized by $\gamma(u)=(\cos u-1, \sin u,0)^T$, which is a spacelike Frenet curve. We set $$f_2:=Sf_1,\quad
f_3:=Rf_1,\quad
f_4:=RSf_1,$$ where $S$ (resp. $R$) is the matrix given in (resp. ). Figure \[fig:four-sep\] shows the images of these four surfaces $f_i$ for $i\in \{1,2,3,4\}$. Since $S, R \in {\rm O}(1,2)$, each $f_i$ $(i=2,3,4)$ is congruent to $f_1$. And hence, the first fundamental forms of $f_i$ are the same. Moreover, for each $i=1,2,3,4$, the lightlike set images $f_i(LD)$ is included in the unit circle $\Gamma$. More precisely, it holds that $$f_i(u,0)
=\begin{cases}
\gamma(u) & (\text{for $i=1,2$}),\\
\gamma(-u) & (\text{for $i=3,4$}).
\end{cases}$$ Note that the orientation of the lightlike set images $f_i(LD)$ for $i=1,2$ does not coincide with that of $f_i(LD)$ for $i=3,4$. So these surfaces satisfy the conditions $(1)$, $(2)$ in Theorem \[thm:main\].
[[c@c]{}]{} &\
[The image of $f_4$.]{} & [The image of $f_2$.]{}\
&\
[The image of $f_3$.]{} & [The image of $f_1$ (cf. Figure \[fig:f1-mixed\]).]{}
\[ex:two\] Let $f_1 : U \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface defined by $$f_1(u,v)= \gamma(u)
+ (u+2) v\, \left(-\xi(u)+v\,\zeta\right),$$ where we set $U:=(-1,1)\times (-1/8,1/8)$, and $$\gamma(u):=
\begin{pmatrix} u\\ -u^2/2\\ u^2/2 \end{pmatrix},
\quad
\xi(u):=
\begin{pmatrix} 2u\\ 1-u^2\\ 1+u^2 \end{pmatrix},
\quad
\zeta:=
\begin{pmatrix} 0\\ -1\\ 1\end{pmatrix}.$$ Figure \[fig:two-f1\] shows the image of $f_1$. Every lightlike point $(u,0)\in LD$ of $f_1$ is of the first kind. In fact, the lightlike point set $LD$ of $f_1$ is given by the $u$-axis, and $\partial_v$ gives the null vector field. Moreover, every lightlike point $(u,0)$ is generic (i.e. the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L(u)$ does not vanish). The spacelike curve $\gamma(u)$ parametrizes the lightlike set image $f_1(LD)$ of $f_1$. Remark that $\gamma(u)$ is of type $L$, and hence, it is a non-Frenet curve. We set $f_2:=Mf_1$, where $M$ is the diagonal matrix given by $M:={\rm diag}(-1,1,1)$. Figure \[fig:two\] shows the images of these two surfaces $f_1$ and $f_2$. Since $M \in {\rm O}(1,2)$, each $f_2$ is congruent to $f_1$. And hence, the first fundamental forms of $f_1$ and $f_2$ are the same. Moreover, the lightlike set image $f_1(LD)$ of $f_1$ coincides with $f_2(LD)$. More precisely, it holds that $$f_i(u,0)
=\begin{cases}
\gamma(u) & (\text{for $i=1$}),\\
\gamma(-u) & (\text{for $i=2$}).
\end{cases}$$ Note that the orientation of the lightlike set images $f_1(LD)$ does not coincide with that of $f_2(LD)$. So these surfaces satisfy the conditions $(1)$, $(2)$ in Theorem \[thm:main\].
[[c@c]{}]{} &
[[c@c]{}]{} &
Let $f:\Sigma \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a real analytic generic mixed type surface, and let $p\in LD$ be a lightlike point. Without loss of generality, we may suppose that $f(p)={\boldsymbol{0}}$. Let $c(t)$ $(|t|<\delta)$ be either
- a characteristic curve passing through $p=c(0)$, if $p$ is of the first kind, or
- a regular curve which is non-null at $p=c(0)$ such that the geodesic curvature function is unbounded at $t=0$, if $p$ is the second kind.
We set $\gamma(t):=f\circ c(t)$, which is a real analytic spacelike curve with non-zero curvature passing through $\gamma(0)={\boldsymbol{0}}$. We also set the image $\Gamma:=\gamma((-\delta,\delta))$ of $\gamma$. Here, we deal with the case that $\gamma(t)=f\circ c(t)$ is a Frenet curve. Similar proof can be applied to the case that $\gamma(t)$ is a non-Frenet curve. Let $\theta(u)$ (resp. $\tau(u)$) be the causal curvature (resp. the torsion) function of $\gamma(u)$. We set $$\theta_s(u):= e^s \theta(u),\quad
\tau_s(u):= \tau(u)$$ for a constant $s\in [-1,1]$. Let $\gamma_s(u)$ be a real analytic spacelike curve in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ with non-zero curvature such that the causal curvature (resp. the torsion) function of $\gamma_s(u)$ is given by $\theta_s(u)$ (resp. $\tau_s(u)$). We remark that if $\gamma(u)$ is of type $S$ (resp. type $T$), then so is $\gamma_s(u)$. By a suitable choice of the initial condition of $\gamma_s(u)$, we have that $\gamma_s(u)$ is a deformation of $\gamma(u)$, namely, $\gamma_0(u)=\gamma(u)$ holds. We set $\Gamma_s:=\gamma_s((-\delta,\delta))$ of $\gamma_s$. By Theorem \[thm:realization\], for each $s$, there exist a neighborhood $U_s$ of $p$ and four real analytic mixed type surfaces $f_i^s : U_s \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ $(i=1,2,3,4)$ such that
- the first fundamental form of $f_i^s$ coincides with $ds^2$,
- $f_i^s(p)={\boldsymbol{0}}$, and the image of $f_i^s\circ c(t)$ is included in $\Gamma_s$
for each $i=1,2,3,4$. By the uniqueness of Theorem \[thm:realization\], $f:U\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ coincides with either $f_1^0$, $f_2^0$, $f_3^0$ or $f_4^0$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $f=f_1^0$ holds. Then, $f^s:=f_1^s$ gives the desired non-trivial isometric deformation of $f$.
Extrinsicity of lightlike normal curvature
------------------------------------------
In the case of vanishing lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L=0$, the lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N$ is shown to be intrinsic:
\[fact:N-int\] Let $f:\Sigma\to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a lightlike point of the first kind. If $\kappa_L=0$ holds along the characteristic curve near $p$, then the lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N$ is an intrinsic invariant.
Hence, the remaining case is that the lightlike singular curvature $\kappa_L$ does not vanish at $p$, namely $p$ is a generic lightlike point of the first kind. Applying Theorem \[thm:main\], we prove the extrinsicity of $\kappa_N$ (Corollary \[cor:ext-kappa-N\]). We also prove the extrinsicity of $\kappa_G$ (Corollary \[cor:ext-kappa-G\]). To prove them, we prepare the following:
\[lem:kappa-NG\] Let $f: \Sigma \rightarrow {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a mixed type surface, and let $p\in \Sigma$ be a generic lightlike point of the first kind. Let $(U;u,v)$ be an L-coordinate system associated with the lightlike set at $p$. Set $ds^2 = E\,du^2 + G\,dv^2$. Then, the lightlike normal curvature $\kappa_N$ is written as $$\label{eq:kappa-n-uaxis}
\kappa_N(u) = -\frac{\sqrt[3]{G_v(u,0)}}{E_v(u,0)} \,\theta(u).$$ Moreover, set ${\epsilon}\in\{1,-1\}$ as ${\epsilon}=1$ $($resp. ${\epsilon}=-1)$ if the L-coordinate system $(u,v)$ is p-oriented $($resp. n-oriented$)$. Then, the lightlike geodesic torsion $\kappa_G(u)$ along the $u$-axis is given by $$\label{eq:kappa-G-2FF}
\kappa_G(u)
= \begin{cases}
\vspace{2mm}
\dfrac{G_{uv}(u,0)}{3G_v(u,0)}
- {\epsilon}\tau(u) -\dfrac{E_{uv}(u,0)}{E_v(u,0)} + \dfrac{\theta'(u)}{2\theta(u)}
& (\text{if $\hat{c}(u)$ is Frenet}), \\
\dfrac{G_{uv}(u,0)}{3G_v(u,0)} - \mu(u) -\dfrac{E_{uv}(u,0)}{E_v(u,0)}
& (\text{if $\hat{c}(u)$ is non-Frenet}),
\end{cases}$$ where $\hat{c}(u):=f(u,0)$, and $\theta(u)$ $($resp. $\tau(u)$, $\mu(u))$ is the curvature [(]{}resp. torsion, pseudo-torsion[)]{} function along $\hat{c}(u)$.
By , $$\kappa_N(u)
= \sqrt[3]{ \eta{\left\langle{df(\eta)},{df(\eta)}\right\rangle} }
{\left\langle{\hat{c}''(t)},{N(t)}\right\rangle}
= \sqrt[3]{G_v(u,0)} x(u)$$ holds. Then, in Proposition \[prop:STL\] implies . By , $\kappa_G(u)$ is written as $$\kappa_G(u)
= {\left\langle{f_v},{\psi_u}\right\rangle} + \frac{G_{uv}}{3G_v}
= -y(u) + \frac{G_{uv}}{3G_v}$$ along the $u$-axis. By Proposition \[prop:STL\], we obtain .
Let $f : \Sigma \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ be a real analytic generic mixed type surface, and let $p\in LD$ be a lightlike point of the first kind. Taking an L-coordinate system $(V;u,v)$ associated with the characteristic curve passing through $p=(0,0)$, the lightlike set image $f(LD)$ is parametrized by $\hat{c}(u):=f(u,0)$. Let $\theta(u)$ be the causal curvature function of $\hat{c}(u)$ and set $$\theta_s(u):=\theta(u)+s$$ for some non-zero constant $s\in {\boldsymbol{R}}$. Let $\gamma_s(u)$ be a real analytic spacelike curve in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ with non-zero curvature such that the causal curvature function of $\gamma(u)$ is given by $\theta_s(u)$. By Theorem \[thm:main\], there exists a neighborhood $U\subset V$ of $p$ and a real analytic mixed type surface $f^s : U \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ such that $f^s$ and $f$ have the same fundamental form $ds^2$ on $U$, and $f^s(u,0)=\gamma_s(u)$ $(|u|<\delta)$ for sufficiently small $\delta>0$. Denote the lightlike normal curvature of $f$ (resp. $f^s$) along the $u$-axis by $\kappa_N(u)$ (resp. $\kappa_N^s(u)$). By Lemma \[lem:kappa-NG\], it holds that $$\kappa_N(u)-\kappa_N^s(u)
= s \frac{\sqrt[3]{G_v(u,0)}}{E_v(u,0)}.$$ Hence we have $\kappa_N^s(u)\ne \kappa_N(u)$, which yields the desired result.
Similarly, we obtain the following.
\[cor:ext-kappa-G\] The lightlike geodesic torsion $\kappa_G$ is an extrinsic invariant.
As in the proof of Corollary \[cor:ext-kappa-N\], take a real analytic generic mixed type surface $f : \Sigma \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ and a lightlike point $p\in LD$ of the first kind. Suppose that the lightlike set image $f(LD)$ is a spacelike curve of type $S$ near $f(p)$. Taking an L-coordinate system $(V;u,v)$ associated with the characteristic curve passing through $p=(0,0)$, the parametrization $\hat{c}(u):=f(u,0)$ $(|u|<\delta)$ of $f(LD)$ satisfies $\theta(u)>0$ for sufficiently small $\delta>0$. We also suppose that $\theta'(u)\ne0$. Set $\theta_s(u):=\theta(u)+s$ for some positive constant $s\in {\boldsymbol{R}}$. Let $\gamma_s(u)$ be a real analytic spacelike curve in ${\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ with non-zero curvature such that the causal curvature function of $\gamma(u)$ is given by $\theta_s(u)$.
By Theorem \[thm:main\], there exists a neighborhood $U\subset V$ of $p$ and a real analytic mixed type surface $f^s : U \to {\boldsymbol{L}}^3$ such that $f^s$ and $f$ have the same fundamental form $ds^2$ on $U$, and $f^s(u,0)=\gamma_s(u)$ $(|u|<\delta)$ for sufficiently small $\delta>0$. Denote the lightlike geodesic torsion of $f$ (resp. $f^s$) along the $u$-axis by $\kappa_G(u)$ (resp. $\kappa_G^s(u)$). By Lemma \[lem:kappa-NG\], it holds that $$\kappa_G(u)-\kappa_G^s(u)
= \frac{s\theta'(u)}{2\theta(u)\theta_s(u)}.$$ Hence we have $\kappa_G^s(u)\ne \kappa_G(u)$, which yields the desired result.
The author expresses gratitude to Wayne Rossman for careful reading of the first draft. He also would like to thank Kentaro Saji, Keisuke Teramoto, Masaaki Umehara and Kotaro Yamada for helpful comments.
[20]{}
S. Akamine, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [ *Improvement of the Bernstein-type theorem for space-like zero mean curvature graphs in Lorentz-Minkowski space using fluid mechanical duality*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1904.08046.
S. Akamine, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [ *Space-like maximal surfaces containing entire null lines in Lorentz-Minkowski 3-space*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1907.00739.
S. Akamine, A. Honda, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [ *Bernstein-type theorem for zero mean curvature hypersurfaces without time-like points in Lorentz-Minkowski space*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1907.01754.
M. Bergner and L. Schäfer, [*Isometric embedding of semi-[R]{}iemannian metrics into [M]{}inkowski space*]{}, Analysis (Munich) [**31**]{} (2011), 313–329.
E. Cartan, [*Sur la possibilité de plonger un espace riemannien donné dans un espace euclidéen*]{}, Ann. Soc. Polon. Math., [**6**]{} (1927), 1–7.
S. Fujimori, Y. Kawakami, M. Kokubu, W. Rossman, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [*Entire zero-mean curvature graphs of mixed type in Lorentz-Minkowski 3-space*]{}, Q. J. Math. [**67**]{} (2016), no. 4, 801–837.
M. Hasegawa, A. Honda, K. Naokawa, K. Saji, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [*Intrinsic properties of surfaces with singularities*]{}, Internat. J. Math. [**26**]{} (2015), no. 4, 1540008, 34 pp.
A. Honda, [*Fundamental theorem of spacelike curves in Lorentz-Minkowski space*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1905.03367.
A. Honda, M. Koiso, M. Kokubu, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [*Mixed type surfaces with bounded mean curvature in $3$-dimensional space-times*]{}, Differential Geometry and its Applications [**52**]{} (2017) 64–77.
A. Honda, K. Naokawa, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, *Isometric deformations of wave fronts at non-degenerate singular points*, preprint (arXiv:1710.02999).
A. Honda, K. Naokawa, K. Saji, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, *Duality on generalized cuspidal edges preserving singular set images and first fundamental forms*, preprint (arXiv:1906.02556).
A. Honda, K. Naokawa, K. Saji, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, *Cuspidal edges with the same first fundamental forms along a common closed space curve*, preprint.
A. Honda and K. Saji, *Geometric invariants of $5/2$-cuspidal edges*, to appear in Kodai Mathematical Journal (arXiv:1710.06014).
A. Honda, K. Saji, and K. Teramoto, [*Mixed type surfaces with bounded Gaussian curvature in three-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1811.11392.
S. Izumiya and F. Tari, [*Self-adjoint operators on surfaces with a singular metric*]{}, J. Dyn. Control Syst. [**16**]{} (2010), 329–353.
S. Izumiya and F. Tari, [*Apparent contours in Minkowski 3-space and first order ordinary differential equations*]{}, Nonlinearity [**26**]{} (2013), 911–932.
M. Janet, [*Sur la possibilité de plonger un espace Riemannien donné dans un espace euclidien*]{}, Ann. Soc. Polon. Math., [**5**]{} (1926), 38–43.
M. Kokubu, W. Rossman, K. Saji, M. Umehara, and K. Yamada, [*Singularities of flat fronts in hyperbolic $3$-space*]{}, Pacific J. Math. [**221**]{} (2005), 303–351.
M. Kossowski, [*Pseudo-Riemannian metrics singularities and the extendability of parallel transport*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**99**]{} (1987), 147–154.
M. Kossowski, [*Realizing a singular first fundamental form as a nonimmersed surface in Euclidean 3-space*]{}, J. Geom. [**81**]{} (2004), 101–113.
R. López, [*Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces in Lorentz-Minkowski space*]{}, International Electronic Journal of Geometry [**7**]{} (2014), 44–107.
L. F. Martins and K. Saji, [*Geometric invariants of cuspidal edges*]{}, Canad. J. Math. [**68**]{} (2016), no. 2, 445–462.
L. F. Martins, K. Saji, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [*Behavior of Gaussian curvature and mean curvature near non-degenerate singular points on wave fronts*]{}, Geometry and Topology of Manifold, Springer Proc. in Math. & Stat. [**154**]{}, 2016, Springer, 247–282.
K. Naokawa, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [*Isometric deformations of cuspidal edges*]{}, Tohoku Math. J. (2) [**68**]{} (2016), 73–90.
N.G. Pavlova and A.O. Remizov, [*A brief survey on singularities of geodesic flows in smooth signature changing metrics on 2-surfaces*]{}, In: Ara[ú]{}jo dos Santos R., Menegon Neto A., Mond D., Saia M., Snoussi J. (eds) Singularities and Foliations. Geometry, Topology and Applications. NBMS 2015, BMMS 2015. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, pp 135–155 (2018), vol 222. Springer, Cham. A.O. Remizov and F. Tari, [*Singularities of the geodesic flow on surfaces with pseudo-Riemannian metrics*]{}, Geom. Dedicata [**185**]{} (2016), 131–153.
F. Tari, [*Caustics of surfaces in the Minkowski 3-space*]{}, Q. J. Math. [**63**]{} (2012), 189–209.
F. Tari, [*Umbilics of surfaces in the Minkowski 3-space*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**65**]{} (2013), 723–731.
K. Saji, M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [*The geometry of fronts*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) [**169**]{} (2009), 491–529.
M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [*Surfaces with light-like points in Lorentz-Minkowski 3-space with applications*]{}, In: Cañadas-Pinedo M., Flores J., Palomo F. (eds) Lorentzian Geometry and Related Topics. GELOMA 2016. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, pp 253–273 (2017), vol 211. Springer, Cham. M. Umehara and K. Yamada, Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces, 2017, World Scientific Inc.
M. Umehara and K. Yamada, [*Hypersurfaces with light-like points in a Lorentzian manifold*]{}, to appear in the Journal of Geometric Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220-018-00118-7
J. Walrave, [*Curves and surfaces in Minkowski space*]{}, Thesis (Ph.D.), Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven (Belgium), 1995.
[^1]: For example, see [@UY_geloma Appendix A]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The binomial and Poisson distributions have interesting relationships with the beta and gamma distributions, respectively, which involve their cumulative distribution functions and the use of conjugate priors in Bayesian statistics. We briefly discuss these relationships and some properties resulting from them which play an important role in the construction of exact nested two-sided confidence intervals and the computation of two-tailed P-values. The purpose of this article is to show that such relationships also exist between the hypergeometric distribution and a special case of the Polya (or beta-binomial) distribution, and to derive some properties of the hypergeometric distribution resulting from these relationships.
KEY WORDS: Beta, binomial, gamma, Poisson, and Polya (or beta-binomial) distributions; Conjugate prior distribution; Cumulative distribution function; Posterior distribution.
author:
- |
Peter H. Peskun, Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
York University, Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3, Canada\
E-mail: [email protected]
title: |
Some Relationships and Properties\
of the Hypergeometric Distribution
---
**1. INTRODUCTION**
The binomial and Poisson distributions have interesting relationships with the beta and gamma distributions, respectively, which involve their cumulative distribution functions and the use of conjugate priors in Bayesian statistics. We will briefly discuss these relationships and some properties resulting from them in Sections 2 and 3 for the binomial and Poisson distributions, respectively. The resulting properties play an important role in the construction of exact nested two-sided binomial and Poisson confidence intervals, and the computation of exact two-tailed binomial and Poisson P-values.
The purpose of this article is to show that such relationships also exist between the hypergeometric distribution and a special case of the Polya (or beta-binomial) distribution, and to derive some properties of the hypergeometric distribution resulting from these relationships. We shall do this in Section 4.
**2. RELATIONSHIPS AND PROPERTIES OF THE BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION**
Suppose that random variable $X$ has a binomial distribution with parameters $n$ and $p$, denoted by $X \sim \text{BIN}(n,p)$, where $n$ is a positive integer and $0 \leq p \leq 1$. Then, for a given $n$ and for $0 < p < 1$, the probability mass function (pmf) of $X$, denoted by $f_{X}(x \mid p)$, is $$\begin{aligned}
f_{X}(x \mid p) = P(X=x \mid p) &= \binom{n}{x}p^{x}(1-p)^{n-x}, \quad x = 0,1,
\ldots ,n, \\
&=0, \quad \text{otherwise,}\end{aligned}$$ and $f_{X}(0 \mid 0) = f_{X}(n \mid 1) = 1$.
Suppose that random variable $Y$ has a beta distribution with parameters $\alpha >
0$ and $\beta > 0$, denoted by $Y \sim \text{BETA}(\alpha,\beta)$. Then the probability density function (pdf) of $Y$, denoted by $f_{Y}(y \mid \alpha,\beta)$, is $$\begin{aligned}
f_{Y}(y \mid \alpha,\beta) &=
\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+\beta)}{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}y^{\alpha-1}(1-y)^{\beta-1},
\quad 0 \leq y \leq 1,\\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise,}\end{aligned}$$ where the gamma function $\Gamma(\kappa) = \int_{0}^{\infty} t^{\kappa-1}e^{-t}
\, dt$ for all $\kappa > 0$.
Successive integration by parts leads to a relationship between the cumulative distribution functions (cdf’s) of the binomial and beta distributions. If $X \sim
\text{BIN}(n,p)$ and $Y \sim \text{BETA}(i+1,n-i)$ for integer $i$, $0 \leq i \leq
n-1$, then $$\label{E:1}
\sum_{x=0}^{i}\binom{n}{x}p^{x}(1-p)^{n-x} =
1-\frac{n!}{i!(n-i-1)!}\int_{0}^{p}t^{i}(1-t)^{n-i-1} \, dt.$$ That is, $F_{X}(i \mid p) = P(X \leq i \mid p) = 1-P(Y \leq p \mid i+1,n-i) =
1-F_{Y}(p \mid i+1,n-i)$. For fixed integer $i$, $0 \leq i \leq n-1$, it follows from equation (\[E:1\]) that the function $P(X \leq i \mid p)$ is continuous and decreasing in $p$; for fixed integer $j$, $1 \leq j \leq n$, $P(X \geq j \mid p) =
1-P(X \leq j-1 \mid p)$ is continuous and increasing in $p$; and for fixed integers $i$ and $j$, $1 \leq i \leq j \leq n-1$, $P( i \leq X \leq j \mid p)$ is continuous, and increasing for $0 \leq p < p_{n}(i,j)$ and decreasing for $p_{n}(i,j) \leq p \leq 1$ with maximum at $p = p_{n}(i,j) = \{1+[(n-i) \cdots
(n-j)/j \cdots i]^{1/(j-i+1)}\}^{-1}$. Also, $p_{n}(0,j) = 0$ for $0 \leq j \leq
n-1$ and $p_{n}(i,n) = 1$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$.
Suppose that the binomial parameter $p$ is unknown and we wish to estimate it. In Bayesian statistics, information obtained from the data x, a realization of $X \sim
\text{BIN}(n,p)$, is combined with prior information about $p$ that is specified in a “prior distribution” with pdf $g(p)$ and summarized in a “posterior distribution” with pdf $h(p \mid x)$ which is derived from the joint distribution $f_{X}(x \mid p)g(p)$, and according to Bayes formula is $$\label{E:2}
h(p \mid x) = \frac{f_{X}(x \mid p)g(p)}{\int_{0}^{1}f_{X}(x \mid p)g(p) \, dp}.$$
Because $h(p \mid x)$ is generally not available in closed form, the favoured types of priors until the introduction of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods have been those allowing explicit computations, namely “conjugate priors.” These are prior distributions for which the corresponding posterior distributions are themselves members of the original prior family, the Bayesian updating being accomplished through updating of parameters. For a realization $x$ of $X \sim \text{BIN}(n,p)$, a family of conjugate priors is the family of beta distributions $\text{BETA}(\alpha,\beta)$ where we note from equation (\[E:2\]) that for $x =
0,1, \ldots ,n$, $$\begin{aligned}
h(p \mid x) &=
\frac{\binom{n}{x}p^{x}(1-p)^{n-x}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+\beta)}
{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}p^{\alpha-1}(1-p)^{\beta-1}}
{\int_{0}^{1}\binom{n}{x}p^{x}(1-p)^{n-x}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+\beta)}
{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}p^{\alpha-1}(1-p)^{\beta-1} \, dp} \\
&=
\frac{\Gamma(\alpha+\beta+n)}{\Gamma(\alpha+x)\Gamma(\beta+n-x)}
p^{\alpha+x-1}(1-p)^{\beta+n-x-1}, \quad 0 \leq p \leq 1, \\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise.}\end{aligned}$$ That is, the posterior distribution is also beta with updated parameters $\alpha+x$ and $\beta+n-x$.
**3. RELATIONSHIPS AND PROPERTIES OF THE POISSON DISTRIBUTION**
Suppose that random variable $X$ has a Poisson distribution with parameter $\lambda
\geq 0$, denoted by $X \sim \text{POI}(\lambda)$. Then, for $\lambda > 0$, the pmf of $X$, denoted by $f_{X}(x \mid \lambda)$, is $$\begin{aligned}
f_{X}(x \mid \lambda) = P(X = x \mid \lambda) &=
\frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{x}}{x!}, \quad x = 0,1,2, \ldots , \\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise,}\end{aligned}$$ and $f_{X}(0 \mid 0) = 1$.
Suppose random variable $Y$ has a gamma distribution with parameters $\alpha > 0$ and $\beta > 0$, denoted by $Y \sim \text{GAM}(\alpha,\beta)$. Then the pdf of $Y$, denoted by $f_{Y}(y \mid \alpha,\beta)$, is $$\begin{aligned}
f_{Y}(y \mid \alpha,\beta) &= \frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha}\Gamma(\alpha)}
y^{\alpha-1}e^{-y/\beta}, \quad y > 0, \\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise.}\end{aligned}$$
Successive integration by parts leads to a relationship between the cdf’s of the Poisson and gamma distributions. If $X \sim \text{POI}(\lambda)$ and $Y \sim
\text{GAM}(i+1,2)$ for nonnegative integer $i$, then $$\label{E:3}
\sum_{x=0}^{i}\frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{x}}{x!} = 1 -
\frac{1}{2^{i+1}i!}\int_{0}^{2\lambda}t^{i}e^{-t/2} \, dt.$$ That is, $F_{X}(i \mid \lambda) = P(X \leq i \mid \lambda) = 1 - P(Y \leq 2\lambda
\mid i+1,2) = 1 - F_{Y}(2\lambda \mid i+1,2)$. For fixed nonnegative integer $i$, it follows from equation (\[E:3\]) that the function $P(X \leq i \mid \lambda)$ is continuous and decreasing in $\lambda$; for positive integer $j$, $P(X \geq j \mid \lambda) = 1 - P(X \leq j-1 \mid \lambda)$ is continuous and increasing in $\lambda$; and for $1 \leq i \leq j$, $P(i \leq X \leq j \mid \lambda)$ is continuous, and increasing for $0 \leq \lambda < \lambda(i,j)$ and decreasing for $\lambda \geq \lambda(i,j)$ with maximum at $\lambda = \lambda(i,j) =
(i \cdots j)^{1/(j-i+1)}$. Also, $\lambda(0,j) = 0$ for $j \geq 0$.
Suppose that the Poisson parameter $\lambda$ is unknown and we wish to estimate it using Bayesian methods. For a realization $x$ of $X \sim \text{POI}(\lambda)$, a family of conjugate priors is the family of gamma distributions $\text{GAM}(\alpha,
\beta)$ where for $x = 0,1,2, \cdots $, the pdf $h(\lambda \mid x)$ of the posterior distribution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h(\lambda \mid x) &=
\frac{\frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{x}}{x!}\frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha}\Gamma(\alpha)}
\lambda^{\alpha-1}e^{-\lambda/\beta}}{\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^{x}}
{x!}\frac{1}{\beta^{\alpha}\Gamma(\alpha)}\lambda^{\alpha-1}e^{-\lambda/\beta} \,
d\lambda} \\
&= \frac{1}{[\beta/(1+\beta)]^{\alpha+x}\Gamma(\alpha+x)}
\lambda^{\alpha+x-1}e^{-\lambda/[\beta/(1+\beta)]}, \quad \lambda > 0, \\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise.}\end{aligned}$$ That is, the posterior distribution is also gamma with updated parameters $\alpha +
x$ and $\beta/(1 + \beta)$.
**4. RELATIONSHIPS AND PROPERTIES OF THE HYPERGEOMETRIC DISTRIBUTION**
Suppose that integer-valued random variable $X$ has a hypergeometric distribution with parameters $n$, $M$, and $N$, denoted by $X \sim \text{HYP}(n,M,N)$, where $n$, $M$, and $N$ are integers with $1 \leq n \leq N$ and $0 \leq M \leq N$. Then, for given $n$ and $N$, and for $0 < M < N$, the pmf of $X$, denoted by $f_{X}(x \mid M)$, is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:4}
f_{X}(x \mid M) = P(X = x \mid M) &= \frac{\binom{M}{x}\binom{N-M}{n-x}}
{\binom{N}{n}}, \quad \text{max}(0,n-N+M) \leq x \leq \text{min}(n,M), \notag \\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise,}\end{aligned}$$ and $f_{X}(0 \mid 0) = f_{X}(n \mid N) = 1$.
Suppose that random variable $Y$ has a specially defined discrete distribution with parameters $a$, $b$, and $c$, denoted by $Y \sim \text{ABC}(a,b,c)$, where $a$, $b$, and $c$ are nonnegative integers. Then, for $c > 0$, the pmf of $Y$, denoted by $f_{Y}(y \mid a,b,c)$, is $$\begin{aligned}
f_{Y}(y \mid a,b,c) = P(Y = y \mid a,b,c) &= \frac{\binom{a+y}{a}\binom{b+c-y}{b}}
{\binom{a+b+c+1}{a+b+1}}, \quad y = 0,1, \ldots ,c, \\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise,}\end{aligned}$$ and $f_{Y}(0 \mid a,b,0) = 1$. We note that formula (12.16) of Feller (1968, p.65) can be used to prove that
$$\sum_{y=0}^{c}\binom{a+y}{a}\binom{b+c-y}{b} = \binom{a+b+c+1}{a+b+1}.$$
We also note that the ABC distribution is just a special case of the Polya (or beta-binomial) distribution (Dyer and Pierce, 1993, p.2130). From equation (\[E:4\]), it easily follows that $P(X \leq n \mid M) = 1$ for $0 \leq M \leq N$. For $0 \leq i < n \leq N$ and $0 \leq M \leq N$, we have from equation (\[E:4\]) that
$$\begin{aligned}
\binom{N}{n}P(X \leq i \mid M) &= \sum_{x=0}^{i}\binom{M}{x}\binom{N-M}{n-x}
\notag \\
&= \sum_{x=0}^{i}\binom{M}{x}
\left[ \binom{N-M-1}{n-x-1} + \binom{N-M-1}{n-x} \right] \notag \\
&= \sum_{x=0}^{i}\binom{M}{x}\binom{N-M-1}{n-x-1}
+ \sum_{x=0}^{i}\binom{M}{x}\binom{N-M-1}{n-x} \notag \\
&= \sum_{x=1}^{i+1}\binom{M}{x-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n-x}
+ \sum_{x=0}^{i}\binom{M}{x}\binom{N-M-1}{n-x} \notag \\\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:5}
\phantom{\binom{N}{n}P(X \leq i \mid M)} &= \binom{M}{i}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i-1} -
\binom{M}{-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n} \notag \\
& \qquad + \sum_{x=0}^{i}\left[ \binom{M}{x-1} +
\binom{M}{x} \right]\binom{N-M-1}{n-x} \notag \\
&= \binom{M}{i}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i-1} +
\sum_{x=0}^{i}\binom{M+1}{x}\binom{N-M-1}{n-x} \notag \\
&= \binom{M}{i}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i-1} +
\binom{N}{n}P(X \leq i \mid M+1), \end{aligned}$$
where by definition $\binom{M}{-1} = 0$, $\binom{M}{i} = 0$ if $M < i$, and $\binom{N-M-1}{n-i-1} = 0$ if $M > N-n+i$. Furthermore, from the recursion relationship in equation (\[E:5\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:6}
P(X \leq i \mid M) &= \sum_{k=M}^{N-n+i}\binom{k}{i}\binom{N-k-1}{n-i-1}\biggr/
\binom{N}{n} \notag \\
&= \sum_{k=M-i}^{N-n}\binom{i+k}{i}\binom{n-i-1+N-n-k}{n-i-1}
\biggr/\binom{N}{n} \notag \\
&= 1 - \sum_{k=0}^{M-i-1}\binom{i+k}{i}\binom{n-i-1+N-n-k}{n-i-1}
\biggr/\binom{N}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ That is, if $X \sim \text{HYP}(n,M,N)$ and $Y \sim \text{ABC}(i,n-i-1,N-n)$ for integer $i$, $0 \leq i < n \leq N$, then $F_{X}(i \mid M) = P(X \leq i \mid M) = 1
- P(Y \leq M-i-1 \mid i,n-i-1,N-n) = 1 - F_{Y}(M-i-1 \mid i,n-i-1,N-n)$ where, in particular, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:7}
P(X \leq i \mid M) &= 1, \quad \text{if} \quad 0 \leq M \leq i, \notag \\
&= 0, \quad \text{if} \quad N-n+i < M \leq N.\end{aligned}$$
For $0 < i \leq j < n \leq N$ and $0 \leq M \leq N$, we have from equation (\[E:5\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:8}
\binom{N}{n}P(i \leq X \leq j \mid M) &= \binom{N}{n}P(X \leq j \mid M) -
\binom{N}{n}P(X \leq i-1 \mid M) \notag \\
&= \binom{M}{j}\binom{N-M-1}{n-j-1} +
\binom{N}{n}P(X \leq j \mid M+1) \notag \\
& \qquad - \binom{M}{i-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i}
- \binom{N}{n}P(X \leq i-1 \mid M+1) \notag \\
&= \binom{M}{j}\binom{N-M-1}{n-j-1} -
\binom{M}{i-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i} \notag \\
& \qquad + \binom{N}{n}P(i \leq X \leq j
\mid M+1).\end{aligned}$$
Similar to the determination of equation (\[E:6\]), it follows from the recursion relationship in equation (\[E:8\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:9}
P(i \leq X \leq j \mid M) &= \sum_{k=M}^{N-n+j}\binom{k}{j}\binom{N-k-1}{n-j-1}
\biggr/\binom{N}{n} - \sum_{l=M}^{N-n+i-1}\binom{l}{i-1}\binom{N-l-1}{n-i}
\biggr/\binom{N}{n} \notag \\
&= \sum_{k=M-j}^{N-n}\binom{j+k}{j}\binom{n-j-1+N-n-k}
{n-j-1}\biggr/\binom{N}{n} \notag \\
& \qquad - \sum_{l=M-i+1}^{N-n}\binom{i-1+l}{i-1}
\binom{n-i+N-n-l}{n-i}\biggr/\binom{N}{n} \notag \\
&= \sum_{l=0}^{M-i}\binom{i-1+l}{i-1}\binom{n-i+N-n-l}
{n-i}\biggr/\binom{N}{n} \notag \\
& \qquad - \sum_{k=0}^{M-j-1}\binom{j+k}{j}
\binom{n-j-1+N-n-k}{n-j-1}\biggr/\binom{N}{n}\end{aligned}$$ where, in particular, $$\label{E:10}
P(i \leq X \leq j \mid M) = 0, \quad \text{if either} \quad 0 \leq M < i \quad
\text{or} \quad N-n+j < M \leq N.$$ We note in equation (\[E:8\]) that the difference $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:11}
\binom{M}{j}\binom{N-M-1}{n-j-1} - \binom{M}{i-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i} &=
-\binom{N-i}{n-i} < 0, \quad \text{if} \quad M=i-1, \notag \\
&=
\binom{N-n+j}{j} > 0, \quad \text{if} \quad M=N-n+j,\end{aligned}$$ and for $i \leq M < N-n+j$, the same difference $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:12}
& \binom{M}{j}\binom{N-M-1}{n-j-1} - \binom{M}{i-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i} \notag \\
&= \frac{M!}{j!(M-j)!}\frac{(N-M-1)!}{(n-j-1)!(N-M-n+j)!}
- \frac{M!}{(i-1)!(M-i+1)!}\frac{(N-M-1)!}{(n-i)!(N-M-n+i-1)!} \notag \\
&= \frac{M!(N-M-1)!}{(i-1)!(M-j)!(n-j-1)!(N-M-n+i-1)!} \notag \\
& \qquad \times \left[ \frac{1}{(j \cdots i)}\frac{1}{(N-M-n+j) \cdots (N-M-n+i)}
\right. \notag \\
& \qquad \qquad - \left. \frac{1}{(M-i+1) \cdots (M-j+1)}\frac{1}{(n-i) \cdots
(n-j)} \right]\end{aligned}$$ where as $M$ increases, the term $1/(N-M-n+j) \cdots (N-M-n+i)$ increases and the term $1/(M-i+1) \cdots (M-j+1)$ decreases so that as $M$ increases between $i-1$ and $N-n+j$, the difference $\binom{M}{j}\binom{N-M-1}{n-j-1} - \binom{M}{i-1}
\binom{N-M-1}{n-i}$ goes from being negative to being positive and staying positive.
In summary, $P(X \leq n \mid M)$ equals 1 for $0 \leq M \leq N$, and for fixed integer $i$, $0 \leq i < n \leq N$, we see from equations (\[E:6\]) and (\[E:7\]) that $P(X \leq i \mid M )$ equals 1 for $0 \leq M \leq i$, is decreasing for $i < M \leq N-n+i$, and equals 0 for $N-n+i < M \leq N$; $P(X \geq n+1 \mid M)$ equals 0 for $0 \leq M \leq N$, and for fixed integer $j$, $1 \leq j \leq n \leq N$, $P(X \geq j \mid M) = 1 - P(X \leq j-1 \mid M)$ equals 0 for $0 \leq M \leq j-1$, is increasing for $j-1 < M \leq N-n+j-1$, and equals 1 for $N-n+j-1 < M \leq N$; and we see from equations (\[E:8\]) to (\[E:12\]) that for fixed integers $i$ and $j$, $0 < i \leq j < n \leq N$ where we define $$M_{n,N}(i,j) = \text{min}\{ M \mid i \leq M \leq N-n+j \quad \text{and}
\quad
\textstyle{\binom{M}{j}\binom{N-M-1}{n-j-1} \geq \binom{M}{i-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i}} \},$$ $P(i \leq X \leq j \mid M)$ equals 0 for $0 \leq M < i$, is increasing for $i \leq M < M_{n,N}(i,j)$, is decreasing for $M_{n,N}(i,j) + 1 < M \leq N-n+j$, and equals 0 for $N-n+j < M \leq N$ with maximum at either $M_{n,N}(i,j)$ if $\binom{M}{j}\binom{N-M-1}{n-j-1} > \binom{M}{i-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i}$ for $M = M_{n,N}(i,j)$ so that $P(i \leq X \leq j \mid M_{n,N}(i,j)) >
P(i \leq X \leq j \mid M_{n,N}(i,j) + 1)$ or maximum at both $M_{n,N}(i,j)$ and $M_{n,N}(i,j) + 1$ if $\binom{M}{j}\binom{N-M-1}{n-j-1} = \binom{M}{i-1}\binom{N-M-1}{n-i}$ for $M = M_{n,N}(i,j)$ so that $P(i \leq X \leq j \mid M_{n,N}(i,j)) =
P(i \leq X \leq j \mid M_{n,N}(i,j) + 1)$.
Suppose that the hypergeometric parameters $n$ and $N$ are known but $M$ is not and we wish to estimate it using Bayesian methods. For a realization $x$ of $X \sim
\text{HYP}(n,M,N)$, a family of conjugate priors for $M - x$ is the family of discrete distributions $\text{ABC}(a,b,N)$ where for $x = 0,1, \ldots ,n$, the pmf $h(M \mid x)$ of the posterior distribution for $M$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:13}
h(M \mid x) &= \frac{\frac{\binom{M}{x}\binom{N-M}{n-x}}{\binom{N}{n}}
\frac{\binom{a+M}{a}\binom{b+N-M}{b}}{\binom{a+b+N+1}{a+b+1}}}
{\sum_{M=x}^{N-n+x}\frac{\binom{M}{x}\binom{N-M}{n-x}}{\binom{N}{n}}
\frac{\binom{a+M}{a}\binom{b+N-M}{b}}{\binom{a+b+N+1}{a+b+1}}} \notag \\
&= \frac{\binom{a+M}{a+x}\binom{b+N-M}{b+n-x}}
{\binom{a+b+N+1}{a+b+n+1}}, \quad x \leq M \leq N-n+x, \notag \\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise,}\end{aligned}$$ from which it easily follows that the pmf $h(M-x \mid x)$ of the posterior distribution for $M-x$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:14}
h(M-x \mid x) &= \frac{\binom{a+x+M-x}{a+x}\binom{b+n-x+N-n-M+x}{b+n-x}}
{\binom{a+x+b+n-x+N-n+1}{a+x+b+n-x+1}}, \quad 0 \leq M-x \leq N-n, \notag \\
&= 0, \quad \text{otherwise.}\end{aligned}$$ That is, the posterior distribution for $M-x$ is also ABC with updated parameters $a+x$, $b+n-x$, and $N-n$.
Finally, we note that as a family of conjugate priors for the hypergeometric distribution $\text{HYP}(n,M,N)$, the family of discrete distributions $\text{ABC}(a,b,N)$ has, in addition to unimodal members, strictly increasing members $\text{ABC}(a,0,N)$, strictly decreasing members $\text{ABC}(0,b,N)$, and the discrete uniform distribution $\text{ABC}(0,0,N)$.
**REFERENCES**
Dyer, D. and Pierce, R. L. (1993), “On the choice of the prior distribution in hypergeometric\
sampling,” *Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods*, 22(8), 2125-2146.\
Feller, W. (1968), *An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications*, Vol.1, (3rd ed.),\
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the dynamics of a tagged monomer of a Rouse polymer for different initial configurations. In the case of free evolution, the monomer displays subdiffusive behavior with strong memory of the initial state. In presence of either elastic pinning or harmonic absorption, we show that the steady state is independent of the initial condition which however strongly affects the transient regime, resulting in non-monotonous behavior and power-law relaxation with varying exponents.'
author:
- 'Shamik Gupta, Alberto Rosso and Christophe Texier'
title: 'Dynamics of a tagged monomer: Effects of elastic pinning and harmonic absorption'
---
It is known that the dynamics of a mesoscopic particle embedded in a viscous fluid is Markovian, and well described by the Brownian motion. The particle mean-squared displacement (MSD) grows diffusively in time as $2Dt$, where $D$ is the diffusion coefficient. However, in a crowded environment of interacting particles, the single particle may display anomalous diffusion. Let us consider a long Rouse polymer composed of $L$ monomers connected to their nearest neighbors by harmonic springs of constants $\Gamma$, and immersed in a good solvent. Its global dynamics is Markovian, and the center-of-mass diffuses with MSD behaving as $2(D/L)t$. However, the dynamics of a single tagged monomer is non-Markovian, with the MSD subdiffusing as $\sqrt{2/(\pi\Gamma)}Db_0\sqrt{t}$ for times $t \ll L^2/\Gamma$ [@deGennes:1971]. Here, $b_0$ encodes the memory of the polymer configuration at $t=0$. In particular, if the polymer at $t=0$ is in equilibrium with the solvent, the dynamics of the tagged monomer is well described [@Krug:1997; @Panja:2011; @Taloni:2010] by a fractional Brownian motion (fBm), which generalizes the Brownian motion to the case of non-independent Gaussian increments [@Mandelbrot:1968; @Kolmogorov:1940]. On the other hand, if the polymer at $t=0$ is out of equilibrium, the dynamics displays [*aging*]{}, in that the increments are not only correlated (as in fBm), but also drawn from a Gaussian distribution with a time-dependent variance. These non-Markovian processes are relevant for many biological phenomena, such as the unzipping of DNA [@Walter:2012], translocation of polymers through nanopores [@Kantor:2004; @Zoia:2009; @Panja:2010; @Panja:2007], subdiffusion of macromolecules inside cells [@Szymanski:2009; @Weber:2010; @Jeon:2012; @Allegrini:1998] and single-file diffusion [@Lizana:2010].
In the above applications, often the tagged particle is subject to either pinning by an elastic spring or absorption. The first case, e.g., corresponds to employing optical tweezers to confine specific molecules in order to contrast their dynamical behavior inside the crowded environment of a cell with that outside [@Bertseva:2012]. The second situation arises when a reactant attached to a single monomer encounters an external reactive site fixed in space [@Guerin:2012; @Guerin:2013]. Moreover, in the problems of polymer translocation and DNA unzipping, the time to translocate or unzip corresponds to the absorbing time of a one-dimensional subdiffusive Gaussian process inside a finite interval with absorbing boundaries. In general, these problems are investigated numerically either by molecular dynamics simulations or by simulation of the underlying Gaussian process [@Dieker; @Hartman:2013]. Recently, it has been shown that subdiffusive Gaussian dynamics can be studied by the fractional Langevin equation [@Jeon:2010; @Lizana:2010; @Panja:2010-1]. This approach has been fruitfully used in presence of elastic pinning [@Desposito:2006; @Desposito:2009; @Grebenkov:2011], but cannot easily incorporate absorption.
In this Letter, we propose a general analytical framework to compute relevant quantities such as the MSD and the absorbing time distribution of the tagged monomer, for the case of elastic pinning and harmonic absorption. These problems are relevant for practical applications: the pinning by optical tweezers is indeed elastic, while harmonic absorption mimics well a finite interval with absorbing boundaries. Our approach naturally incorporates the initial condition of the system. In the following, we specifically consider a one-dimensional Rouse chain, and mention higher dimensions in the conclusions. Our main results, summarized in Table \[table1\], show that while the steady state is independent of the initial condition, the transient behavior exhibits very strong memory effects: (i) If a quench in temperature is performed at $t=0$, the MSD displays a bump in time and converges to the steady state value as a power law. This behavior, predicted for both pinning and absorption, could be observed in experiments. (ii) For harmonic absorption, the absorption time distribution decays exponentially with a characteristic time which is independent of the initial condition. Hence, we expect the translocation or the unzipping time to have a distribution with exponential tails, independent of the initial condition of the system.
The Rouse chain is equivalent to the one-dimensional discrete Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) interface shown in Fig. \[fig:polymer-confg\] [@Edwards:1982; @note]. Here, $h_i(t)$ is the displacement of the $i$-th monomer at time $t$ with respect to the origin. The elastic energy of the system is $E_\mathrm{el}=(\Gamma/2)\sum_i(h_{i+1}-h_i)^2$, where $\Gamma$ is set to unity below. Additionally, the monomers are subjected to friction (set to unity) in an overdamped regime. The dynamics of the interface is described by a set of $L$ coupled Langevin equations: $$\label{eq:eom}
\frac{\partial h_i(t)}{\partial t}
=-\frac{\partial E_\mathrm{el}}{\partial h_i} + \eta_i(t)
=\sum_j \Delta_{ij} h_j(t) + \eta_i(t)
\:,$$ where $\Delta$ denotes the discrete Laplacian matrix, $\{\eta_i(t)\}$ are independent Gaussian white noises: $\langle\eta_i(t)\rangle=0$, $\langle \eta_i(t)\eta_j(t')\rangle=2T\,\delta_{i,j}\,\delta(t-t')$, with the temperature $T$ set to unity below, and $\langle\cdots\rangle$ denoting thermal averaging.
![(Color online) Schematic of an EW interface pinned by a harmonic spring acting on the tagged monomer at $i=0$. The initial configuration $h^0$ (dashed) has $h_0^0=0$.[]{data-label="fig:polymer-confg"}](fig1.eps)
[*Elastic pinning.—*]{} We consider the situation where the “tagged“ monomer at $i=0$ is pinned around the origin by an additional elastic force (Fig. \[fig:polymer-confg\]). This is described by adding the term $\kappa \,h_0^2/2$ to the energy. In this case, the Langevin equations are similar to with $\Delta_{ij}$ substituted by $-\Lambda_{ij}=\Delta_{ij}-\kappa\,\delta_{i,j}\delta_{i,0}$, and can be solved (cf. [*Supplemental Material*]{}). In order to adopt a unified formalism to deal with both pinning and absorption, we follow a Fokker-Planck approach. Let $\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]$ be the probability density to observe the interface in the configuration $h$ at time $t$, given that the configuration at time $t=0$ was $h^0$, where $h$ (respectively, $h^0$) denotes the vector $\{h_i\}$ (respectively, $\{h_i^0\}$). It obeys the Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) $$\label{eq:FFPE}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]}{\partial t}=
\Big[
\sum_i \frac{\partial^2}{\partial h_i^2}
+ \sum_{i,j}\frac{\partial }{\partial h_i} \Lambda_{ij}h_j
\Big]
\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]
\:,$$ which is a $L$-dimensional generalization of the FPE for the one-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process [@Risken:1989; @Gardiner:1989]. Equation can be solved through a mapping onto the imaginary time Schrödinger equation for $L$ coupled quantum harmonic oscillators (see [*Supplemental Material*]{}) : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ConditionalProbaFree2}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0] =
\sqrt{ \det\left(\frac{\Lambda}{2\pi(1-e^{-2\Lambda t})}\right) }
\\ \nonumber
&&\hspace{-0.25cm}\times
\exp\Big[-\frac12(h-e^{-\Lambda t}h^0)^\mathrm{T}
\frac{\Lambda}{1-e^{-2\Lambda t}}(h-e^{-\Lambda t}h^0)\Big],\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript ”$\mathrm{T}$" denotes transpose operation. Note that replacing the matrix $\Lambda$ in Eq. by the spring constant $\lambda$, we recover the well-known Ornstein-Uhlenbeck result for the dynamics of a particle submitted to a harmonic force.
Since Eq. has a Gaussian form, all statistical information about the dynamics of the tagged monomer are encoded in the first two moments of $\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]$, which are conveniently obtained by introducing the local field $b=\{b_i\}$ acting on individual monomers. We consider the generating function $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_t[b]
= \int \prod_i dh_i\: e^{\sum_i b_i h_i}\,
\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]
\:.
\label{eq:GenFunc-nomu}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq. in Eq. , changing variables $h \to h-e^{-\Lambda t}h^0$, and doing the Gaussian integration, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_t[b]=\exp\bigg[
\frac12 b^\mathrm{T}
\frac{1-e^{-2\Lambda t}}{\Lambda} b
+ b^\mathrm{T} e^{-\Lambda t} h_0
\bigg]
\:.\end{aligned}$$
----------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Free evolution Elastic pinning, Harmonic absorption,
Long time $t \rightarrow \infty$ behavior Long time $t \rightarrow \infty$ behavior
Single particle $\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle = 2 t$ $\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle = \frac{1}{\kappa} (1- \, e^{- 2 $\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle = 2 \mu^{-1/2} \, \tanh (t/ \sqrt{\mu}) $
\kappa t})$
Brownian process $ S(t) \approx \exp(- 2 \, \mu^{1/2} t ) $
Tagged monomer $ \overline{\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle} = $ $ \overline{ \langle
\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} b_0 \,\sqrt{t}$ \overline{ \langle{h_0^2(t)}\rangle } = h_0^2(t)\rangle}^{\rm abs} = a_0 \mu^{-1/3} + O(1/t) $
\frac{1}{\kappa} + \frac{c_0}{ \kappa^2 \sqrt{ t}}
+\cdots$ ;
$T_0 \ne 1$ $b_0=1+T_0 (\sqrt{2}-1)$ $c_0 = \sqrt{2/\pi} (T_0-1) $ $ S(t) \approx \exp(- a_0 \, \mu^{2/3} \, t ) $
aging process
Tagged monomer $\overline{\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle} = $\overline{\langle $ \overline{\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle}^{\rm abs} = a_0 \mu^{-1/2} + O(1/t)$
\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\sqrt{t}$ h_0^2(t)\rangle} = \frac{1}{\kappa} + \frac{c_1}{ \kappa^3 t} +
\cdots $ ;
$T_0=1$ fBm process $c_1 \approx 0.0711 $ $ S(t) \approx \exp(- a_0 \, \mu^{2/3} \, t ) $
----------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Note that $\mathcal{G}_t[0]=1$ represents the normalization of $\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]$. The connected correlation functions are obtained by differentiation of $\mathcal{F}_t[b]=\ln\mathcal{G}_t[b]$. In particular, using ${\langle h_i(t) \rangle}=\partial\mathcal{F}_t[b]/\partial b_i\big|_{b=0}$ and ${\langle h_i(t) h_j(t) \rangle_\mathrm{c}}=\partial^2\mathcal{F}_t[b]/\partial b_i\partial b_j\big|_{b=0}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.5cm}
{\left\langle h_i(t) \right\rangle}= (e^{-\Lambda t}h^0)_i,
\hspace{0.25cm}
{\left\langle h_i(t) h_j(t) \right\rangle_\mathrm{c}}=\left(\frac{1-e^{-2\Lambda t}}{\Lambda}\right)_{ij}.
\label{eq:VarHPinning}\end{aligned}$$
At long times, we expect from the equipartition theorem that $\langle h_0^2(t\to\infty) \rangle = 1/\kappa$, independent of the number of monomers in the polymer. In the case of a single particle, the steady state value is reached exponentially fast in time (Table \[table1\]). For a long polymer, the analysis of Eq. shows that the steady state value is reached with a power-law decay where the exponent depends on the initial configuration. In particular, we study an initial configuration $h^0$ randomly sampled from the ensemble of configurations equilibrated at temperature $T_0$ and conditioned on $h^0_0=0$. At equilibrium, the displacements $h_i^0$’s are Gaussian distributed as $p_{\rm eq}(h^0)=\exp[-\frac12(h^0)^\mathrm{T} \sigma^{-1} h^0]/\sqrt{{\det}(2\pi\sigma)}$, where $\sigma_{ij}=\overline{h_i^0h_{j}^0}$ is the covariance matrix, with overbar denoting averaging with respect to $p_{\rm eq}(h^0)$. In the limit $L\to\infty$, the equilibrated EW interface corresponds to two Brownian trajectories starting at $0$ with diffusion constant equal to $T_0/2$. The covariance then reads $\sigma_{ij}=T_0\,\theta_\mathrm{H}(ij)\,\mathrm{min}(|i|,|j|)$, where $\theta_\mathrm{H}(x)$ is the Heaviside function. On the other hand, for a finite interface with periodic boundary conditions, we have $\sigma_{ij}=T_0\Big[\mathrm{min}(i,j)-ij/L\Big]$, where $i,\:j\in\{0,\cdots,L-1\}$. The computation of $\langle h_0^2 (t)\rangle$ for long times can be performed analytically in the limit $L \to \infty$. The details are given in the [*Supplemental Material*]{}. We get $$\overline{ {\langle h_0^2(t) \rangle} }
\simeq
\frac{1}{\kappa}
\left[
1 + \frac{T_0-1}{\kappa}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi t}}
-\frac{T_0c_1}{\kappa^2t}+\cdots
\right],
\label{eq:maintext}$$ where $c_1=0.0711\ldots$. We thus see that the MSD tends to the steady state value $1/\kappa$ as $1/\sqrt{t}$ if $T_0$ is different from unity. For $T_0=1$, which corresponds to the temperature of the noise for $t>0$, the relaxation to steady state is as $1/t$. Moreover, for $T_0>1$, the MSD has a non-monotonous behaviour in time with a bump. This behaviour may be understood as the effect of the large initial *spatial* fluctuations of the polymer for $T_0>1$ that propagate towards the tagged monomer and increase its *temporal* fluctuations in the transient regime. Note that the calculation in Refs. [@Desposito:2006; @Desposito:2009; @Grebenkov:2011] applies to polymers equilibrated with the solvent, while here we study the effects of different initial conditions.
[*Harmonic Absorption.—*]{} The FPE is $$\label{eq:FPEAbs}
\hspace{-0.5cm}{\frac{\partial \mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0] }{\partial t}}=\Big[
\sum_{i} {\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial h_i^2}}
-\sum_{i,j}
\Big(
{\frac{\partial }{\partial h_i}} \Delta_{ij}h_j
+ h_i A_{ij} h_j
\Big)
\Big]
\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0],$$ where the positive definite matrix $A$ describing absorption is $A_{ij}=\mu\, \delta_{i,j}\, \delta_{i,\tagged}$, with $\mu >0$ being the absorption rate. Since the absorption probability increases quadratically with distance, the FPE can be solved using the mapping to a system of coupled quantum harmonic oscillators (details in [*Supplemental Material*]{}). We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Result1}
\mathcal{G}_t[b] &= \mathcal{G}_t[0]\,
\exp\Big[
b^\mathrm{T}\,\Omega_t^{-1}\,b + b^\mathrm{T}\,\Omega_t^{-1}Y_t\,h^0\Big]
\:,\\
\label{eq:Survival}
\mathcal{G}_t[0] &= \sqrt{\det\left(e^{-t\Delta}Y_t
\Omega_t^{-1}\right)}
\exp\Big[-\frac12(h^0)^\mathrm{T} Q_t h^0\Big]
\:,\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the four symmetric matrices $$\begin{aligned}
K &= \sqrt{\Delta^2+4A}
\:,
\hspace{0.4cm}
\Omega_t = K\coth (Kt)-\Delta
\:,
\nonumber
\\
Y_t &= {K}/{\sinh (Kt)}
\:,
\hspace{0.25cm}
Q_t=(\Omega_t+2\Delta-Y_t\Omega_t^{-1}Y_t)/2
\:. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ In presence of absorption, $\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]$ is not normalized to unity, and $\mathcal{G}_t[0]$ is the survival probability $S(t)$, namely, the probability that an initial configuration $h^0$ has not been absorbed upto time $t$ [@Redner:2001; @Bray:2013]. Note that the survival probability is the cumulative of the absorbing time distribution. In the long time limit, we have $\Omega_t \approx K-\Delta$ and $Y_t \approx
\exp(-Kt)$, so that the survival probability asymptotically decays as $S(t) \sim \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(e^{-(K+\Delta)t})}$. Using $\det[\exp(A)]=\exp(\mathrm{Tr}[A])$, we get $$\label{eq:SurvivalAsymptotics}
S(t) \underset{t\to\infty}\sim
\exp\big[ -t\,\mathrm{Tr}\{K+\Delta\}/2 \big].$$ Note that the decay rate is independent of $h^0$.
Alternatively, one can obtain an exact expression for $S(t)$ in terms of the tagged monomer MSD, as follows. Using $S(t)=\int \prod_i
dh_i\: \mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]$, and the FPE , we obtain the evolution equation $\partial_t S(t)=-\mu \, \langle h_0^2(t) \rangle\,
S(t)$, where $\langle \cdots \rangle$ in presence of absorption involves averaging over surviving realizations only, see Eq. below. Using the initial condition $S(0)=1$, the solution is $$S(t) = \exp\left( -\mu \int_0^t d \tau\, \langle h_0^2(\tau) \rangle\right).
\label{eq:St-soln}$$
As before, the mean displacement and the connected correlation function are obtained by differentiating the generating function $\mathcal{F}_t[b]=\ln\mathcal{G}_t[b]$; one finds $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle h_i(t) \rangle}&=\big(\Omega_t^{-1}Y_t\,h^0\big)_i, ~{\langle h_i(t) h_j(t) \rangle_\mathrm{c}}=2\,\big(\Omega_t^{-1}\big)_{ij}
\:.\end{aligned}$$ The correlation function ${\langle h_i(t) h_j(t) \rangle_\mathrm{c}}$ is independent of the initial condition $h^0$ and has a finite value in the long time limit, while ${\langle h_i(t) \rangle}$ vanishes in that limit. In particular, the MSD in the long time limit reaches a steady state value: $\langle h_0^2(t \to \infty)
\rangle=\left(2/(K-\Delta)\right)_{00}$.
A dimensional analysis in the limit of a long polymer, $L \to \infty$, allows to deduce that $\langle h_0^2(t \to
\infty)\rangle=a_0\mu^{-1/3}$, where $a_0$ is a dimensionless constant of order unity. Noting that in absence of absorption, the tagged monomer subdiffuses as $\langle h^2_0(t) \rangle \sim \sqrt{t}$, we see from the absorbing term in the FPE that absorption is effective over times such that $\mu
\,t^{3/2} \sim O(1)$. Thus, we have $\langle h_0^2(t) \rangle \sim \sqrt{t}\,F(\mu t^{3/2})$, where the scaling function $F(x)$ is a constant as $x \to 0$. Since $\langle h_0^2(t \to \infty) \rangle$ approaches a constant, it follows that $F(x \to \infty)\sim
x^{-1/3}$, giving $\langle h_0^2(t \to \infty) \rangle =a_0 \, \mu^{-1/3}$. Equation gives $S(t)\sim\exp[-a_0\,\mu^{2/3}t]$ in the long time limit, independently of $h^0$, see Table \[table1\].
![(Color online) Survival probability for different initial temperatures $T_0$. We observe at long times an exponential decay, $\overline{S(t)}\sim\exp[-a_0\mu^{2/3}t]$, independent of the initial condition. []{data-label="Python-results0"}](fig2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
We now discuss the full time evolution of $\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle$ for a given initial configuration $h^0$. The MSD is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle
=\frac{\int \prod_i dh_i\: h_0^2\: \mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]}{\int \prod_i dh_i\: \mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]}
\:.
\label{eq:mean-sq-fixedh0}\end{aligned}$$ In order to evaluate the MSD involving an average over an ensemble of initial configurations, we should weigh the contribution with $p_{\rm eq}(h^0)S(t)/\overline{S(t)}$, where $S(t)/\overline{S(t)}$ is the probability that the configurations starting from $h^0$ at time $t=0$ belong to the ensemble of surviving configurations at time $t$. Denoting the average MSD as $\overline{\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle}^{\rm abs}$, we compute it from the generating function $$\begin{aligned}
&\ln\big(\, \overline{\mathcal{G}_t[b]}\, \big)
= \ln\overline{S(t)}+\frac12 b^\mathrm{T}\, C_t\, b, \\
\label{eq:MeanSurvival}
&\overline{S(t)}
=\sqrt{\frac{\det(e^{-t\Delta}Y_t\Omega_t^{-1}) }{\det(\mathbf{1}+\sigma
Q_t)}}, \\
&C_t = 2 \, \Omega_t^{-1} +
\Omega_t^{-1}Y_t\left(\mathbf{1}+\sigma Q_t\right)^{-1}\sigma\,Y_t\,\Omega_t^{-1}, \end{aligned}$$ with $\mathbf{1}$ the identity matrix. In particular, we obtain $$\label{eq:ResultEqlbmIC1}
\overline{ {\left\langle h_0^2(t) \right\rangle} }^{\rm abs}
= \partial^2\ln\big(\, \overline{\mathcal{G}_t[b]}\, \big)/\partial b_0^2 \big|_{b=0}
= \left( C_t \right)_{00}.$$
We compute numerically and for different initial temperatures $T_0$. The results are shown in Figs. \[Python-results0\] and \[Python-results2\]. As expected by our scaling arguments, both the decay rate of $S(t)$ and the steady state value of the MSD are independent of the initial configuration. For the MSD, the approach to the steady state value $a_0\mu^{-1/3}$ is always as $1/t$ (inset of Fig. \[Python-results2\]), i.e. faster than the behaviour $1/\sqrt{t}$ obtained for the case of pinning. For initially flat interface (i.e. $T_0=0$), we see from Fig. \[Python-results2\] that behaves monotonically in time. While for elastic pinning, a bump appears only above $T_0=1$, with absorption a bump is observed already for $T_0=1$, and further enhanced for larger $T_0$ (Fig. \[Python-results2\]). It would be interesting to understand why the approach to steady state differs in the two cases. Our numerical results are supported by direct Monte Carlo simulations of the interface dynamics, and by a careful finite-size analysis presented in the [*Supplemental Material*]{}.
![(Color online) MSD in presence of harmonic absorption, Eq. . The MSD converges to a constant which is independent of $T_0$. Inset : Plot of $\delta h^2=\big|\overline{ {\left\langle h_0^2(t) \right\rangle} }^{\rm
abs}-{\left\langle h_0^2(\infty) \right\rangle}\big|$ shows the $\sim1/t$ approach to the steady state.[]{data-label="Python-results2"}](fig3.eps){width="50.00000%"}
[*Conclusion.—*]{} In this paper, we analyzed tagged monomer dynamics under the action of elastic pinning or harmonic absorption. Our solution stems from the crucial observation that in presence of harmonic interactions, the stochastic evolution of the tagged monomer remains Gaussian. Some of our results, e.g., the presence of a unique steady state or the bump in MSD corresponding to a temperature quench, can be intuitively understood. Others like the exponential decay of the survival probability or the power-law transient behaviors in presence of absorption were observed in numerical simulations [@Kantor:2004], but were not analytically known before. Finally, some of our results like the change of power law for $T_0 \ne 1$ (pinning case) or the bump observed when $T_0=1$ (harmonic absorption) were unexpected.
In this work, we focussed on the case of one-dimensional polymers. However, it is straightforward to generalize our analysis to either a Rouse chain in $d$ dimensions [@Panja:2013] or a $d$-dimensional EW interface, by using the corresponding Laplacian matrix in place of $\Delta$. Moreover, hydrodynamic effects for the chain or long-range elastic interactions for the interface can also be included by replacing $\Delta$ with the corresponding fractional Laplacian $-(-\Delta)^{z/2}$ [@Krug:1997]; in this case, the MSD of the tagged particle subdiffuses as $t^{(z-1)/z}$ with $z>1$ for the chain, and as $t^{(z-d)/z}$ with $z>d$ for the interface [@Zoia:2007], see [*Supplemental Material*]{}. It would be interesting to study the effect of the pinning and absorption in the case of non-linear models such as self-avoiding polymers, and KPZ interfaces [@Gupta:2007]. Another open issue is to go beyond the harmonic approximation and study absorption in presence of localized targets.
[**Acknowledgements.—**]{} SG and AR acknowledge CEFIPRA Project 4604-3 for support. We thank M. Kardar for very helpful discussions all along this work.
[100]{}
P. G. de Gennes, [*Reptation of polymer chain in the presence of fixed obstacles*]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**55**]{}, 572 (1971).
J. Krug, H. Kallabis, S. N. Majumdar, S. J. Cornell, A. J. Bray and C. Sire, [*Persistence exponent for fluctuating interfaces*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 2702 (1997).
D. Panja, [*Probabilistic phase space trajectory description for anomalous polymer dynamics*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**23**]{}, 105103 (2011).
A. Taloni, A. Chechkin and J. Klafter, [*Generalized elastic model yields a fractional Langevin equation description*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 160602 (2010).s
B. B. Mandelbrot and J. W. van Ness, SIAM Rev. [**10**]{}, 422 (1968).
A. N. Kolmogorov, Compus Rendus (Doklady) de l’Académie des sciences de l’URSS (N.S) [**26**]{}, 115 (1940).
J.-C. Walter, A. Ferrantini, E. Carlon and C. Vanderzande, [*Fractional Brownian motion and the critical dynamics of zipping polymers*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**85**]{}, 031120 (2012).
Y. Kantor and M. Kardar, [*Anomalous Diffusion with Absorbing Boundary*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**69**]{}, 021806 (2004).
A. Zoia, A. Rosso and S. N. Majumdar, [*Asymptotic Behavior of Self-Affine Processes in Semi-Infinite Domains*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 120602 (2009).
D. Panja and G. T. Barkema, [*Simulations of two-dimensional unbiased polymer translocation using the bond fluctuation model*]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**132**]{}, 014902 (2010).
D. Panja, G. T. Barkema and R. C. Ball, [*Anomalous dynamics of unbiased polymer translocation through a narrow pore*]{}, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**19**]{}, 432202 (2007).
J. Szymanski and M. Weiss, [*Elucidating the Origin of Anomalous Diffusion in Crowded Fluids*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 038102 (2009).
S. C. Weber, A. J. Spakowitz and J. A. Theriot, [*Bacterial Chromosomal Loci Move Subdiffusively through a Viscoelastic Cytoplasm*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 238102 (2010).
J.-H. Jeon, H. Monne, M. Javanainen and R. Metzler, [*Anomalous Diffusion of Phospholipids and Cholesterols in a Lipid Bilayer and its Origins*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 188103 (2012).
L. Lizana, T. Ambjörnsson, A. Taloni, E. Barkai and M. A. Lomholt, [*Foundation of fractional Langevin equation: Harmonization of a many-body problem*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**81**]{}, 051118 (2010).
E. Bertseva, D. Grebenkov, P. Schmidhauser, S. Gribkova, S. Jeney and L. Forró, [*Optical trapping microrheology in cultured human cells*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. E [**35**]{}, 63 (2012).
T. Guérin, O. Bénichou and R. Voituriez, [*Non Markovian polymer reaction kinetics*]{}, Nature Chem. [**4**]{}, 568 (2012).
T. Guérin, O. Bénichou and R. Voituriez, [*Reactive conformations and non-Markovian reaction kinetics of a Rouse polymer searching for a target in confinement*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**87**]{}, 032601 (2013).
T. Dieker, “Simulation of fractional Brownian motion”, Master Thesis, [http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/ adieker3]{}.
A. K. Hartmann, S. N. Majumdar and A. Rosso, [*Sampling fractional Brownian motion in presence of absorption: A Markov chain method*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, 022119 (2013).
J.-H. Jeon and R. Metzler, [*Fractional Brownian motion and motion governed by the fractional Langevin equation in confined geometries*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**81**]{}, 021103 (2010).
P. Allegrini, M. Buiatti, P. Grigolini and B. J. West, [*Fractional Brownian motion as a nonstationary process: An alternative paradigm for DNA sequences*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**57**]{}, 4558 (1998).
D. Panja, [*Anomalous polymer dynamics is non-Markovian: memory effects and the generalized Langevin equation formulation*]{}, J. Stat. Mech. P06011 (2010).
A. D. Viñales and M. A. Despósito, [*Anomalous diffusion: Exact solution of the generalized Langevin equation for harmonically bounded particle*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 016111 (2006).
M. A. Despósito and A. D. Viñales, [*Subdiffusive behavior in a trapping potential: Mean square displacement and velocity autocorrelation function*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**80**]{}, 021111 (2009).
D. S. Grebenkov, [*Time-averaged quadratic functionals of a Gaussian process*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**83**]{}, 061117 (2011).
S. F. Edwards and D. R. Wilkinson, [*The Surface Statistics of a Granular Aggregate*]{}, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A [**381**]{}, 17 (1982).
H. Risken, [The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications]{}, Springer, Berlin (1989).
C. W. Gardiner, [Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry and the natural sciences]{}, Springer (1989).
S. Redner, [A Guide to First-Passage Processes]{}, Cambridge University Press, New York, (2001).
A. J. Bray, S. N. Majumdar and G. Schehr, [*Persistence and first-passage properties in nonequilibrium systems*]{}, Adv. Phys. [**62**]{}, 225 (2013).
R. Keesman, G. T. Barkema and D. Panja, [*Dynamical Eigenmodes of a Polymerized Membrane*]{}, J. Stat. Mech. P04009 (2013).
A. Zoia, A. Rosso and M. Kardar, [*Fractional Laplacian in bounded domains*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 021116 (2007).
S. Gupta, S. N. Majumdar, C. Godrèche and M. Barma, [*Tagged particle correlations in the asymmetric simple exclusion process: Finite-size effects*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 021112 (2007).
In one dimension, the difference between the Rouse chain and the EW interface is that the displacements are longitudinal in the former and transversal in the latter. For graphical reasons, we prefer to draw the interface.
[**Dynamics of a tagged monomer : Effects of elastic pinning and harmonic absorption –\
Supplemental Material**]{}
A. Solution of the Fokker-Planck equations {#solution-FFPE}
==========================================
Here, we provide some details on the solution of the Fokker-Planck equations [(2)]{} and [(8)]{} of the main text.
A.1. Reminder: 1d Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process
--------------------------------------------
Let us consider the Langevin equation [@Risken] $${\frac{\mathrm{d}x(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}} = -V'(x(t)) + \eta(t),$$ describing a particle at position $x(t)$ submitted to a harmonic force $-V'(x)=-\lambda\,x$ and a Langevin force $\eta(t)$ such that $\langle\eta(t)\rangle=0$ and $\langle\eta(t)\eta(t')\rangle=2\,\delta(t-t')$. The dynamics of the particle may be equivalently described by the Fokker-Planck equation $$\label{app-eq1}
{\frac{\partial W_t}{\partial t}}
= {\frac{\partial ^2 W_t}{\partial x^2}}
+ {\frac{\partial }{\partial x}}\left[V'(x)W_t\right]
\:,$$ where $W_t(x|x_0)$ is the (conditional) probability density to find the particle at $x$ at time $t$, given that it was at $x_0$ at initial time. A convenient way to solve is to write $$W_t(x|x_0)=Z_t(x|x_0)\sqrt{\frac{P_\mathrm{eq}(x)}{P_\mathrm{eq}(x_0)}},
\label{app-eq2}$$ where $$P_\mathrm{eq}(x) = e^{-V(x)} = e^{-\frac12\lambda x^2}$$ is the equilibrium distribution (up to a normalization). The propagator $Z_t(x|x_0)$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation in imaginary time, $$-{\frac{\partial Z_t(x|x_0)}{\partial t}}=H_0\, Z_t(x|x_0),
\label{app-eq3}$$ where the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_0
&= -\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{1}{4}(V'(x))^2 -\frac{1}{2}V''(x)
\\
&= -\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\lambda^2x^2}{4} -\frac\lambda2.
\label{app-eq4}\end{aligned}$$ describes here a harmonic oscillator. The shift of energy $-\lambda/2$ makes the ground state energy of $H_0$ zero, which ensures the conservation of the probability in the diffusion problem $\int\D x\,W_t(x|x_0)=1$. The solution of corresponding to the initial condition $Z_0(x|x_0)=\delta(x-x_0)$ is well-known [@Feynmann-Hibbs] : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{propagator-sp}
&&Z_t(x|x_0)=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda \, e^{\lambda t}}{4\pi \sinh(\lambda
t)}}
\\ \nonumber
&&\times\exp\Big[-\frac{\lambda}{4}\Big((x^2+x_0^2)\coth(\lambda t)-\frac{2xx_0}{\sinh(\lambda t)}\Big)\Big]. \end{aligned}$$
A.2. Multidimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process
------------------------------------------------
The Fokker-Planck equation [(2)]{} of the main text can be solved in the same manner as the one discussed in the preceding section. The probability density is $$\label{eq:NUT}
\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]
=\mathcal{Z}_t[h|h_0]
\sqrt\frac{\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{eq}[h]}{\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{eq}[h^0]},$$ where the equilibrium distribution now reads $$\label{eq:phi0-h}
\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{eq}[h] = e^{-\frac12 h^\mathrm{T} \Lambda h}.$$ For an interface made up of $L$ monomers, the quantum propagator $\mathcal{Z}_t[h|h_0]$ obeys a Schrödinger equation describing $L$ coupled harmonic oscillators : $$\label{eq:HO}
\mathcal{H}_0
=\Big[-\sum_i\frac{\partial^2}{\partial h_i^2}+\frac14
\sum_{i,j}h_i\,(\Lambda^2)_{ij}\, h_j - \frac12 \mathrm{Tr}\{\Lambda\}\Big].$$ The propagator generalizes , and is given by : $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{Z}_t[h|h_0] =
\sqrt{ \det\left( \frac{e^{\Lambda t }\,\Lambda}{4\pi\sinh(\Lambda t)} \right) }
\nonumber\\
&\times\exp\Big(-\frac14\Big[
h^\mathrm{T}\, \Lambda\coth(\Lambda t)\,h
+ (h^0)^\mathrm{T}\, \Lambda\coth(\Lambda t)\,h^0
\nonumber\\
&\hspace{1cm}
-h^\mathrm{T}\, \frac{\Lambda}{\sinh(\Lambda t)} h^0
-(h^0)^\mathrm{T}\, \frac{\Lambda}{\sinh(\Lambda t)} h
\Big]\Big).
\label{eq:PropagatorFreeLine}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the above result into Eq. leads to Eq. [(3)]{} of the main text.
A.3. Harmonic absorption
------------------------
The Fokker-Planck equation in the presence of absorption, Eq. [(8)]{} of the main text, can be solved using the same procedure as above. Performing the transformation , with $\Lambda=-\Delta$, shows that $\mathcal{Z}_t[h|h_0]$ is now the propagator for the Hamiltonian obtained by adding to the term $h^\mathrm{T}Ah$ : $$\mathcal{H}
=\Big[-\sum_i\frac{\partial^2}{\partial h_i^2}+\frac14
\sum_{i,j}h_i\,(K^2)_{ij}\, h_j - \frac12 \mathrm{Tr}\{\Delta\}\Big],$$ where $K^2=\Delta^2+4A$ (see main text). The propagator may be obtained along the same lines as in the previous subsection. Finally $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{W}_t[h|h^0]
=\sqrt{ \det\left(\frac{e^{-\Delta t}}{4\pi}Y_t\right) }
\exp\Big(-\frac14 (h^0)^\mathrm{T} Q_t h^0\Big)\nonumber \\
&\times \exp\Big(-\frac14
(h-\Omega_t^{-1}Y_t h^0)^\mathrm{T}\,\Omega_t\, (h-\Omega_t^{-1}Y_th^0)
\Big),
\label{eq:ConditionalProbaAbs}\end{aligned}$$ where the matrices $\Omega_t, Y_t$ and $Q_t$ are defined in the main text.
B. Langevin approach
====================
We point out that *in the absence of absorption*, the dynamics of the line may as well be described within the Langevin approach. We can write the solution of Eq. [(1)]{} of the main text as $$h_i(t) = \left( e^{-\Lambda t} \right)_{ij}h_j^0
+ \int_0^t\D\tau\, \left( e^{-\Lambda(t-\tau)} \right)_{ij}\,\eta_j(\tau)$$ with implicit summation over repeated indices. Averaging leads to . We now consider the covariance matrix $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle h_i(t) h_j(t) \right\rangle_\mathrm{c}}
= &\int_0^t\D\tau\int_0^t\D\tau'\, \left( e^{-\Lambda(t-\tau)} \right)_{ik}\,
\nonumber\\
&\times{\left\langle \eta_k(\tau)\eta_l(\tau') \right\rangle}\,
\left( e^{-\Lambda(t-\tau')} \right)_{lj}\end{aligned}$$ Using ${\left\langle \eta_k(\tau)\eta_l(\tau') \right\rangle}=2\,\delta_{kl}\,\delta(\tau-\tau')$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle h_i(t) h_j(t) \right\rangle_\mathrm{c}}
= 2\int_0^t\D\tau\, \left( e^{-2\Lambda(t-\tau)} \right)_{ij}\end{aligned}$$ that leads obviously to Eq. [(6)]{} of the main text.
C. Harmonic pinning: Derivation of Eq. [(7)]{} and its generalisation
=====================================================================
The mean-squared displacement of the tagged monomer can be explicitly computed in the continuum limit and when the line has an infinite length. The interface height $h_x$ then becomes a field of a continuous variable $x$. The discrete Laplacian $\Delta$ is replaced by the Laplacian operator, so that $\Lambda_{x,x'}\to\delta(x-x')\Lambda_x$, with $\Lambda_x=-\Delta_x+\kappa\,\delta(x)$ and $\Delta_x=\D^2/\D x^2$. The aim of the section is to compute the variance of the tagged monomer displacement \[Eq. [(7)]{} of the main text\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:quantity1}
\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle_c
= {\langle\kern.3ex 0 \kern.3ex|} \frac{1-e^{-2\Lambda_x t}}{\Lambda_x} {|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ and analyse the mean displacement $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MeanH}
\langle h_0(t) \rangle = \int\D x\,{\langle\kern.3ex 0 \kern.3ex|}e^{-\Lambda_x t}{|\kern.3exx\kern.3ex\rangle}\, h_x^0\end{aligned}$$ containing the information about the initial configuration of the line. In particular, assuming initial configurations sampled from the ensemble equilibrated at temperature $T_0$, leads to consider $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:quantity2}
\hspace{-0.25cm} \overline{ {\langle h_0(t) \rangle}^2 }
=\int\D x\D x'\,
{\langle\kern.3ex 0 \kern.3ex|}e^{-\Lambda_x t}{|\kern.3exx\kern.3ex\rangle} \, \sigma_{x,x'} \, {\langle\kern.3ex x' \kern.3ex|}e^{-\Lambda_x t}{|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle}
\:;\end{aligned}$$ the covariance matrix for the infinite line is: $\sigma_{x,x'}=\overline{h^0_xh^0_{x'}}=T_0\,\theta_\mathrm{H}(xx')\,\mathrm{min}(|x|,|x'|)$, where $\theta_\mathrm{H}(x)$ is the Heaviside function. Rewriting the variance as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:quantity1bis}
\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle_c
=\int_0^{2t} \D\tau {\langle\kern.3ex 0 \kern.3ex|} e^{-\Lambda_x \tau }{|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ shows that all these quantities require to determine the propagator ${\langle\kern.3ex x \kern.3ex|}e^{-\Lambda_x t}{|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle}$. Its Laplace transform, the Green’s function, is more conveniently analysed : $$G(x,x';\varepsilon) = {\langle\kern.3ex x \kern.3ex|}(\varepsilon+\Lambda_x)^{-1}{|\kern.3exx'\kern.3ex\rangle}
\:.$$ Writing $\Lambda_x=-\Delta_x+V$, we can obtain its explicit form thanks to the Dyson equation $
(\varepsilon+\Lambda_x)^{-1}
=(\varepsilon-\Delta_x)^{-1}-(\varepsilon-\Delta_x)^{-1}\,V\,(\varepsilon+\Lambda_x)^{-1}
$, that takes the simple form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Dyson}
G(x,x';\varepsilon) = G_0(x,x';\varepsilon) - G_0(x,0;\varepsilon)\, \kappa\, G(0,x';\varepsilon)
\:,\end{aligned}$$ thanks to the local nature of the potential $V$, where $G_0(x,x';\varepsilon) = {\langle\kern.3ex x \kern.3ex|}(\varepsilon-\Delta_x)^{-1}{|\kern.3exx'\kern.3ex\rangle}$. Setting $x=0$ in provides the value of $G(0,x';\varepsilon)$, hence [@Tex11book] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:UsefulFormula}
G(x,x';\varepsilon)&= G_0(x,x';\varepsilon) \\\nonumber
& - G_0(x,0;\varepsilon)\frac{1}{1/\kappa+G_0(0,0;\varepsilon)}G_0(0,x';\varepsilon).\end{aligned}$$
C.1. Normal Laplacian
---------------------
Using $G_0(x,x';\varepsilon)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\varepsilon}}e^{-\sqrt{\varepsilon}|x-x'|}$ leads to the explicit form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GDeltaZ2}
G(x,x';\varepsilon)
&= \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\bigg[
e^{-\sqrt{\varepsilon}|x-x'|}
-\frac{e^{-\sqrt{\varepsilon}(|x|+|x'|)}}{2\sqrt{\varepsilon}/\kappa+1}
\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ An inverse Laplace transform yields the propagator: $${\langle\kern.3ex x \kern.3ex|}e^{-\Lambda_x t}{|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle} = \int_\mathscr{B}\frac{\D\varepsilon}{2\I\pi}\,
\frac{e^{-\sqrt{\varepsilon}|x|}}{\kappa+2\sqrt{\varepsilon}}
\, e^{\varepsilon t}$$ where $\mathscr{B}$ is the Bromwich contour. Deforming the contour in order to skirt around the branch cut $\mathbb{R}^-$ gives the useful representation : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PropagatorPinning}
{\langle\kern.3ex x \kern.3ex|}e^{-\Lambda_x t}{|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle}
=\int_0^\infty\frac{\D\varepsilon}{\pi}
\frac{2\sqrt{\varepsilon}\cos(\sqrt{\varepsilon}|x|)+\kappa\sin(\sqrt{\varepsilon}|x|)}{\kappa^2+4\varepsilon}e^{-\varepsilon t}
\:.\end{aligned}$$
We now come back to the computation of Eq. . We first notice that the infinite time result $${\left\langle h_0^2(\infty) \right\rangle}={\langle\kern.3ex 0 \kern.3ex|}\frac{1}{\Lambda_x}{|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle}
=G(0,0;0)=\frac{1}{\kappa},$$ agrees with the equipartition theorem. The second term of is obtained from the propagator as $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{2t}^\infty\D\tau\,{\langle\kern.3ex 0 \kern.3ex|}e^{-\Lambda_x\tau}{|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle}&= \frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^\infty\frac{\D\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}
\frac{e^{-2\varepsilon t}}{\kappa^2+4\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ The integral may be related to the complementary error function (formula 3.466 of [@Gradshteyn:1994]) leading to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CorrelatorPinnigFlat}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}\langle h_0^2(t)\rangle_c
=\frac{1}{\kappa}
\left[
1- \mathrm{erfc}\left(\frac{\kappa\sqrt{t}}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\,e^{\frac12\kappa^2t}
\right]
\\\nonumber
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}= \frac{1}{\kappa}
\left[
1-
\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{1}{\kappa\sqrt{t}}
\left(
\sum_{n=0}^N
(-1)^n\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(\kappa^2t)^n}+\mathcal{R}_N
\right)
\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{R}_N$ is the rest of the asymptotic series. At short time $t\ll\kappa^{-2}$, using $\mathrm{erfc}(x)\simeq1-2x/\sqrt\pi$ as $x \to 0$, we recover the subdiffusive behaviour ${\langle h_0(t) ^2 \rangle_\mathrm{c}} \simeq\sqrt{2t/\pi}$.
We now turn to the computation of . In the long time limit $t\gg1/\kappa^2$, we may neglect the term $4\varepsilon$ in the denominator of the integrand in Eq. . We find $$\label{eq:PropagatorPinningLargeT}
{\langle\kern.3ex x \kern.3ex|}e^{-\Lambda_x t}{|\kern.3ex0\kern.3ex\rangle} \simeq\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}\kappa^2t^{3/2}}
\left[
1 + \frac{1}{2}\kappa|x|-\frac{x^2}{2t}
\right]e^{-x^2/(4t)}
\:.$$ Inserted in , it leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:PinningContribInitialFluct}
\overline{ {\langle h_0(t) \rangle}^2 }
\simeq
T_0\,\left(\frac{1}{\kappa^2}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi t}} -\frac{c_1}{\kappa^3t}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $
c_1=(8/\pi)\int_0^\infty\D u\,(1-u)
\big[2u\,e^{-u^2}-\sqrt{\pi}\,\mathrm{erf}(u)\big]e^{-u^2}
\simeq0.0711
$. Adding and , we obtain the long time behaviour of the mean-squared displacement given by Eq. [(7)]{} of the main text.
C.2. Generalised Edwards-Wilkinson model and fractional Laplacian
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A generalization of the Edwards-Wilkinson model has been proposed in order to study the dynamics of interfaces with a non-standard elastic force [@KruKalMajCorBraSir97]. In this case, the calculation of and involve the fractional Laplacian [@SamKilMar93; @Pod99]. Following the same lines, we must first give the free Green’s function that may be written under the form $G_0(x,x';\varepsilon) = \varepsilon^{1/z-1}\,\Psi(\varepsilon^{1/z}|x-x'|)$ where $$\label{eq:PsiDeU}
\Psi(x)
= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{\D q}{2\pi}\frac{e^{\I qx}}{1+|q|^z}
\:.$$ Its short scale behaviour is $\Psi(x\ll1)\simeq-(1/\pi)\ln x$ for $z=1$ and $\Psi(x\ll1)\simeq1/[z\sin(\pi/z)] + a_z\,x^{z-1}$ for $z>1$, with $a_z=1/[2\Gamma(z)\cos({\pi z}/2)]$. For $z<2$, the function presents a power law decay $\Psi(x\gg1)\simeq(1/\pi)\sin(\pi z/2)\Gamma(z+1)\,x^{-z-1}$, whereas it decays exponentially for $z{\geqslant}2$ as $\Psi(x\gg1)\sim\sin[\pi/z+x\cos(\pi/z)]\,\exp[ -x\sin(\pi/z)]$. Note that may be explicitely computed for even integers. E.g. $\Psi(x)= \sin[\pi/4+x/\sqrt2]\,\exp[-x/\sqrt2]/2$ for $z=4$.
Eq. gives $$G(x,0;\varepsilon) = \frac{\varepsilon^{1/z-1}\,\Psi(\varepsilon^{1/z}|x|)}{1+\Psi(0)\,\kappa\,\varepsilon^{1/z-1}}$$ where $\Psi(0)=1/[z\sin(\pi/z)]$. Setting $x=0$, a Laplace inversion gives the propagator ; using , we find $$\begin{aligned}
&\langle h_0^2(t) \rangle_c
\label{eq:Integral61}
= \frac{1}{\pi z}
\int_0^\infty\D\varepsilon\,
\frac{1-e^{-2\varepsilon t}}{
\varepsilon^{2-1/z} - \frac{2\kappa\,\varepsilon }{z\tan(\pi/z)}
+ \frac{\kappa^2\,\varepsilon^{1/z}}{z^2\sin^2(\pi/z)}
}
\:.\end{aligned}$$ In the short time limit, or equivalently when the spring constant vanishes, we recover the subdiffusive behaviour as it should, ${\langle h_0^2(t) \rangle}=\frac{\Gamma(1/z)}{\pi(z-1)}\,(2t)^{1-1/z}$ for $\kappa\to0$.
In the long time limit, the exponential in Eq. selects only the term $\sim\varepsilon^{1/z}$ in the denominator, hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle h_0^2(t) \rangle}_c \underset{t\to\infty}{\simeq}
\frac1\kappa
-\frac{z\sin(\pi/z)}{\Gamma(1/z)}\,\frac{1}{\kappa^2(2t)^{1-1/z}}
+\cdots\end{aligned}$$ We check that this coincides with for $z=2$.
![(Color online) Monte Carlo simulation (symbols) vs. numerical evaluation of Eq. [(18)]{} of the main text (lines). Simulations involve average over $10^5$ histories. Each history starts from an initial configuration drawn from the equilibrium ensemble at temperature $T_0$. The history contributes to the MSD if it is not absorbed up to time $t$.[]{data-label="simulation-results"}](Fig1-SM.eps){width="70mm"}
D. Details of Monte-Carlo simulations for the case of harmonic absorption
=========================================================================
Here, we give the details of the Monte Carlo (MC) simulations for the dynamics of the interface of length $L$ with tagged monomer at $0$ subject to absorption. We start the evolution from the initial $h^0$. For the equilibrated case, $h_0$ is just a Brownian bridge implemented as follows (note that in the program, we have set $h^0_0=h^0_{L-1}=0$ corresponding to $L-1$ independent monomers): $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{h}_i&= \widetilde{h}_{i-1} + \sqrt{T_0}\, \xi_i, \nonumber \\
h_i^0&= \widetilde{h}_i -\frac{i}{L-1} \widetilde{h}_{L-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\xi_i$ is a Gaussian distributed random number with zero mean and unit variance, and $T_0$ is the initial temperature. The covariance matrix is therefore $\sigma_{ij}=T_0\big[\mathrm{min}(i,j)-ij/(L-1)\big]$.
![(Color online) Finite-size effects at two temperatures, $T_0=1,4$: Tagged MSD for different matrix size $L$. The convergence is observed for $L=200$.[]{data-label="Python-results3"}](Fig2a-SM.eps "fig:"){width="70mm"}\
![(Color online) Finite-size effects at two temperatures, $T_0=1,4$: Tagged MSD for different matrix size $L$. The convergence is observed for $L=200$.[]{data-label="Python-results3"}](Fig2b-SM.eps "fig:"){width="70mm"}
Starting from $h^0$, the interface configuration is updated between times $t$ and $t+\delta t$ according to: $$\begin{aligned}
h_i(t+\delta t)&=&h_i(t)+\delta t\left[h_{i+1}(t)+h_{i-1}(t)-2h_i(t) \right]
\nonumber\\
&&+\sqrt{2 \delta t }\, \eta_i(t),
\label{eq:EWupdate}\end{aligned}$$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,L-1$., while $\delta t \ll 1$ is a pre-assigned number. Following the update , the tagged monomer gets absorbed with probability $1-\exp(-\mu h_0^2\delta t)$. In case the tagged monomer is actually absorbed, the whole process of evolving the interface starts all over again. Figure \[simulation-results\] shows MC simulation results for the variance of the tagged particle displacement, compared with numerical evaluation of the matrix defined by Eq. [(17)]{} of the main text; we observe a very good agreement between the two.
Using Eq. [(18)]{} of the main text, we can study the limit of long polymers. By varying $L$, we show in Fig. \[Python-results3\] finite-size effects in the behavior of the variance of the tagged particle displacement for two different initial temperatures. In both cases. one observes a convergence in behavior for $L=200$.
[10]{}
H. Risken, [*The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solutions and Applications*]{}, Springer, Berlin (1989).
R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, [*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*]{}, McGraw-Hill, New York (1965).
J. Krug, H. Kallabis, S. N. Majumdar, S. J. Cornell, A. J. Bray and C. Sire, [*Persistence exponent for fluctuating interfaces*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 2702 (1997).
S. G. Samko, A. A. Kilbas, and O. I. Maritchev, [*Fractional Integral and Derivatives*]{}, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1993.
I. Podlubny, [*Fractional Differential Equations*]{}, Academic Press, London, 1999.
I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [*Table of integrals, series and products*]{}, Academic Press, fifth edition (1994).
C. Texier, [*Mécanique quantique*]{}, Dunod, Paris (2011).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we give an answer to Furstenberg’s problem on topological disjointness. Namely, we show that a transitive system $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems if and only if $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and there is some countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ such that for any minimal system $(Y,S)$, any point $y\in Y$ and any open neighbourhood $V$ of $y$, and for any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$, there is $x\in D\cap U$ satisfying that $\{n\in\Z_+: T^nx\in U, S^ny\in V\}$ is syndetic. Some characterization for the general case is also described. As applications we show that if a transitive system $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems, then so are $(X^n,T^{(n)})$ and $(X, T^n)$ for any $n\in \N$. It turns out that a transitive system $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems if and only if the hyperspace system $(K(X),T_K)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems.'
address: 'Wu Wen-Tsun Key Laboratory of Mathematics, USTC, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Department of Mathematics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, 230026, P.R. China.'
author:
- Wen Huang
- Song Shao
- Xiangdong Ye
title: 'An answer to Furstenberg’s problem on topological disjointness'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The notion of [*disjointness*]{} of two dynamical systems, both in ergodic theory and in topological dynamics, was introduced by Furstenberg in his seminal paper [@Fur67]. This notion plays an important role for ergodic systems, see for instance [@G]. Compared with ergodic theory, there still remain in topological dynamics, some basic problems to settle. We refer to [@HY05; @O10; @O17; @LYY15; @LOYZ; @D; @DSY12; @GW] for recent developments.
By a [*topological dynamical system*]{} (t.d.s.) we mean a pair $(X,T)$, where X is a compact metric space (with metric $d$) and $T: X\rightarrow X$ is continuous and surjective. Let $(X,T)$ and $(Y,S)$ be two t.d.s. We say $J\subset X\times Y$ is a [*joining*]{} of $X$ and $Y$ if $J$ is a nonempty, closed, invariant set, which is mapped onto $X$ and $Y$ by the respective coordinate projections. The product $X\times Y$ is always a joining and when it is the only joining we say that $(X,T)$ and $(Y,S)$ are [*disjoint*]{}, denoted by $(X,T)\perp (Y,S)$ or $X\perp Y$. Note that if $(X,T)\perp (Y,S)$ then one of them is minimal [@Fur67], and if in addition $(Y,S)$ is minimal then the set of recurrent points of $(X,T)$ is dense in $X$ [@HY05].
In [@Fur67], Furstenberg showed that each totally transitive system with dense set of periodic points is disjoint from any minimal system; and each weakly mixing system is disjoint from any minimal distal system. He left the following question:
[**Problem**]{} [@Fur67 Problem G]: [*Describe the system who is disjoint from all minimal systems.*]{}
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be a class of t.d.s. and $(X,T)$ be a t.d.s. If $(X,T)\perp (Y,S)$ for every $(Y,S)\in \mathcal{T}$, then we denote it by $(X,T)\perp \mathcal{T}$, and let $\mathcal{T}^\perp=\{(X,T): (X,T)\perp \mathcal{T}\}$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the class of all minimal systems. Hence Furstenberg’s problem can be restated as follows: [*Describe the class ${\mathcal{M}}^\perp$.*]{}
In [@HY05], it was shown that a transitive t.d.s. disjoint with all minimal systems has to be a weakly mixing $M$-system; and each weakly mixing system with dense small periodic sets[^2] is disjoint from any minimal system. Then in [@DSY12; @O10], this result was generalized as follows: every weakly mixing system with dense distal points is disjoint with any minimal system. A further effort was made in [@LYY15]: if $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and $(K(X), T_K)$ has dense distal points, then $(X,T)$ is disjoint with all minimal systems, where $(K(X), T_K)$ is the hyperspace system of $(X,T)$. In [@LOYZ] an example $(X,T)$ was constructed such that $(K(X), T_K)$ has dense distal points, and at the same time $(X,T)$ does not have dense distal points.
Let $(X,T)$ be a t.d.s. Recently, Oprocha gave the following result [@O17]: If $(X, T)$ is weakly mixing and for every minimal system $(Y, S)$ there exists a countable set $D\subseteq X$ such that for every nonempty open set $U$ of $X$ the following condition holds:
1. for any $y\in Y$ and any open neighbourhood $V$ of $ y$ there is $x\in D\cap U$ such that the set of transfer times $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)=\{n\in\Z_+: T^nx\in U, S^ny\in V\}$ is syndetic,
then $(X, T)$ is disjoint with every minimal system.
Oprocha asked that whether assumptions in his theorem are also a necessary condition for $M$-systems to be disjoint with all minimal systems?
In this paper, we show the following theorem:
\[new-main\] Let $(X,T)$ be a transitive t.d.s. Then $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems if and only if $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and there is some countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ (consisting of minimal points) such that for any minimal system $(Y,S)$, any point $y\in Y$ and any open neighbourhood $V$ of $y$, and for any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$, there is $x\in D\cap U$ satisfying that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic.
Hence we give an answer to Furstenberg’s problem, and also answers the question by Oprocha affirmatively in some sense. Note that the countable set in our theorem is universal for any minimal system.
Central sets were introduced by Furstenberg, and they have very rich combinatorial properties [@Fur81]. A subset $A$ of $\Z_{+}$ is called a [*dynamical syndetic set*]{}, if there exist a minimal system $(Y,S)$, $y\in Y$ and an open neighbourhood $V_y$ of $y$ such that $A\supset N_S(y,V_y)=\{n\in \Z_+: S^ny\in V_y\}$. We will show (Theorem \[C-thm\]) that a set $S$ is a central set if and only if $S=A\cap B$, where $A$ is thick and $B$ is dynamical syndetic. Using the notion of central sets we can give the following theorem.
Let $(X,T)$ be a transitive t.d.s. Then $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems if and only if $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and there is a countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ such that for each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ and each central set $S=A\cap B$, we can find $x=x(B)\in D\cap U$ (independent of $A$) such that $N_T(x,U)\cap S\neq \emptyset$, where $A$ is thick and $B$ is dynamical syndetic.
It is clear that the above two theorems can be stated for a transitive system disjoint from a given minimal system. The following theorem was proved in [@HY05 Corollary 4.6], which can be considered as an answer to Furstenberg’s problem in the general case.
\[hunagye05\] Let $(X,T)$ be a t.d.s. Then $(X,T)\perp \mathcal{M}$ if and only if for any minimal system $(Y,S)$, there exist countably many transitive subsystems of $(X,T)$ such that their union is dense in $X$ and each of them is disjoint from $Y$.
As a direct application we have
\[C-set\] Let $(X,T)$ be a weakly mixing system. If for each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ there is $x\in U$ such that $N_T(x,U)$ is a $C^*$-set, then $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems, i.e. $(X,T)\in \mathcal{M}^\perp$.
As other applications we show that if a transitive system $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems, then so are $(X^n,T^{(n)})$ and $(X, T^n)$ for any $n\in \N$, where $T^{(n)}=T\times \ldots \times T $ ($n$ times). Combining this result with other results it turns out that a transitive system $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems if and only if the hyperspace system $(K(X),T_K)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems.
We remark that in [@HY05] Huang and Ye gave a necessary and sufficient condition for a transitive system being disjoint from all minimal systems through the notion of m-set (see Proposition \[hy-main\]). The condition given in this paper is easier to handle than that one.
The paper is organizing as follows. In Section 2 we will give some preliminaries and we prove our main results in Section 3. Then in Section 4 we give some applications of our results. [**Acknowledgments.**]{} The authors would like to thank P. Oprocha for sharing us the early version of his recent paper. We also thank the referee for the very careful reading and many useful comments, which help us to improve the writing of the paper.
Preliminary
===========
In the article, integers, nonnegative integers and natural numbers are denoted by $\Z$, $\Z_+$ and $\N$ respectively.
Topological dynamical system
----------------------------
By a [*topological dynamical system*]{} (t.d.s.) we mean a pair $(X,T)$, where $X$ is a compact metric space (with metric $d$) and $T:X\to X$ is continuous and surjective. A nonempty closed invariant subset $Y
\subset X$ defines naturally a [*subsystem*]{} $(Y,T)$ of $(X,T)$.
The [*orbit*]{} of $x$, $orb(x,T)$ (or simply $orb(x)$), is the set $\{T^nx: n\in \Z_+\}$. A t.d.s. $(X,T)$ is [*transitive*]{} if for each pair of nonempty open subsets $U$ and $V$, $$N_T(U,V)=\{n\in\Z_+: U\cap T^{-n}V\not=\emptyset\}$$ is infinite. Equivalently, $(X,T)$ is transitive if and only if there exists $x\in X$ such that $\overline{orb(x,T)}=X$; such $x$ is called a [*transitive point*]{}, and the set of transitive points is denoted by $Tran_T$. It is well known that if a system $(X,T)$ is transitive then $Tran_T$ is a dense $G_\delta$ set. A system $(X,T)$ is [*weakly mixing*]{} if $(X\times X, T\times T)$ is transitive.
A t.d.s. $(X,T)$ is [*minimal*]{} if $Tran_T=X$. Equivalently, $(X,T)$ is minimal if and only if it contains no proper subsystems. A point $x \in X $ is [*minimal*]{} or [*almost periodic*]{} if the subsystem $(\overline{orb(x,T)},T)$ is minimal.
A t.d.s. $(X,T)$ is an $M$-[*system*]{} if it is transitive and the set of minimal points is dense.
Let $(X,T)$ be a t.d.s. and $(x,y)\in X^2$. It is a [*proximal*]{} pair if there is a sequence $\{n_i\}$ in $\Z_+$ such that $\lim_{i\to +\infty} T^{n_i} x =\lim_{i\to +\infty} T^{ n_i} y$; and it is a [*distal*]{} pair if it is not proximal. Denote by $P(X,T)$ or $P_X$ the set of all proximal pairs of $(X,T)$. For a point $x\in X$, $P[x]=\{y\in X: (x,y)\in P(X,T)\}$ is called [*proximal cell*]{} of $x$. A point $x$ is said to be [*distal*]{} if whenever $y$ is in the orbit closure of $x$ and $(x,y)$ is proximal, then $x = y$.
A t.d.s. $(X,T)$ is called [*distal*]{} if $(x,x')$ is distal whenever $x,x'\in X$ are distinct. A t.d.s. $(X,T)$ is [*equicontinuous*]{} if for every $\ep>0$ there exists $\d>0$ such that $d(x_1,x_2)< \d$ implies $d(T^nx_1,T^nx_2)<\ep$ for every $n\in \Z_+$. As we assume that $T$ is surjective, it is easy to see that each equicontinuous system is distal.
For a t.d.s. $(X,T)$, $x\in X$ and $U\subset X$ let $$N_T(x,U)=N(x,U)=\{n\in \Z_+: T^nx\in U\}.$$ A point $x\in X$ is said to be [*recurrent*]{} if for every neighborhood $U$ of $x$, $N_T(x,U)$ is infinite.
Furstenberg families
--------------------
Let us recall some notions related to Furstenberg families (for details see [@Fur81]). Let $\P=\P({\Z}_{+})$ be the collection of all subsets of $\Z_+$. A subset $\F$ of $\P$ is a [*(Furstenberg) family*]{}, if it is hereditary upwards, i.e. $F_1
\subset F_2$ and $F_1 \in \F$ imply $F_2 \in \F$. A family $\F$ is [*proper*]{} if it is a proper subset of $\P$, i.e. neither empty nor all of $\P$. It is easy to see that $\F$ is proper if and only if ${\Z}_{+} \in \F$ and $\emptyset \notin \F$. Any subset $\mathcal{A}$ of $\P$ can generate a family $[\mathcal{A}]=\{F \in
\P:F \supset A$ for some $A \in \mathcal{A}\}$. If a proper family $\F$ is closed under intersection, then $\F$ is called a [*filter*]{}. For a family $\F$, the [*dual family*]{} is $$\F^*=\{F\in\P: {\Z}_{+} \setminus F\notin\F\}=\{F\in \P:F \cap F' \neq
\emptyset \ for \ all \ F' \in \F \}.$$ $\F^*$ is a family, proper if $\F$ is. Clearly, $(\F^*)^*=\F$ and ${\F}_1\subset {\F}_2$ implies that ${\F}_2^* \subset {\F}_1^*.$ Denote by $\F_{inf}$ the family consisting of all infinite subsets of $\Z_+$.
$\F$-recurrence and some important families
-------------------------------------------
Let $\F$ be a family and $(X,T)$ be a t.d.s. We say $x\in X$ is $\F$-[*recurrent*]{} if for each neighborhood $U$ of $x$, $N_T(x,U)\in
\F$. So the usual recurrent point is just $\F_{inf}$-recurrent one.
A subset $S$ of $\Z_+$ is [*syndetic*]{} if it has a bounded gaps, i.e. there is $N\in \N$ such that $\{i,i+1,\cdots,i+N\} \cap S \neq
\emptyset$ for every $i \in {\Z}_{+}$. $S$ is [*thick*]{} if it contains arbitrarily long runs of positive integers, i.e. there is a strictly increasing subsequence $\{n_i\}$ of $\Z_+$ such that $S\supset \bigcup_{i=1}^\infty \{n_i, n_i+1, \ldots, n_i+i\}$. The collection of all syndetic (resp. thick) subsets is denoted by $\F_s$ (resp. $\F_t$). Note that $\F_s^*=\F_t$ and $\F_t^*=\F_s$.
A classic result stated that $x$ is a minimal point if and only if $N_T(x,U)\in \F_s$ for any neighborhood $U$ of $x$ [@GH]. And a t.d.s. $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing if and only if $N_T(U,V)\in \F_t$ for any nonempty open subsets $U,V$ of $X$ [@Fur67; @Fur81].
A subset $S$ of $\Z_+$ is [*piecewise syndetic*]{} if it is an intersection of a syndetic set with a thick set. Denote the set of all piecewise syndetic sets by $\F_{ps}$. It is known that a t.d.s. $(X,T)$ is an $M$-[*system*]{} if and only if there is a transitive point $x$ such that $N_T(x,U)\in \F_{ps}$ for any neighborhood $U$ of $x$ (see for example [@HY05 Lemma 2.1]).
Let $\{ p_i \}_{i=1}^\infty$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{N}$. One defines $$FS(\{ p_i \}_{i=1}^\infty)=
\Big\{\sum_{i\in \alpha} p_i: \alpha \text{ is a
nonempty finite subset of } \N\Big \}.$$ $F$ is an [*IP set*]{} if it contains some $FS({\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}})$, where $p_i\in\N$. The collection of all IP sets is denoted by $\F_{ip}$. A subset of $\N$ is called an [*${\text{IP}}^*$-set*]{}, if it has nonempty intersection with any IP-set. It is known that a point $x$ is a recurrent point if and only if $N_T(x,U)\in \F_{ip}$ for any neighborhood $U$ of $x$, and $x$ is distal if and only if $x$ is $IP^*$-recurrent [@Fur81].
Systems $(K(X),T_K)$ and $(M(X), T_M)$
--------------------------------------
Let $(X,T)$ be a topological dynamics and let $\B(X)$ be the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of $X$. Let $M(X)$ be the collection of all Borel probability measures on $X$ with the weak$^*$ topology. Then $T$ induces a map $T_M$ on $M(X)$ naturally by sending $\mu\in M(X)$ to $T\mu$, where $T\mu$ is defined by $T\mu(A)=\mu(T^{-1}A)$ for all $A\in \B(X)$.
Let $K(X)$ be the space of all nonempty closed subsets of $X$ endowed with Hausdorff metric, and $T_K : K(X)\rightarrow K(X)$ be the induced map defined by $T_K(A) =
T(A)=\{Tx: x\in A\}$ for any $A \in K(X)$.
$m$-sets
--------
The notion of $m$-set was introduced in [@HY05].
A subset $A$ of $\Z_{+}$ is called an [*$m$-set*]{}, if there exist a minimal system $(Y,S)$, $y\in Y$ and a nonempty open subset $V$ of $Y$ such that $A\supset N_S(y,V)$.
Recall that a subset $A$ of $\Z_{+}$ is a dynamical syndetic set, if there exist a minimal system $(Y,S)$, $y\in Y$ and an open neighbourhood $V_y$ of $y$ such that $A\supset N_S(y,V_y)$. Let $A$ be a $m$-set. Then there exist a minimal system $(Y,S)$, $y\in Y$ and a nonempty open subset $V$ of $Y$ such that $A\supset N_S(y,V)$. Since $(Y,S)$ is minimal, there exists some $k$ such that $S^ky\in V$. Thus $S^{-k}V$ is an open neighbourhood of $y$ and $N_S(y, S^{-k}V)$ is a dynamical syndetic set. Note that $N_S(y,V)\supset N_S(y,S^{-k}V)+k$. It follows that each $m$-set is a translation of some dynamical syndetic set.
For a transitive system whether it is in ${\mathcal M}^\perp$ can be checked through $m$-sets as the following theorem shows. For a minimal dynamical system $(Y,S)$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{F}_Y=\{ A\subset \Z_+:A\supset N_S(y,V) \text{ for some } y\in
Y\text{ and nonempty open subset }\ V\}\ \text{and}\\
& \mathcal{F}^*_Y=\{ B\subset \Z_+:B\cap A \not=\emptyset \text{ for
each } A \in \mathcal{F}_Y \}.\end{aligned}$$
\[hy-main\] Let $(X,T)$ be a transitive system and $x\in \text{Trans}_T$. Then
[(1)]{} $(X,T)\in {\mathcal M}^\perp$ if and only if $N_T(x,U)\cap A \not=\emptyset$ for any neighborhood $U$ of $x$ and any m-set $A$.
[(2)]{} $(X,T)\perp (Y,S)$ if and only if for any open neighborhood $U$ of $x$, one has $N_T(x,U)\in \mathcal{F}^*_Y$.
We say that $(X,T)$ is [*strongly disjoint from all minimal systems*]{} if $(X^n, T^{(n)})$ is disjoint from all minimal systems for any $n\in\N$, where $T^{(n)}=T\times \ldots \times T $ ($n$ times). Then we have
[@LYY15]\[JYY-thm\] Let $(X, T)$ be a t.d.s. Then
1. If $(K(X),T_K)$ is weakly mixing and is disjoint from all minimal systems, then $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and is disjoint from all minimal systems.
2. If $(X,T)$ is strongly disjoint from all minimal systems, then both $(K(X),T_K)$ and $(M(X),T_M)$ are disjoint from all minimal systems.
Main results
============
Basic lemmas
------------
To show the main result we need the following two propositions. The first one was obtained in [@HY05] by using Proposition \[hy-main\].
\[huang-ye-05\] If a transitive system is disjoint from all minimal systems, then it is weakly mixing and has a dense set of minimal points, i.e. it is a weakly mixing M-system.
The following lemma was proved in [@AK].
\[akin-k\] Let $(X,T)$ be a weakly mixing system. Then each proximal cell is residual, that is, for each $x\in X$, $P[x]$ is residual in $X$.
Main results
------------
Now we are ready to show the main results of the paper.
\[train2\] Let $(X,T)$ be a transitive t.d.s. Then the following statements are equivalent.
1. $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems.
2. $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and there is a countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ such that for any minimal system $(Y,S)$, any point $y\in Y$ and any open neighbourhood $V$ of $y$, and for any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$, there is $x\in D\cap U$ satisfying that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic.
3. $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and there is a countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ consisting of minimal points such that for any minimal system $(Y,S)$, any point $y\in Y$ and any open neighbourhood $V$ of $y$, and for any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$, there is $x\in D\cap U$ satisfying that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic.
(3)$\Longrightarrow (2)$. It is clear.
(2)$\Longrightarrow (1)$. We follow the proofs in [@DSY12; @O17]. By the weak mixing property of $(X,T)$ and countability of $D$, there is a point $x_0\in X$ such that $(x_0,x)$ is proximal for any $x \in D$ by Lemma \[akin-k\].
Assume now $J\subset X\times Y$ is a joining. Then there is $y\in Y$ such that $(x_0,y)\in J$. Let $V$ be an open neighborhood of $y$ and $U$ be any nonempty open set of $X$. Take a nonempty open subset $U'$ of $X$ and $\ep>0$ such that $B_\ep(\overline{U'})\subseteq U$. Then by the assumption, there is $x\in D\cap U'$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U'\times V)$ is syndetic. At the same time, since $(x,x_{0})$ is proximal, we have that $$\{k\in \Z_+: d(T^k(x),T^k(x_{0}))<\ep\}$$ is thick. This implies that there is $k\in\Z_+$ such that $$S^k(y)\in V,\ \ T^k(x) \in U',\ \ \text{and}\ d(T^k(x_0),T^k(x))<\ep.$$ So $T^k(x_0)\in U$. We have $(T^k(x_0),S^k(y))\in J\cap {\overline U}\times \overline {V}$. Since $U$ is an arbitrary open set of $X$ and $V$ is an arbitrary open neighborhood of $y$, it implies that $X\times \{y\}\subset J$. Thus we get $J=X\times Y$ as $y$ has a dense orbit in $Y$.
(1)$\Longrightarrow (3)$. Suppose now that $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems. By Proposition \[hy-main\], $(X,T)$ is an $M$-system. Let $D$ be any countable dense subset of $X$ consisting of minimal points. Now we show it is what we need.
Assume the contrary that the condition in (3) does not hold for $D$. Then there are a minimal system $(Y,S)$, a point $y\in Y$ and its open neighbourhood $V$, and there is a nonempty open set $U\subset X$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is not syndetic for any point $x\in D\cap U$.
[*Claim:*]{} For each $x\in D\cap U$, there is some $T\times S$-invariant subset $J_{(x,y)}\subseteq (U\times V)^c$ such that $x\in p_1(J_{(x,y)})$, where $p_1$ is the projection of $X\times Y$ to the first coordinate.
Since $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is not syndetic, $A=N_{T\times S}((x,y),(U\times V)^c)$ is a thick set. As $x$ is a minimal point, for each $\ep>0$, $N_T(x,B_\ep(x))$ is a syndetic set. Thus for any fixed $\ep>0$ and $L\in \N$, there are infinitely many $n\in N_T(x,B_\ep(x))$ such that $$n,n+1,\ldots,n+L\in A.$$ From this fact we choose an increasing sequence $\{n_k\}\subseteq \N$ such that $n_k\in N_T(x,B_{1/k}(x))$ and $n_k,n_k+1,\ldots,n_k+k \in A.$ Without loss of generality assume that $$\lim_{k\to \infty} (T\times S)^{n_k}(x,y)=(x_0,y_0).$$ Since $n_k\in N_T(x,B_{1/k}(x))$, it is clear that $x_0=x$. Now for each $m$, we have that $$(T\times S)^m(x_0,y_0)=\lim_{k\to \infty} (T\times S)^{n_k+m}(x,y)\in (U\times V)^c.$$ Now let $$J_{(x,y)}=\overline{orb((x_0,y_0),T\times S)}.$$ Then $J_{(x,y)}\subseteq (U\times V)^c$, and $x=x_0\in p_1(J_{(x,y)})$. This ends the proof of the claim.
Now let $$J=\overline{\bigcup_{x\in D\cap U}J_{(x,y)}}.$$ Then it is clear that $J$ is $T\times S$-invariant and $J\subseteq (U\times V)^c$. By Claim, we have that $D\cap U\subseteq p_1(J)$. Since $D$ is a dense set of $X$, it follows that $$U\subseteq p_1(J).$$ Since $(X,T)$ is transitive and $p_1(J)$ is $T$-invariant and closed, it deduces that $p_1(J)=X$. Moreover, as $(Y,S)$ is minimal, the projection of $J$ to the second coordinate is $Y$. We conclude that $J$ is a joining of $X$ and $Y$. But $J\subset (U\times V)^c$, a contradiction.
We also have the following theorem which is easier to handle in some situations.
\[train\] Let $(X,T)$ be a transitive t.d.s. Then the following statements are equivalent.
1. $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems.
2. $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and for any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$ and any nonempty open subset $V\subset Y$ of any minimal system $(Y,S)$, there is $x=x(U,V)\in U$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic for any $y\in V$.
3. $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and for any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$ and any nonempty open subset $V\subset Y$ of any minimal system $(Y,S)$, there is a minimal point $x=x(U,V)\in U$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic for any $y\in V$.
The proof is only slightly different from that of Theorem \[train2\]. For the sake of completeness, we give the proof. Obviously, (3)$\Longrightarrow (2)$.
(2)$\Longrightarrow (1)$. We follow the proofs in [@DSY12; @O17]. Assume that $\{U_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ and $\{V_m\}_{m=1}^\infty$ are bases for the topologies of $X$ and $Y$ respectively. Then by (2) for given $U_n$ and $V_m$, there is $x_{n,m}\in U_n$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x_{n,m},y),U_n\times V_m)$ is syndetic for any $y\in V_m$. By the weak mixing property of $(X,T)$, there is a point $x\in X$ such that $(x,x_{n,m})$ is proximal for any $n,m\in\N$ by Lemma \[akin-k\].
Assume now $J\subset X\times Y$ is a joining. Then there is $y\in Y$ such that $(x,y)\in J$. Let $V$ be an open neighborhood of $y$. Then there is $m_0\in \N$ such that $y\in V_{m_0}\subset V$. We will show that $(x_{n,m_0},y)\in J$ for any $n\in\N$.
To do this, let $U$ be an open neighborhood of $x_{n,m_0}$. Then there is $\epsilon>0$ such that $B_{2\ep}(x_{n,m_0})\subset U$ and put $W=B_{\ep}(x_{n,m_0})$. Then there is $x_{n',m_0}\subset U_{n'}\subset W$. Then we have $N_{T\times S}((x_{n',m_0},y), U_{n'}\times V_{m_0})$ is syndetic. At the same time, since $(x,x_{n',m_0})$ is proximal, we have that $$\{k\in \Z_+: d(T^k(x),T^k(x_{n',m_0}))<\ep\}$$ is thick. This implies that there is $k\in\Z_+$ such that $$S^k(y)\in V_{m_0}\subset V,\ \ T^k(x_{n',m_0}) \in U_{n'},\ \text{and}\ d(T^k(x),T^k(x_{n',m_0}))<\ep.$$ So $T^k(x)\in U$. We have $J\cap {\overline U}\times \overline {V}\not=\emptyset.$ It deduces that $(x_{n,m_0},y)\in J$ for any $n\in\N$.
It implies that $X\times \{y\}\subset J$ and hence we get $J=X\times Y$ as $y$ has a dense orbit.
(1)$\Longrightarrow (3)$. Suppose now that $(X,T)$ is disjoint from $(Y,S)$. By Lemma \[hy-main\], $(X,T)$ is an M-system. Assume the contrary that the condition does not hold. Then there are a nonempty open set $U\subset X$, and a nonempty open set $V\subset Y$ satisfying that for any minimal point $x\in U$ there is $y=y(x)\in V$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is not syndetic.
Let $x\in U$ be a transitive point. As $(X,T)$ is an $M$-system, we can choose minimal points $x_n\in U$ such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} x_n=x$. Then for each $n\in\N$ there is $y_n=y_n(x_n)\in V$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x_n,y_n),U\times V)$ is not syndetic. That is, $N_{T\times S}((x_n,y_n),(U\times V)^c)$ is thick.
We now show that there is $(x_n',y_n')\in (U\times V)^c$ and $(x_n',y_n')\in \overline{orb((x_n,y_n), T\times S)}$ such that its orbit is outside $U\times V$. In fact there is a strictly increasing sequence $\{k_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ of $\N$ such that $(T\times S)^{k_i+j}(x_n,y_n)\in (U\times V)^c$ for each $i\in \N$ and $1\le j\le i$. Without loss of generality assume that $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty} (T\times S)^{k_i}(x_n,y_n)=(x_n',y_n')$. Then $(x_n',y_n')$ is the point we want. Let $$J=\overline{\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty orb((x_n',y_n'),T\times S)}.$$ It is clear that $J$ is closed and $T\times S$-invariant. Moreover, as $(Y,S)$ is minimal, the projection of $J$ to the second coordinate is $Y$. We now show that $p_1(J)=X$, where $p_1$ is the projection of $J$ to the first coordinate. We note that $p_1(J)$ is $T$-invariant and closed.
To do so, fix $n\in \N$. It is clear that there is a sequence $\{k_i\}$ such that $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty} T^{k_i}x_n=x_n'$ by the construction of $x_n'$. Choose $0<\ep_n<1/n$. Since $x_n$ is a minimal point, $N_T(x_n,B_{\ep_n}(x_n))$ is syndetic. Assume that that $l_n$ is the gap of this subset of $\N$. By the continuity of $T$, there is $\delta_n>0$ such that if $z_1,z_2\in X$ and $d(z_1,z_2)<\delta_n$ then $d(T^i(z_1),T^i(z_2))<\ep_n$ for each $i=1,\ldots,l_n$. Since $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty} T^{k_i}x_n=x_n'$ there is $j\in\N$ such that $d(T^{k_j}x_n,x_n')<\delta_n$. This implies that $$d(T^{k_j+i}x_n,T^ix_n')<\ep_n,\ i=1,\ldots,\ell_n.$$ There is $1\le i_n\le l_n$ such that $T^{k_j+i_n}x_n\in B_{\ep_n}(x_n)$. This implies that $d(T^{i_n}(x_n'),x_n)<2\ep_n$ for each $n\in \N$.
Hence $x=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} x_n=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} T^{i_n}(x_n')\in p_1(J)$, since $x_n'\in p_1(J)$, and $p_1(J)$ is $T$-invariant and closed. It deduces that $p_1(J)=X$, as $x$ is a transitive point. We conclude that $J$ is a joining of $X$ and $Y$. It is clear $J\subset (U\times V)^c$, a contradiction.
By the same proof we have
\[train-y\] Let $(X,T)$ be a weakli mixing M-system and $(Y,S)$ is a minimal t.d.s. Then the following statements are equivalent.
1. $(X,T)\perp (Y,S)$.
2. For any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$ and any nonempty open subset $V\subset Y$, there is $x=x(U,V)\in U$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic for any $y\in V$.
3. For any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$ and any nonempty open subset $V\subset Y$, there is a minimal point $x=x(U,V)\in U$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic for any $y\in V$.
Central sets and another form of the main result
------------------------------------------------
First we recall the following form of Auslander-Ellis theorem (see [@Fur81 Theorem 8.7.] for example).
\[thmAuslander\] Let $(X,T)$ be a compact metric t.d.s.. Then for any $x\in X$ and any $T$-invariant closed subset $Z$ of $\overline {orb(x, T)}$, there is some minimal point $x' \in Z$ such that $(x,x')$ is proximal.
Using Auslander-Ellis’s Theorem Furstenberg introduced a notion called central set. A subset $S\subseteq \Z_+$ is a [*central set*]{} if there exists a t.d.s. $(X,T)$, a point $x\in X$ and a minimal point $y$ proximal to $x$, and a neighborhood $U_y$ of $y$ such that $N_T(x,U_y)\subset S$. It is known that any central set is an IP-set [@Fur81 Proposition 8.10.]. Denote the set of all central sets by $\F_C$. A set from $\F_C^*$ is called a $C^*$-set. Note that all $IP^*$-sets are $C^*$-sets, but there is some $C^*$-set which is not $IP^*$. Moreover, we know that a point of a dynamical system is $C^*$-recurrent if and only if it is $IP^*$-recurrent if and only if it is distal [@Fur81 Proposition 9.17].
Recall that a subset $A$ of $\Z_{+}$ is called a [*dynamical syndetic set*]{}, if there exist a minimal system $(Y,S)$, $y\in Y$ and an open neighbourhood $V_y$ of $y$ such that $A\supset N_S(y,V_y)$. Denote the set of all dynamical syndetic sets by $\F_{ds}$. Let $$\F_{dps}=\F_t\cap \F_{ds}=\{A\cap B: A\in F_t, B\in \F_{ds}\}.$$ Each element of $\F_{dps}$ is called a [*dynamical piecewise syndetic set*]{}.
\[C-thm\] $\F_{dps}=\F_{C}$.
First we show that $\F_{C}\subseteq \F_{dps}$. Let $Q \in \F_C$. Then by definition, there there exists a system $(X,T)$, a point $x\in X$ and a minimal point $y$ proximal to $x$, and a neighborhood $U_y$ of $y$ such that $N_T(x,U_y)\subset Q$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $U_y=B_{2\ep}(y)=\{z: d(z,y)<2 \ep\}$ for some $\ep>0$. Let $$A=\{n\in\Z_+: d(T^nx,T^ny)<\ep\}.$$ Then $A$ is a thick set since $(x,y)$ is proximal [@Fur81 Lemma 8.1.]. It is easy to verify that $$A\cap N_T(y,B_\ep(y))\subseteq N_T(x,B_{2\ep}(y))\subseteq Q.$$ Hence $\F_{C}\subseteq \F_{dps}$.
Now we show the converse. Let $Q\in \F_{dps}$. Then there is a thick set $A$ and a dynamical syndetic set $B$ such that $Q = A\cap B$. Let $(Y,S)$ be a minimal system, $y\in Y$ and an open neighbourhood $V_y$ of $y$ such that $B\supset N_S(y,V_y)$.
Let $(\Sigma_2=\{0,1\}^\Z_+,\sigma)$ be the shift system. Let $\widetilde{X}=\Sigma_2\times Y$ and $\widetilde{T}=\sigma \times S$. Let $x_0=(1_A, y)\in \widetilde{X}$, $X=\overline{orb(x_0,\widetilde{T})} $, and $T=\widetilde{T}|_X$. Then $(X,T)$ is a t.d.s. [^3]
Now we show that $y_0=(1, y)\in X$ is a minimal point which is proximal to $x_0$. First we show $y_0\in X$. Since $A$ is thick, there is an increasing sequence $\{n_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ such that $\{n_i,n_i+1,\ldots,n_i+i\}\subseteq A$ for all $i\in \N$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $$x'=\lim_{i\to\infty} T^{n_i} x_0\in X.$$ By the construction of $\{n_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$, $x'$ has the form $(1,y')$ for some $y'\in Y$. As $(Y,S)$ is minimal, there is some sequence $\{m_i\}_{i=1}^\infty$ such that $y=\lim_{i\to\infty} S^{m_i}y'$. Thus $$y_0=(1,y)=\lim_{i\to\infty} T^{m_i}x' \in X.$$ Since $1$ is a fixed point of $\sigma$ and $y$ is minimal point of $(Y,S)$, $y_0$ is a minimal point of $(X,T)$.
Note that $\{n_i,n_i+1,\ldots,n_i+i\}\subseteq A$ for all $i\in \N$, and it follows that $$\lim_{i\to \infty} d_X(T^{n_i}x_0, T^{n_i}y_0)=0,$$ where $d_X$ is the metric of $X$. That is, $x_0$ and $y_0$ are proximal.
Let $[1]=\{\xi\in\Sigma_2 : \xi_0=1\}$. Then $V= ([1]\times V_y)\cap X$ is an open neighbourhood of $y_0$ in $X$. Thus $$Q=A\cap B\supseteq A\cap N_S(y,V_y)=N_T\left( x_0, V \right)$$ is a central set, i.e. $Q\in \F_{C}$. Hence $\F_{dps}\subseteq \F_C$. The proof is completed.
To show the another form of the main result we need the following lemma.
\[CC\] Let $(X,T)$ be a transitive t.d.s. If $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems, then $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and there is a countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ such that for each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ and each central set $S=A\cap B$ (where $A$ is thick and $B$ is dynamical syndetic), we can find $x=x(B)\in D\cap U$ independent of $A$ such that $N_T(x,U)\cap S\neq \emptyset$.
Assume that $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems. By Lemma \[huang-ye-05\], $(X,T)$ is a weakly mixing M-system. Then by Theorem \[train2\] there is a countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ satisfying the condition in Theorem \[train2\] (2).
Let $U$ be any nonempty open set of $X$. By Theorem \[C-thm\] let $S=A\cap B$ be a central set, where $A$ is thick and $B$ is a dynamical syndetic set. Let $(Y,S)$ be a minimal system, $y\in Y$ and a nonempty open neighbourhood $V$ of $Y$ such that $B\supseteq N_S(y,V)$. For $y$ and $V$, by the choice of $D$ there is some $x=x(B)\in D\cap U$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic. Hence $$\begin{split}
N_T(x,U)\cap S & =N_T(x,U)\cap A\cap B \supseteq N_T(x,U) \cap (A\cap N_S(y,V) )\\ & = A\cap N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)\neq \emptyset.
\end{split}$$ The proof is completed.
Now we are ready to give another form of the main result.
\[thm-central\] Let $(X,T)$ be a transitive t.d.s. Then $(X,T)\perp \mathcal{M}$ if and only if $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and there is a countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ such that for each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ and each central set $S=A\cap B$, we can find $x=x(B)\in D\cap U$ with $N_T(x,U)\cap S\neq \emptyset$, where $A$ is thick and $B$ is dynamical syndetic.
Assume that $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing and there is a countable dense subset $D$ of $X$ such that for each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ and each central set $S=A\cap B$ (where $A$ is thick and $B$ is dynamical syndetic), we can find $x=x(B)\in D\cap U$ independent of $A$ such that $N_T(x,U)\cap S\neq \emptyset$. We show that $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems.
Let $(Y,S)$ be a minimal system. We will show that for any nonempty open subset $U\subset X$ and any nonempty open subset $V\subset Y$, $y\in V$, there is $x\in D\cap U$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic. And hence by Theorem \[train2\], $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems.
Let $A\in \F_t$. Then by Theorem \[C-thm\], $A\cap N_S(y,V)\in \F_{dps}=\F_{C}$. By assumption, there is some $x\in D\cap U$ independent of $A$ such that $$N_T(x,U) \cap (A\cap N_S(y,V) )\neq \emptyset.$$ That is, $$A\cap N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)=N_T(x,U) \cap (A\cap N_S(y,V) )\neq \emptyset.$$ As $A$ is an arbitrary thick set, $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic.
The converse follows from the proof of Lemma \[CC\]. The proof is completed.
The general case
----------------
Now we discuss Furstenberg’s problem without the transitivity assumption. It was proved in [@HY05 Theorem 4.3] that if $(X,T)\perp \mathcal{M}$, then the set of minimal points of $(X,T)$ is dense in $X$. Moreover, the following proposition was proved in [@HY05 Corollary 4.6].
\[hunagye05\] Let $(X,T)$ be a t.d.s. Then $(X,T)\perp \mathcal{M}$ if and only if for any minimal system $(Y,S)$, there exist countably many transitive subsystems of $(X,T)$ such that their union is dense in $X$ and each of them is disjoint from $Y$.
It is natural to conjecture the following: [*If $(X,T)\perp \mathcal M$, then there are countably many transitive subsystems of $(X,T)$ such that their union is dense in $X$ and each of them is in ${\mathcal M}^\perp$.*]{} We remark that this conjecture is not true, since there is a distal system disjoint from all minimal systems, see [@HY05 Example 4.10].
Together with Theorem \[train-y\] and Proposition \[hunagye05\] we get a description of a dynamical system disjoint with all minimal systems. Since the characterization is not easy to handle, it is a natural question to get some other intrinsic characterizations.
Applications
============
In this section we give several applications of the main theorem.
Some sufficient conditions
--------------------------
We say that a t.d.s. $(X,T)$ has [*dense distal sets*]{} if for each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$, there is a distal point $C$ of $(K(X),T_K)$ such that $C
\subset U$. It is shown that a system $(X,T)$ is a weakly mixing system with dense distal sets if and only if $(K(X),T_K)$ is a weakly mixing system with dense distal points [@LYY15].
Recall that a point is distal if and only if for any neighbourhood $U$ of $x$ and any open neighborhood $V$ of a minimal system $(Y,S)$, $N_{T\times S}\left((x,y),U \times V\right)$ is syndetic for any $y\in V$ if and only if $x$ is $IP^*$-recurrent [@Fur81 Theorem 9.11.]. Hence by Theorem \[train\], we have the following corollary easily.
\[cor-result-1\] The following classes are subset of $\mathcal{M}^\perp$.
1. $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing with dense distal sets.
2. $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing with dense distal points.
\[cor-result-2\] If $(X,T)$ is a weakly mixing t.d.s. such that for any minimal system $(Y,S)$ and any nonempty open set $U$ of $X$, there are $x\in U$ and a nonempty open set $V$ of $Y$ such that $(x,y)$ is minimal for any $y\in V$, then $(X,T)\in \mathcal{M}^\perp$.
In particular, if for any minimal system $(Y,S)$ and each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$, there is a minimal subset $M$ of $(X,T)$ which is disjoint from $Y$ and $U\cap M\not=\emptyset$, then $(X,T)\in \mathcal{M}^\perp$.
We assume that for any nonempty open set $U$ of $X$, there are $x\in U$ and a nonempty open set $V$ of $Y$ such that $(x,y)$ is minimal for any $y\in V$. Since $(Y,S)$ is minimal, there is $n\in\N$ such that $\cup_{i=1}^n S^nV=Y$. We note that if $(x,y)$ is minimal then $(x,Sy)$ is minimal. This follows from the fact that $\id\times S: (X\times Y,T\times S)\rightarrow (X\times Y,T\times S)$ is a factor map. Thus, $(x,y)$ is minimal for any $y\in Y$. Applying Theorem \[train\], we get the proof of the first statement.
Note that when the assumption of the second statement holds, as $M$ is disjoint from $Y$, we know that $(x,y)$ is a minimal point of $T\times S$ for any $x\in U\cap M$ and any $y\in Y$.
We remark that in fact Oprocha gave a very nice criteria which covers Corollary \[cor-result-1\] and \[cor-result-2\] above.
[@O17] \[1717\] Let $(X,T)$ be a weakly mixing system. If for each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ there is $x\in U$ such that $N_T(x,U)$ is an $IP^*$-set, then $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems, i.e. $(X,T)\in \mathcal{M}^\perp$.
Using results in the previous section we have the following generalization.
\[C-set\] Let $(X,T)$ be a weakly mixing system. If for each nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ there is $x\in U$ such that $N_T(x,U)$ is a $C^*$-set, then $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems, i.e. $(X,T)\in \mathcal{M}^\perp$.
It is a direct application of Theorem \[thm-central\].
We note that the condition in Proposition \[1717\] is not necessary as the example in [@O17] shows. Now we show that in fact the same example in [@O17] indicates that condition in Proposition \[C-set\] is also not necessary. One can verify it following the proof of Theorem 1.4 of [@O17]. For the sake of completeness, we give a slightly different proof. To do so we need a lemma and a proposition.
\[wm-ye\]Let $(X,T)$ be a t.d.s., $x\in X$ and $M$ be a minimal weakly mixing subsystem. If $x$ is proximal to some point in $M$ then $P[x]\cap M$ is dense in $M$.
We follow the argument in [@AK]. Assume that $x$ is proximal to a point $z\in M$. Let $G_k$ be the open balls (of $X$) of radius $1/k$ centred at $z$. Let $U$ be a nonempty open subset of $M$.
Set $U_0=U$ and define inductively open sets $U_1,U_2,\ldots$ of $M$ and positive integers $n_k$ as follows.
Since $N_T(x, G_k)\in \mathcal{F}_{ps}$, and $N_T(U_{k-1},G_k\cap M)\in \mathcal{F}_{ts}$ ([@HY02 Theorem 4.7]) we have $$N_T(x, G_k)\cap N_T(U_{k-1},G_k\cap M)$$ is infinite. So we can choose a nonempty open set $U_k$ of $M$ with closure contained in $U_{k-1}$ and an integer $n_k>k$ such that $T^{n_k}x\in G_k$ and $T^{n_k}\overline{U_k}\subset G_k$. If $y$ is a point of the nonempty intersection $\cap_k \overline{U}_k=\cap_k U_k$ then $T^{n_k}x\in G_k$ and $T^{n_k}(y)\in G_k$ and so $d(T^{n_k}x,T^{n_k}y))\le 2/k$. Thus $y$ is in $U$ and $x,y$ are proximal.
Let $(X,T)$ be a t.d.s. such that there are countably many non-trivial minimal subsystems $M_i$ which are weakly mixing, $\cup_{i=1}^\infty M_i$ is dense in $X$ and $\cup_{i=1}^\infty M_i$ is the set of minimal points of $X$. Then there is a nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ such that for any $z\in U$, $N_T(z,U)$ is not a $C^*$-set.
First there is a nonempty open subset $U$ such that for each $i\in \N$, $U\cap M_i\not=\emptyset$ implies that ${\rm int}(U^c)\cap M_i\not=\emptyset$ (otherwise $T$ has a fixed point), where ${\rm int}(A)$ is the interior of a subset $A$. It is clear that $U\not=X$ and we may assume that ${\rm int}(U^c)\not=\emptyset$. We will show that for any $z\in U$, $N_T(z,U)$ is not a $C^*$-set.
\(1) If there is $i\in\N$ such that $z\in M_i$ is a minimal point, then $z$ is proximal to a point $y\in V$, where $y\in M_i$, $V$ is a nonempty open subset such that $U\cap V=\emptyset$ (since $M_i$ is weakly mixing and ${\rm int} (U^c)\cap M_i\not=\emptyset$).
\(2) If $z$ is not a minimal point, then $z$ is proximal to a minimal point $y_1\in M_i$ for some $i\in\N$. By Lemma \[wm-ye\] $z$ is proximal to a minimal point $y\in V$, where $V$ is a nonempty open subset of $X$ such that $U\cap V=\emptyset$ (as ${\rm int} (U^c)\cap M_i\not=\emptyset$).
In the above two cases we have $N_T(z,V)$ is a $C$-set. This implies that $N_T(z,U)$ is not a $C^*$-set since $U\cap V=\emptyset$.
$(X^n,T^{(n)})$ and $(X,T^n)$
-----------------------------
It is known that if $(X,T)$ is weakly mixing, then so are $(X^n,T^{(n)})$ and $(X,T^n)$ for any $n\in\N$. Now we show
\[product\] Assume that a transitive system $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems. Then $(X^n,T^{(n)})$ is also disjoint from all minimal systems for any $n\in \N$, i.e. $(X,T)$ is strongly disjoint from all minimal systems.
Let $(Y,S)$ be a minimal system. Assume that $W$ is a nonempty open subset of $X^n$ and $V$ is a nonempty open subset of $Y$. We may assume that $W\supset W_1\times \ldots
\times W_n$, where $W_i$ is a nonempty open subset of $X$. By the transitivity of $(X,T)$, there is a nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ such that for each $1\le i\le n$ there is $k_i\in\N$ with $T^{k_i}U\subset W_i$. By Theorem \[train\] there exists $x\in U$ such that $N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is syndetic for any $y\in V$. This implies that $$N_{T^{(n)}\times S}((T^{k_1}x,\ldots,T^{k_n}x),y), (T^{k_1}U\times \ldots \times T^{k_n}U)\times V)
\supset N_{T\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$$ is syndetic for any $y\in Y$.
Observing that $x'=(T^{k_1}x,\ldots,T^{k_n}x)\subset T^{k_1}U\times\ldots\times T^{k_n}U\subset W_1\times \ldots\times W_n
\subset W$ we get that $N_{T^{(n)}\times S}((x',y), W\times V)$ is syndetic for any $y\in Y$. Again applying Theorem \[train\] we get the conclusion.
As a corollary we have
Let $(X,T)$ be a transitive t.d.s. $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems if and only if $(K(X),T_K)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems.
It follows from Theorem \[product\] and Proposition \[JYY-thm\].
Assume that a transitive system $(X,T)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems. Then so is $(X,T^n)$ for any $n\in \N$.
Fix $n\in\N$ with $n\ge 2$ and let $(Y,S)$ be a minimal system. Set $\tilde{Y}=\cup_{i=1}^nY\times \{i\}$ and define $\tilde{S}: \tilde{Y}\rightarrow \tilde{Y}$ such that for any $y\in Y$, $$\tilde{S}(y,i)=(y,i+1)\ \text{for}\ i=1,\ldots,n-1\ \text{and}\ \tilde{S}(y,n)=(Sy,1).$$ It is clear that $(\tilde{Y},\tilde{S})$ is also minimal and $\tilde{S}^{nk}(y,1)=(S^ky,1)$ for any $k\in\N$.
Let $U,V$ be open nonempty subsets of $X$ and $Y$ respectively. Then by Theorem \[train\] we know that there is $x\in U$ such that $N_{T\times \tilde{S}}((x, (y,1)), U\times (V\times \{1\}))$ is syndetic for any $y\in Y$. Assume that $k\in N_{T\times \tilde{S}}((x, (y,1)), U\times (V\times \{1\}))$ then there is some $k_1$ with $k=nk_1$ such that $(T^n)^{k_1}x\in U$ and ${S}^{k_1}(y)\in V$. So, $k_1\in N_{T^n\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ which implies that $N_{T^n\times S}((x,y),U\times V)$ is also syndetic for any $y\in Y$. Again applying Theorem \[train\], we conclude that $(X,T^n)$ is disjoint from all minimal systems.
Finally, we restate a question in [@DSY12]
Let $(X_1,T_1)$ and $(X_2,T_2)$ be transitive and be disjoint from all minimal systems. Is it true that $(X_1\times X_2, T_1\times T_2)$ is also disjoint from all minimal systems?
We note that we do not know the answer even for the very simple case when $X_1=X_2=X$, $T_1=T$ and $T_2=T^2$.
[AA]{}
E. Akin, S. Kolyada, *Li-Yorke sensitivity. Nonlinearity*, 16 (2003), 1421–1433.
J. Auslander, S. Glasner, *Distal and highly proximal extensions of minimal flows*, Indiana Univ. Math. J., [**26**]{} (1977), no. 4, 731–749.
X. Dai, *On disjointness and weak-mixing of $\mathcal{F}$-flows with discrete abelian phase groups*, preprint, 2017.
P. Dong, S. Shao and X. Ye, *Product recurrent properties, disjointness and weak disjointness*, [Israel J. of Math.]{}, [**188**]{} (2012), 463–507.
D. Feng, W. Huang, *Variational principles for topological entropies of subsets*, J. Funct. Anal. 263 (2012), no. 8, 2228–2254.
H. Furstenberg, *Disjointness in ergodic theory, minimal sets, and a problem in Diophantine approximation*, [Mathematical Systems Theory. An International Journal on Mathematical Computing Theory]{}, [**1**]{} (1967), 1–49.
H. Furstenberg, *Recurrence in Ergodic Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory*, M. B. Porter Lectures, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1981.
E. Glasner, Ergodic theory via joinings, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, [**101**]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003.
E. Glasner, B. Weiss, *On the disjointness property of groups and a conjecture of Furstenberg*, arXiv:1807.08493.
W. Gottschalk, G. Hedlund, *Topological dynamics*, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. 36. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R. I., 1955. vii+151 pp.
W. Huang, X. Ye, *An explicit scattering, non-weakly mixing example and weak disjointness*, Nonlinearity, [**15**]{}(2002), 1–14.
W. Huang and X. Ye, *Dynamical systems disjoint from any minimal system*, [Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.]{}, [**357**]{} (2) (2005) 669–694.
J. Li, K. Yan and X. Ye, *Recurrence properties and disjointness on the induced spaces*, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 35 (2015), 1059–1073.
J. Li, P. Oprocha, X. Ye and R. Zhang, *When all closed subsets are recurrent?*, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, [**37**]{} (2017), no. 7, 2223–2254.
P. Oprocha, *Weak mixing and product recurrence*, [Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)]{}, [**60**]{} (4) (2010), 1233–1257.
P. Oprocha, *Double minimality, entropy and disjointness with all minimal systems*, Dis. and Cont. Dynam. Sys., [**39**]{} (2019), 263–275.
T. Yu, *Dynamical systems disjoint from any minimal system under group actions.* Difference equations, discrete dynamical systems and applications, 181–195, Springer Proc. Math. Stat., 150, Springer, Cham, 2015.
[^1]: This research is supported by NNSF of China (11571335, 11431012, 11371339) and by “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities”.
[^2]: We say that $(X,T)$ has dense small periodic sets if for any nonempty open subset $U$ of $X$ there exists a closed subset $Y$ of $U$ and $k\in \N$ such that $T^kY\subset Y$. Clearly, every transitive system with dense set of periodic points (so-called $P$-system) has dense small periodic sets.
[^3]: If $T$ is not surjective, one may embed $(X,T)$ into some surjective system. Let $Z=X\times D$, where $D=\{\frac 1n\}_{n\in \N}\cup \{0\}$. Define $R: Z\rightarrow Z$ satisfying $R(x,\frac{1}{n+1})=(x,\frac{1}{n})$, $n\in \N$; $R(x,1)=(Tx,1)$ and $R(x,0)=(x,0)$ for all $x\in X$. Then $(Z,R)$ is a t.d.s. and $R$ is surjective. Identifying $x$ with $(x,1)$ for all $x\in X$, $X$ can be viewed as a closed subset of $Z$ and $T=R|_X$. We cite this approach from the proof of [@FH12 Lemma 3.13].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An attractive explanation for non-zero neutrino masses and small matter antimatter asymmetry of the present Universe lies in “leptogenesis". At present the [*size*]{} of the lepton asymmetry is precisely known, while the [*sign*]{} is not known yet. In this work we determine the sign of this asymmetry in the framework of two right handed neutrino models by relating the leptogenesis phase(s) with the low energy CP violating phases appearing in the leptonic mixing matrix. It is shown that the knowledge of low energy lepton number violating re-phasing invariants can indeed determine the sign of the present matter antimatter asymmetry of the Universe and hence indirectly probing the light physical neutrinos to be Majorana type.'
author:
- Kaushik Bhattacharya
- Narendra Sahu
- Utpal Sarkar
- 'Santosh K. Singh'
title: '**Leptogenesis and low energy CP phases with two heavy neutrinos**'
---
Introduction {#intr}
============
Within the Standard Model (SM) the neutrinos are massless and hence there is no CP violation in the lepton (L) sector. The current evidence [@solar-expt; @atmos-expt; @kamland] from the neutrino oscillation experiments, on the other hand, suggest that neutrinos are massive, however small, and they mix up. The goal of the present neutrino oscillation experiments is to determine the nine degrees of freedom in the low energy neutrino mass matrix. They are parametrized by three masses, three mixing angles and three CP violating phases out of which two are Majorana and one is Dirac. At present the neutrino oscillation experiments able to measure the two mass square differences, the solar and the atmospheric, and three mixing angles with varying degrees of precision, while there is no information about the phases.
Assuming that the neutrinos are of Majorana type the small masses of the physical left handed neutrinos can be explained by the elegant seesaw mechanism [@seesawgroup] which involves singlet right-handed neutrinos (type-I seesaw) or triplet Higgs (type-II seesaw) or can be both (hybrid seesaw). In the present article we limit ourselves to the case of type-I seesaw models. Although we call them right-handed neutrinos, in the extensions of the SM they are just singlet fermions that transform trivially under the SM gauge group. So, there is no apparent reasons for the number of heavy singlet neutrinos to be same as the number of left-handed neutrinos. So, for the main part of our discussions we restrict ourselves to only two right-handed neutrinos. These results will also be true when there are three right-handed neutrinos, but the third right-handed neutrino do not mix with the other two neutrinos. We start with three right-handed neutrinos and after some general comments work mostly with two right-handed neutrinos.
While there is no information about the absolute mass scales of the physical neutrinos, the currently discovered tiny mass scales; the atmospheric neutrino mass ($\Delta_{atm}=\sqrt{|m_3^2-m_2^2|}$) in the $\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}$ oscillation and the solar neutrino mass ($\Delta_{\odot}=\sqrt{m_2^2-m_1^2}$) in the $\nu_e-\nu_{\mu}$ oscillation, can be explained by adding at least two right handed neutrinos to the SM Lagrangian. However, with two right-handed neutrinos the seesaw mechanism predicts one of the physical light neutrino mass to be exactly zero which is permissible within the current knowledge of neutrino masses and mixings.
The Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrino violates $L$-number and hence is a natural source of L-asymmetry in the early Universe [@fukugita.86; @baryo_lepto_group]. A partial L-asymmetry is then converted to baryon (B) asymmetry through the non-perturbative sphaleron processes, unsuppressed above the electroweak phase transition. Currently the $B$-asymmetry has been measured precisely by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)[@spergel.03] and is given by $$\left( \frac{(n_B-n_{\bar{B}})}{n_\gamma} \right)_0 \equiv
\left( \frac{n_B}{n_\gamma} \right)_0=\left(6.1^{+0.3}_{-0.2}\right)
\times 10^{-10}.
\label{asymmetry}$$
It is legitimate to ask if there are any connecting links between leptogenesis and the CP violation in the low energy leptonic sector, in particular neutrino oscillation and neutrinoless double beta decay. In the context of three right-handed neutrino models several attempts have been taken in the literature to connect the CP violation in leptogenesis and neutrino oscillations [@3RH-models]. It is found that there are almost no links between these two phenomena unless one considers special assumptions [@scpv_models]. In fact it is shown that leptogenesis can be possible irrespective of the CP violation at low energy [@rebelo_prd]. On the other hand, in the two right-handed neutrino models there is a ray of hope connecting leptogenesis with the CP violation in neutrino oscillation [@2RH-models] and neutrinoless double beta decay processes.
While the magnitude of CP violation is fairly known in the quark sector, it is completely shaded in the leptonic sector of the SM. Therefore, searching for CP violation in the leptonic sector is of great interest in the present days. It has been pointed out that the Dirac phase, being involved in the L-number conserving processes, can be measured in the long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments [@dirac_phase_group], while the Majorana phase, being involved in the L-number violating processes, can be investigated in the neutrinoless double beta decay [@majorana_phase_group] processes.
At present the magnitude of B-asymmetry is precisely known, while the sign of this asymmetry is not known yet. However, by knowing the CP violating phases in the leptonic mixing matrix one can determine the sign of the B-asymmetry. This is the study taken up in this work. We consider a minimal extension of the SM by including two singlet right-handed neutrinos which are sufficient to explain the present knowledge of neutrino masses and mixings. We adopt a general parameterization of the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling and give the possible links between the CP violation in leptogenesis and neutrino oscillation, CP violation in neutrinoless double beta decay and leptogenesis. It is shown that the knowledge of low energy CP violating re-phasing invariants can indeed determine the sign of the B-asymmetry since the size of this asymmetry is known precisely.
Rest of the manuscript is arranged as follows. In section II we elucidate the canonical seesaw in the framework of three right handed neutrinos. We then display the possible links between leptogenesis and the low energy CP-violating phases appearing in the leptonic mixing matrix in certain special circumstances. It is found that there are almost no links between these two phenomena occurring at two different energy scales. Therefore, in section III we give a parameterization of $m_D$ in the two right-handed neutrino models. In section IV we calculate the neutrino masses and mixings by using the parameterization of $m_D$ given in section III. In section V we estimate the CP violation in leptogenesis. In section VI we consider the re-phasing invariant formalism to study the possible links between the CP violating phases responsible for leptogenesis and the CP violation at low energy phenomena. First we calculate th CP violation in neutrino oscillation and then elucidate its link to leptogenesis. After that we calculate the CP violation in low energy lepton number violating process, i.e., the neutrinoless double beta decay, and then elucidate its link to leptogenesis. We conclude in section VII.
Canonical seesaw and parameter counting {#sec2}
=======================================
To account for the small neutrino masses we extend the SM by including right-handed neutrinos. The corresponding leptonic Lagrangian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} &=& \overline{\ell_{Li}}i\gamma^\mu D_\mu\ell_{Li}+\overline{
\ell_{Ri}}i\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu\ell_{Ri}+\overline{N_{R\alpha}}i\gamma^\mu
\partial_\mu N_{R\alpha}\nonumber\\
&-&\left( {1\over 2}\overline{(N_{R\alpha})^c}(M_R)_{\alpha \beta}N_{R\beta}+
\overline{\ell_{Li}}
\phi (Y_e)_{ij}\ell_{Rj}+\overline{\ell_{Li}}\tilde{\phi} (Y_\nu)_{i\alpha}
N_{R\alpha}+H.C.\right)\,,
\label{lagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\phi}=i\tau^2\phi$ and $i$ runs from 1 to 3, representing the left-handed fields. $\alpha$ represent the right handed neutrino indices. $\ell_{Li}$ represents the ${\rm SU(2)}_L
\times {\rm U(1)}_Y$ doublets, $\ell_{Ri}$ and $N_{R\alpha}$ are right-handed singlets of the theory.
After the electroweak symmetry breaking the canonical seesaw [@seesawgroup] gives the effective neutrino mass matrix $$\begin{aligned}
m_\nu=-m_D M_R^{-1} m_D^T\,,
\label{seesaw}\end{aligned}$$ where $m_D=Y_\nu v$ is the Dirac mass matrix of the neutrinos with $v$ is the vev of SM Higgs and that of $M_R$ is the mass matrix of right handed neutrinos. Without loss of generality we consider $M_R$ to be diagonal and in this basis $m_D$ contains rest of the physical parameters that appears in $m_\nu$.
The diagonalization of $m_{\nu}$, through the lepton flavor mixing matrix $U_{PMNS}$ [@pmns-matrix], gives us three masses of the physical neutrinos. Its eigenvalues are given by $$\begin{aligned}
D_m\equiv {\rm diag.}(m_{1}, m_{2}, m_{3})=U_{PMNS}^\dagger
m_{\nu} U_{PMNS}^*\,,
\label{diag}\end{aligned}$$ where the masses $m_i$ are real and positive. The standard PDG parametrization [@pdg] of the PMNS matrix reads: $$\begin{aligned}
U_{PMNS}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
c_{12}c_{13} & & s_{12}c_{13} & &s_{13}e^{-i\delta_{13}}\cr\\
-s_{12}c_{23}-c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_{13}} & & c_{12}c_{23}-
s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_{13}} & & s_{23}c_{13}\cr\\
s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_{13}} & & -c_{12}s_{23}-s_{12}
c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta_{13}} & & c_{23}c_{13}
\end{array}
\right)\,.\,U_{ph}
\label{mns-matrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $U_{ph}={\rm diag.}\,(1, e^{i\eta}, e^{i(\xi +\delta_{13})})$ and $c_{ij}$, $s_{ij}$ stands for $\cos \theta_{ij}$ and $\sin \theta_{ij}$ respectively. The two physical phases $\eta$ and $\xi$ associated with the Majorana character of neutrinos are not relevant for neutrino oscillations. Thus we see that there are three phases in the low energy effective theory responsible for CP violation. However, these phases may not give rise to CP violation at high energy regime, in particular, leptogenesis to our interest. In the following we study this in the framework of three and than two right-handed neutrino models.
In general if $n$ and $n'$ are the number of generations of the left- and right-handed neutrinos that take part in the seesaw then the total number of parameters in the effective theory is estimated to be [@broncano_plb.03] $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\rm moduli}&=&n+n'+nn'\,,
\label{mod}\\
N_{\rm phase}&=&n(n'-1)\,.
\label{phs}\end{aligned}$$ For $n=3$ and $n^\prime = 3$, $N_{\rm moduli} = 15$ and $N_{\rm phase}=6$, which in the effective theory manifests as three masses of charged leptons, three masses of right-handed neutrinos and remaining 15 parameters including nine moduli and six phases in the Dirac mass matrix $m_D$ in a basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is real and diagonal.
In the bi-unitary parameterization the mass matrix $m_D$ can be given as $$m_D=U_L^\dagger m_D^{diag} U_R\,,
\label{para_step1}$$ where $U_L$ and $U_R$ are $3\times 3$ unitary matrices. $U_L$ diagonalizes the left-handed sector while $U_R$ is the diagonalizing matrix of $m_D^\dagger m_D$. Any arbitrary $3 \times 3$ unitary matrix $U$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
U=e^{i\varphi} P_1 {\widetilde U} P_2\,,
\label{udef}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi$ is an overall phase and $$\begin{aligned}
P_1 &=& {\rm diag.}(1, e^{-i\alpha_1}, e^{-i\alpha_2})\,,
\label{p1}\\
P_2 &=& {\rm diag.}(1, e^{-i\beta_1}, e^{-i\beta_2})\,,
\label{p2}\end{aligned}$$ are phase matrices. ${\widetilde U}$ is a CKM like matrix parametrized by three angles and one embedded phase. Now using Eq. (\[udef\]) in Eq. (\[para\_step1\]) we get m\_D=e\^[i(-\_L+\_R)]{}P\_[2L]{}\^\^ P\_[1L]{}\^m\_D\^[diag]{} P\_[1R]{}[U\_R]{}P\_[2R]{}. \[para\_step2\] Without loss of generality three of the left phases can be absorbed in the redefinition of charged lepton fields. As a result the effective Dirac mass matrix turns out to be m\_D=[U\_L]{}\^P\_3 m\_D\^[diag]{} [U\_R]{}P\_[2R]{}, \[para\_step3\] where $P_3=P_{1L}^\dagger P_{1R}$ is an effective phase matrix. Thus in the models with three right-handed neutrinos $m_D$ contains 15 parameters.
In leptogenesis, the CP asymmetry comes in a form $m_D^\dagger m_D$, which contains $P_{2R}$ and ${\widetilde U_R}$, [*i.e.*]{}, m\_D\^m\_D=P\_[2R]{}\^\^(m\_D\^[diag]{})\^2 [U\_R]{}P\_[2R]{}, and hence is independent of $P_{3}$ and ${\widetilde U_L}$. Although it would be good to know the exact relationship of the phases in $P_{2R}$ and ${\widetilde U_R}$ with the phases appearing in the $U_{PMNS}$ matrix but that is not possible. So, we try with some special cases.
[**Case-I:**]{} Let us first consider the case, when ${\widetilde U_R}$ is a diagonal matrix. This is the case when the right-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix is diagonal to start with. The mass matrix can still contain Majorana phases. In that case, ${\widetilde U_R}$ and $m_D^{diag}$ will commute and hence $m_D^\dagger m_D$ will be real and there will not be any leptogenesis. This already tells us that the phases in leptogenesis crucially depends on the mixing of the right-handed physical neutrinos. Even in this case there will be CP violation at low energy as we shall see below. The light neutrino mass matrix is given by $$m_\nu = -{\widetilde U_L}^\dagger (P_3)^2({\widetilde U_R})^2 (P_{2R})^2
(m_D^{diag})^2 M_R^{-1} {\widetilde U_L}^*$$ so that the PMNS matrix will become $$U_{PMNS} = {\widetilde U_L}^\dagger P_3P_{2R}\,.$$ Thus both the Dirac and Majorana phases at low energy are non-vanishing.
[**Case-II:**]{} We shall now consider another special case when there is no leptogenesis. If the diagonal Dirac neutrino mass matrix is proportional to a unit matrix, i.e., $m_D = m \cdot I$ ($I$ is the identity matrix), again there is no leptogenesis, $$m_D^\dagger m_D= m^2 \cdot I \,.$$ In this case the light neutrino mass matrix becomes $$m_\nu = -{\widetilde U_L}^\dagger P_3 {\widetilde U_R} P_{2R}
m^2 M_R^{-1}P_{2R}{\widetilde U_R}^T P_3 {\widetilde U_L}^*\,,$$ so that the PMNS matrix can be read off to be $$U_{PMNS} = {\widetilde U_L}^\dagger P_3 {\widetilde U_R} P_{2R}\,.$$ Even in this case the Dirac and Majorana phases are present.
Thus in both these examples, even if CP violation is observed at low energy neutrino experiments, this CP violation may not be related to leptogenesis. Since it is not possible to make any further progress with three heavy neutrinos, we shall now restrict ourselves to models with two heavy neutrinos.
Parameterization of $m_D$ in 2RH Neutrino models {#sec3}
================================================
From now on we shall work with only two right-handed (2RH) neutrinos. This result will be applicable when there are only two heavy neutrinos or when there are three heavy neutrinos but one of them do not mix with others and heavier than the other right-handed neutrinos and hence its contribution to the light neutrinos is also negligible. In the present case where we have $n=3$ and $n'=2$, from Eq. (\[mod\]) and (\[phs\]), we get $N_{\rm moduli}=11$ and $N_{\rm phase}=3$. The 14 parameters in the effective theory manifest them as three masses of charged leptons, two masses of right handed neutrinos and remaining nine parameters including six moduli and three phases appear in the Dirac mass matrix $m_D$.
There are various textures and their phenomenological implications of $m_D$ in the 2RH neutrino models that have been considered in the literature [@2RH-textures]. In this article a general parametrization of the $3\times 2$ mass matrix of the Dirac neutrinos is considered. This is given by $$\begin{aligned}
m_D=v Y_\nu=v U Y_{2RH}\,,
\label{trip}\end{aligned}$$ where $U$ is an arbitrary Unitary matrix and the Yukawa coupling of the two RH neutrino model is given as $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{2RH}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & & x\\
z && y e^{-i\theta}\\
0 & & 0
\end{array}\right)\,.
\label{tri1}\end{aligned}$$ A derivation of Eq. (\[tri1\]) is given in the appendix \[appA\]. However, we declare that the texture of $Y_{2RH}$ is not unique. By choosing appropriately the $U$ matrix one can place $x,y,z$ at different positions so as to get the different textures of $Y_{2RH}$ as shown in appendix \[appB\]. Using (\[udef\]) in Eq. (\[trip\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
m_D = v{\widetilde U} P_2 Y_{2RH}\,,
\label{emd}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\widetilde U}$ contains four parameters including three moduli and one phase, $P_2$ contains two phases and $Y_{2RH}$ contains four parameters including three moduli and one phase which all together makes ten parameters in $m_D$. However, by multiplying the phase matrix $P_2$ with $Y_{2RH}$ one can see that one of the phases in the phase matrix $P_2$, i.e., $\beta_2$ becomes redundant and can be dropped without loss of generality. As a result the total number of effective parameters is actually nine and hence consistent with our counting.
Substituting $m_D$, given by Eq. (\[emd\]), in Eq. (\[seesaw\]) we can calculate the effective neutrino mass matrix, $m_\nu$. The diagonalization of $m_{\nu}$, through the lepton flavor mixing matrix $U_{PMNS}$ [@pmns-matrix], then gives us two non-zero masses of the physical neutrinos while setting one of the mass to be exactly zero as shown in the following section.
Neutrino masses and mixings in 2RH neutrino models {#sec4}
==================================================
The unitary matrix ${\widetilde U}$, appearing in Eq. (\[emd\]), can be parameterized as [^1] $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde U} = R_{23}(\Theta_{23})R_{13}(\Theta_{13}, \delta'_{13})
R_{12}(\Theta_{12})\,.
\label{up}\end{aligned}$$ It turns out that this parameterization is useful in determining the leptonic mixing matrix in 2RH neutrino models. Now from Eqs. (\[seesaw\]) and (\[emd\]) we get the effective neutrino mass matrix to be $$\begin{aligned}
m_\nu &=& -v^2 {\widetilde U} P_2 Y_{2RH} M_R^{-1} Y^T_{2RH} P_2
{\widetilde U}^T\,\nonumber\\
&=& - v^2 {\widetilde U}P_2 X P_2 {\widetilde U}^T\,,
\label{ss1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
X= Y_{2RH} M_R^{-1} Y^T_{2RH}\,.
\label{xdef}\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity of the calculation let us take $e^{-i\theta}$ common from 2nd row of $Y_{2RH}$ matrix given by Eq. (\[tri1\]) and absorb it in $P_{2}$ by redefining $\beta_{1}$ as $(\beta_{1}+\theta)\rightarrow
\beta_{1}$. As a result opposite phase will reappear with $z$. Then the matrix $Y_{2RH}$ turns out to be $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{2RH}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & & x\\
z e^{i\theta}&& y\\
0 & & 0\end{array}\right)\,.
\label{tri2}\end{aligned}$$
Using Eq. (\[tri2\]) in the above Eq. (\[xdef\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
X=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
{x^{2}\over M_{2}} & {xy\over M_{2}} & 0\\
{xy\over M_{2}} & {y^{2}\over M_2} +{z^{2}e^{2i\theta}\over M_{1}} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right)\,.
\label{x}\end{aligned}$$ In writing the above equation we have used a diagonal basis of the RH neutrinos where $M_R = {\rm diag.}(M_1, M_2)$. For simplicity, we absorb $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ in $x, y$ and $z$ as $\frac{x}{\sqrt{M_2}}
\rightarrow a, $ $\frac{y}{\sqrt{M_2}}\rightarrow b$ and $\frac{z}
{\sqrt{M_1}}\rightarrow c$. So $X$ can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
X=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a^{2} & ab & 0\\
ab & b^{2}+c^{2}e^{2i\theta} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right)\,.
\label{nx} \end{aligned}$$ Looking to the effective neutrino mass matrix as given by Eq. (\[ss1\]) we can guess that the diagonalizing matrix would be of the form $$\begin{aligned}
U_{PMNS}={\widetilde U} K\,,
\label{uk}\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is an unitary matrix. Using Eqs. (\[diag\]) and (\[uk\]) in Eq. (\[ss1\]) we see that $$\begin{aligned}
D_m = - K^{\dagger}P_{2} X P_{2}K^*\,,
\label{dmk}\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $K$ would diagonalize the matrix $P_{2} X P_{2}$. From the structure of $X$ it is clear that one of the light physical neutrinos must be massless. The matrix $K$ can be parameterized as $$\begin{aligned}
K=P_2\,R_{12}(\omega,\phi)\,P\,,
\label{kpar}\end{aligned}$$ where $P={\rm diag.}(e^{i\eta_{1}/2},e^{i\eta_{2}/2},1)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12}(\omega,\phi)=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos \omega & e^{i\phi}\sin \omega & 0\\
-e^{-i\phi}\sin \omega & \cos \omega & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}
\right)\,,
\label{rpar}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\tan 2\omega &=&\left[\frac{2ab\left(a^4 + b^4+ c^4+ 2a^2b^2 +
2b^2c^2 \cos 2\theta+ 2c^2a^2 cos 2\theta\right)^{1/2}}
{\left( -a^{4}+b^{4}+c^{4}+2b^{2}c^{2}\cos 2\theta \right)}\right]\,,
\label{omeg}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\tan \phi&=&\left[\frac{-c^{2}\sin 2\theta}{a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}\cos 2\theta}
\right]\,.
\label{ph}\end{aligned}$$ Since $R_{12}(\omega,\phi)$ diagonalizes the matrix $X$ the resulting diagonal matrix will have complex eigenvalues in general. However, by choosing appropriately the phases of $P$ one can make the eigenvalues of $X$ real. Using Eqs. (\[omeg\]) and (\[ph\]) we get the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3\}$ of $X$ to be $$\lambda_1=a^2-ab e^{i\phi}\tan \omega\,,~~\lambda_2=e^{-2i\phi}(a^2+
ab e^{i\phi}\cot\omega) ~~~{\rm and}~~~ \lambda_3=0
\label{lambda}$$ The absolute masses of the physical neutrinos are then given by $\{
m_1=v^2 |\lambda_1|, \, m_2=v^2 |\lambda_2|,\, m_3=0\}$. The MSW effect in the solar neutrino oscillation experiments indicates that $m_2 > m_1$. The corresponding mass scale, giving rise to the $\nu_e -
\nu_\mu$ oscillation, is given by $$\Delta m^2_\odot\equiv m_2^2-m_1^2=v^4( |\lambda_2|^2-|\lambda_1|^2)\,.
\label{solar-mass}$$ Using Eq. (\[lambda\]) in the above equation we get the solar neutrino mass scale to be $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta m^2_\odot &=&v^4 \left\{ \left[ (a^2+b^2)^2+c^4+2b^2c^2\cos 2\theta
\right]^2 - 4 a^4 c^4 \right\}^{1/2} \nonumber \\
&\simeq& 8\times 10^{-5} eV^2\,.
\label{sol-mass}\end{aligned}$$ The atmospheric mass scale, on the other hand, is given by $$\Delta m^2_{atm} \equiv |m_2^2 - m_3^2|=v^4( |\lambda_2|^2-|\lambda_3|^2)\,.$$ Now using Eq. (\[lambda\]) in the above equation we get the atmospheric mass scale to be $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta m^2_{atm} &=& \frac{v^{4}}{2}\left((a^{2}+b^{2})^{2}
+c^{4}+2b^{2}c^{2}\cos2\theta \right. \nonumber \\ && +\left.
\left\{\left((a^{2}+b^{2})^{2}+
c^{4}+2b^{2}c^{2}\cos2\theta\right)^{2}-4a^{4}c^{4}\right\}^{1/2}
\right)\,,\nonumber\\
&\simeq & 2\times 10^{-3} eV^2\,.
\label{atmos-mass}\end{aligned}$$ These equations may be inverted to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
v^4 \left((a^{2}+b^{2})^{2}
+c^{4}+2b^{2}c^{2}\cos2\theta \right) &=& 2 \Delta m^2_{atm}
-\Delta m^2_\odot \nonumber \\
a^4 c^4 v^8 &=& \Delta m^2_{atm} (\Delta m^2_{atm}-\Delta m^2_\odot).\end{aligned}$$
Now using Eqs. (\[p2\]) and (\[rpar\]) in Eq. (\[kpar\]) we can rewrite the matrix $K$ as $$\begin{aligned}
K &=& R_{12}(\omega,\phi+\beta_1)P'\nonumber\\
&=& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos\omega & e^{i(\phi+\beta_{1})}\sin \omega & 0\\
-e^{-i(\phi+\beta_{1})}\sin \omega & \cos \omega & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
e^{i\eta_{1}/2} & 0 & 0\\
0 & e^{i(\eta_{2}/2-\beta_{1})} & 0\\
0 & 0 & e^{-i{\beta_2}}\end{array}
\right)\,.
\label{krlab}\end{aligned}$$ Thus using Eqs. (\[krlab\]) and (\[up\]) in Eq. (\[uk\]) the PMNS matrix $U_{PMNS}$ is given as $$U_{PMNS}=R_{23}(\Theta_{23})R_{13}(\Theta_{13},\delta'_{13})R_{12}
(\Theta_{12}) R_{12}(w, \phi+\beta_1)P'\,,
\label{eff-pmns}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&R_{12}(\Theta_{12})R_{12}(\omega,\phi+\beta_{1})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos\Theta_{12}'e^{i\rho_{1}} & \sin\Theta_{12}'e^{i\rho_{2}} & 0\\
-\sin \Theta_{12}'e^{-i\rho_{2}} & \cos\Theta_{12}'e^{-i\rho_{1}} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\
&=& \left(\begin{array}{lll}
e^{i\left(\frac{\rho_{1}+\rho_{2}}{2}\right)} & 0 & 0\\
0 & e^{-i\left(\frac{\rho_{1}+\rho_{2}}{2}\right)} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}
\right)\left(\begin{array}{lll}
\cos\Theta_{12}' & \sin \Theta_{12}' & 0\\
-\sin \Theta_{12}' & \cos \Theta_{12}' & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{lll}
e^{i\left(\frac{\rho_{1}-\rho_{2}}{2}\right)} & 0 & 0\\
0 & e^{-i\left(\frac{\rho_{1}-\rho_{2}}{2}\right)} & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right)\,.
\label{r12k}\end{aligned}$$ In the above equation we have $$\begin{aligned}
\cos 2\Theta_{12}'&=&\cos 2\omega \cos 2\Theta_{12} - \cos(\phi+\beta_{1})
\sin 2\omega \sin 2\Theta_{12}\,,
\label{thetap}\\
\sin(\rho_{2}-\rho_{1})&=&\sin(\phi+\beta_{1})\tan \omega \left[
\cot 2\Theta_{12}'+\frac{\cos 2\Theta_{12}}{\sin 2\Theta_{12}' }\right]\,,
\label{2-1}\\
\sin(\rho_{1}+\rho_{2})&=&\frac{\sin 2\omega \sin(\phi+\beta_{1})}
{\sin 2\Theta_{12}'}\,.
\label{2+1}\end{aligned}$$ For further simplification of the PMNS matrix (\[eff-pmns\]) we now compute the matrix product $R_{12}(\Theta_{12})K=R_{12}(\Theta_{12})R_{12}
(\omega,\phi+\beta_{1})P'$ which is given as $$\begin{aligned}
& &R_{12}(\Theta_{12})R_{12}(\omega,\phi+\beta_{1})P'=
e^{i({\eta_1\over 2}-\rho_2)}\nonumber\\
& &\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
e^{i(\rho_{1}+\rho_{2})} & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\cos\Theta_{12}' & \sin\Theta_{12}' & 0\\
-\sin\Theta_{12}' & \cos\Theta_{12}' & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & e^{i(\rho_{2}-\rho_{1}+(\eta_{2}-\eta_{1})/2-\beta_{1})} & 0\\
0 & 0 & e^{-i(\beta_2-\rho_2+{\eta_1\over 2})}\end{array}
\right)\,.
\label{rkmult}\end{aligned}$$ Now using Eq. (\[rkmult\]) in Eq. (\[eff-pmns\]) the $U_{PMNS}$ matrix can be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
U_{PMNS}&=&\tilde{U}K\nonumber\\
&=& R_{23}(\Theta_{23})R_{13}(\Theta_{13},\delta_{13})R_{12}
(\Theta_{12}')\, \nonumber\\
&&{\rm diag.}(1,e^{i(\rho_{2}-\rho_{1}+
(\eta_{2}-\eta_{1})/2-\beta_{1})}, e^{-i(\beta_2-\rho_2+{\eta_1\over 2})})
\nonumber\\
&=&V\,.\,V_{ph}\,,
\label{rdfu}\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is the CKM like matrix and $V_{ph}$ is the Majorana phase matrix. The effective $CP$ violating phase in the $V$ matrix is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{13}=\delta'_{13}+(\rho_{1}+\rho_{2})\,.
\label{dcp}\end{aligned}$$ Note that in writing Eq. (\[rdfu\]) the overall phase $e^{i({\eta_1\over 2}-\rho_2)}$ has been taken out. Moreover, we absorb the unphysical phase matrix ${\rm diag.}(1, e^{-(\rho_1+\rho_2)},
e^{-(\rho_1+\rho_2)})$ into the redefinition of charged lepton fields. From Eqs. (\[mns-matrix\]), (\[up\]) and (\[dcp\]) we see that, for the chosen parameterization of $Y_{2RH}$, two of the mixing angles $\Theta_{23}$ and $\Theta_{13}$ remains same as of the $(2-3)$ and $(1-3)$ mixing angles in PDG parameterization of the leptonic mixing matrix. Thus we can write $\Theta_{23}\equiv \theta_{23}$ and $\Theta_{13}\equiv\theta_{13}$. While $\Theta_{12}$ gets modified to $\Theta'_{12}$ and is given by Eq. (\[thetap\]), the modified CP violating phase $\delta_{13}$ is given by Eq. (\[dcp\]). At present the best fit value of $\Theta_{23}$ is given to be $45^\circ$, while the best fit value with $1\sigma$ error the value of $\Theta'_{12}$ is given to be $33.9^\circ \pm 1.6^\circ$ [@mohapatra_review.06]. The CHOOZ experiment gives a bound on $\Theta_{13}$. Currently the most conservative upper bound on $\Theta_{13}$ at the $3\sigma$ confidence level is given to be [@fogli_group.05] $$sin^2\Theta_{13}<0.048\,,$$ which gives $\Theta_{13}<13^\circ$.
Leptogenesis in 2RH neutrino models {#sec5}
===================================
The Majorana mass of the RH neutrino violates L-number and hence is considered to be a natural source of L-asymmetry in the early Universe [@fukugita.86] provided its decay violates CP symmetry, a necessary criteria of Sakharov [@sakharov.67]. In a mass basis where the RH neutrinos are real and diagonal the Majorana neutrinos are defined as $N_i={1\over \sqrt{2}} (N_{Ri}\pm N_{Ri}^c)$. In this basis the CP asymmetry is given by $$\epsilon_i=\frac{\Gamma_i-\bar{\Gamma_i}}{\Gamma_i+\bar{\Gamma_i}}\,,$$ where $\Gamma_i$ is the decay rate of $N_i$. If we assume a normal mass hierarchy ($M_1<<M_2$) in the RH neutrino sector then the final L-asymmetry is given by the decay of the lighter RH neutrino, $N_1$. The CP asymmetry parameter, arising from the decay of $N_1$, is then given by $$\epsilon_1={-3\over 16 \pi v^2}\left( {M_1\over M_2} \right) \frac{Im[
(m_D^\dagger m_D)_{12}]^2}{ (m_D^\dagger m_D)_{11} }\,.
\label{cpasym}$$ Using Eqs. (\[emd\]) and (\[tri1\]) in the above Eq. (\[cpasym\]) we get $$\epsilon_1={-3\over 16 \pi} \left( {M_1\over M_2}\right) y^2 \sin 2\theta\,.
\label{cpasym-1}$$ From the above Eq. (\[cpasym-1\]) it is clear that if $\theta=0$ then there is no CP violation in leptogenesis. Therefore, $\theta$ can be thought of the phase associated with $M_i$ in a basis where $M_i$’s are complex. Moreover, $\theta$ always hangs around $y$. So $y=0$ implies no leptogenesis. We will discuss more about it in sec.VI while we compare the CP violation in leptogenesis, neutrino oscillation and neutrinoless double beta decay processes.
We now estimate the magnitude of $L$-asymmetry. A net L-asymmetry arises when $\Gamma_1$ fails to compete with the Hubble expansion parameter, $H=1.67g_*^{1/2}(T^2/M_{pl})$, where $g_*$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom at the epoch of temperature $T$. In a comoving volume the $L$-asymmetry is defined as $$Y_L=\epsilon_1 Y_{N_1} d\,,
\label{YL-def}$$ where $d$ is the dilution factor arises due to the competitions between $\Gamma_1$ and $H$ at $T\simeq M_1$. Now using Eq. (\[cpasym-1\]) in the above Eq. (\[YL-def\]) we get $$Y_L=-5.97 \times 10^{-5}{M_1\over M_2} \left( \frac{Y_{N_1}d}{10^{-3}}\right)
y^2 \sin 2\theta\,.
\label{cal-YL}$$ A part of the L-asymmetry is then transferred to the B-asymmetry via the sphaleron processes which are unsuppressed above the electroweak phase transition. Taking into account the particle content in the $SM$ the B- and L-asymmetries are related as $$B=\frac{p}{p-1}L\simeq -0.55 L\,,
\label{BL-rel}$$ where $p=28/79$ appropriate for the particle content in the $SM$. As a result we get the net B-asymmetry per comoving volume to be $$Y_B\simeq 3.28 \times 10^{-5}{M_1\over M_2} \left(
\frac{Y_{N_1}d}{10^{-3}}\right) y^2 \sin 2\theta\,.
\label{com-asy}$$ The observed B-asymmetry, on the other hand, is given by $$\left( \frac{n_B}{n_\gamma} \right) = 7 Y_B =
2.3\times 10^{-4} {M_1\over M_2} \left( \frac{Y_{N_1}d}{10^{-3}}\right)
y^2 \sin 2\theta \,.
\label{final-asy}$$ Comparing the above Eq. (\[final-asy\]) with the observed matter antimatter asymmetry, given by Eq.(\[asymmetry\]), we get $$y^2 \sin 2\theta=(2.57~~-~~2.78)\times 10^{-6}{M_2\over M_1}
\left( \frac{10^{-3}}{Y_{N_1}d} \right)\,.
\label{theory-expt}$$ We have shown the allowed values of $y$ in fig. (\[ytheta\]), using $(Y_{N1}d)=10^{-3}$, for hierarchical RH neutrinos in the $y-\theta$ plane. It is shown in fig. \[ytheta\](a) that for $(M_1/M_2)=0.1$ the minimum allowed value of $y$ is $5\times 10^{-3}$. However, this value is lifted up to $1.7\times 10^{-2}$ for $(M_1/M_2)=0.01$ as shown in fig. \[ytheta\](b).
CP violation in re-phasing invariant formalism
==============================================
It is convenient to study CP violation in a re-phasing invariant formalism. In particular, for the CP violation in the leptonic sector the latter makes it very interesting. The CP violation in any lepton number conserving processes comes out to be of the form [@jarlskog] $$J_{abij} = {\rm Im} [ V_{ai} V_{bj} V^\ast_{aj} V^\ast_{bi} ],$$ where $V$ is the CKM like matrix in the lepton sector. On the other hand, CP violation in any lepton number violating processes will be of the form [@Nieves:1987pp] $$\label{x1}
t_{aij} = {\rm Im} [ V_{ai} V^\ast_{aj} (V_{ph})^\ast_{ii} (V_{ph})_{jj}]\,.$$ Now one can have as many independent re-phasing invariant measures $t$ as many independent Majorana CP phases. For three generations there are two independent $t$’s (denoted as $J_1$ and $J_2$) and one J (denoted as $J_{CP}$). For example, in the neutrinoless double beta decay the following re-phasing invariant will appear $$\label{x2}
T = {\rm Im} [ V_{ai} V_{aj} V^\ast_{bi} V^\ast_{bj} ] \sim
t_{aij} t^\ast_{bij}.$$ It has been shown that the re-phasing invariant CP violating quantity $J_{CP}$ only appears in the neutrino oscillations and that of $J_1$, $J_2$ appears in the neutrinoless double beta decay processes which may be observed in the next generation experiments.
CP-violation in leptogenesis and neutrino oscillation
-----------------------------------------------------
It has been pointed out that the Dirac phase $\delta_{13}$ can be measured in the long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments [@dirac_phase_group]. In that case the CP violation arises from the difference of transition probability $\Delta P= P_{\nu_e\rightarrow \nu_\mu}-P_{\bar{\nu}_e\rightarrow
\bar{\nu}_\mu}$. It can be shown that the transition probability $\Delta P$ is proportional to the leptonic Jarlskog invariant $$J_{CP}=Im [V_{e1}V^*_{e2}V^*_{\mu 1}V_{\mu 2}]\,.
\label{jcp}$$
Using Eq. (\[rdfu\]) the re-phasing invariant $J_{CP}$ can be rewritten as $$J_{CP}=\frac{1}{8}\sin 2\Theta'_{12}\sin 2\Theta_{23}\sin 2\Theta_{13}
\cos \Theta_{13} \sin (\delta'_{13}+\rho_1+\rho_2)\,.
\label{jcp-1}$$ Now using Eqs. (\[omeg\]), (\[ph\]), (\[thetap\]) and (\[2+1\]) in the above Eq. (\[jcp-1\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
J_{CP} &=& \frac{1}{8}\frac{\sin 2\Theta_{23}\sin 2\Theta_{13}\cos \Theta_{13}}
{\sqrt{\left[(a^2+b^2)^2+c^4+2b^2c^2\cos 2\theta\right]^2-4a^4c^4}}\nonumber\\
&\times& \left[ 2ab \cos\delta'_{13}\{ -c^2 \sin 2\theta
\cos\beta_1+(a^2+b^2+c^2\cos2\theta)\sin\beta_1\}\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left. 2ab\cos 2\Theta_{12}\sin\delta'_{13}\{ (a^2+b^2+c^2\cos
2\theta)\cos\beta_1+c^2\sin 2\theta \sin\beta_1\}\right.\nonumber\\
&+& \left.\sin \delta'_{13}\sin 2\Theta_{12}(-a^4+b^4+c^4+2b^2 c^2
\cos 2\theta) \right]\,.
\label{jcp-2}\end{aligned}$$ From the above Eq. (\[jcp-2\]) it is obvious that $J_{CP}=0$ only if both $\sin \delta'_{13}=0$ and $b=0$, while only $b=0$ (equivalently $y=0$) implies the condition for “no leptogenesis". This indicates that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the CP violation in neutrino oscillation and the CP violation in leptogenesis, even in the 2RH neutrino models. However, it is interesting to see the common regions in the plane of $(n_B/n_\gamma)$ versus $J_{CP}$. This is shown in fig. (\[jcp-fig\]) by taking a typical set of parameters. The main aim is to illustrate the maximal contrast between the positive and negative values of $n_B/n_\gamma$ for a given set of values of $J_{CP}$. This helps us in determining the sign of the asymmetry by knowing the size of the asymmetry. From the fig. (\[jcp-fig\]) it is obvious that for the given set of parameters the positive sign of the asymmetry allows the values of $J_{CP}$ in the range $0.049 -
0.0495$ for $(M_1/M_2)=0.1$. However, this range is significantly reduced for $(M_1/M_2)=0.01$. On the other hand, the negative sign of the asymmetry allows the values of $J_{CP}$ in the range $0.0465 - 0.047$ for $(M_1/M_2)=0.1$ which is further reduced for $(M_1/M_2)=0.01$. In this figure the value of $\Theta_{12}$ is used from fig. (\[theta12-theta\]) where we have shown the allowed values of $\Theta_{12}$ as $\theta$ varies from $0$ to $\pi$. Note that the above results are true for a non-zero $\Theta_{13}$. Consequently the allowed range of values of $J_{CP}$ may vary depending on the values of $\Theta_{13}$. Thus we anticipate that in the 2RH neutrino models a knowledge of $J_{CP}$ can predict the sign of matter antimatter asymmetry of the Universe. We should note that the predictive power of the model depends on the CP violating phases $\beta_1$ and $\delta'_{13}$. This can be visible from fig. (\[jcpvalues-fig\]) where we have shown the variation of $n_B/n_\gamma$ with $J_{CP}$ for different values of $\beta_1$ and $\delta'_{13}$. In particular, for the choice ($\beta_1=\pi/2$, $\delta'_{13}=0$) and ($\beta_1=0$, $\delta'_{13}=\pi/2$), the contrast between the positive and negative values of $n_B/n_\gamma$ is almost zero for a given set of values of $J_{CP}$. On the other hand, for the choice ($\beta_1=\pi/2$, $\delta'_{13}=\pi/2$) and ($\beta_1=0$, $\delta'_{13}=0$), the contrast between the positive and negative values of $n_B/n_\gamma$ is maximal and can be chosen for the present purpose.
CP violation in leptogenesis and neutrinoless double-beta decay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The observation of the neutrinoless double beta decay would provide direct evidence for the violation of total $L$-number in the low energy effective theory and hence probing the left-handed physical neutrinos to be Majorana type. Note that the $L$-number violation at high energy scale is a necessary criteria for leptogenesis. In the canonical seesaw models this is conspired by assuming that the RH neutrinos are Majorana in nature. However, this assumption doesn’t ensure that the left-handed physical neutrinos are Majorana type. Assuming that the physical neutrinos are of Majorana type we investigate the connecting links between the two $L$-number violating phenomena occurring at two different energy scales.
In the low energy effective theory with three generations of left-handed fermions, apart from the $J_{CP}$, one can write two more re-phasing invariants $J_1$ and $J_2$ which designates lepton number violation and CP violation [@Nieves:1987pp]. However, in the models with two RH neutrinos one of the eigen values of the physical light neutrino mass matrix is exactly zero. Therefore, the corresponding phase in the Majorana phase matrix can always be chosen so as to set one of the lepton number violating CP violating re-phasing invariant to zero. In the present case $m_3=0$ and hence the corresponding phase is arbitrary. This is ensured through $\beta_2$ which is redundant and pointed out in Eq. (\[emd\]). Therefore, from Eq. (\[rdfu\]) we can write the only $L$-number violating CP violating re-phasing invariant as: $$\begin{aligned}
J&=& Im \left[ V_{e1}V_{e2}^*(V_{ph})_{11}^* (V_{ph})_{22}\right]\nonumber\\
&=& -\frac{1}{2}\sin 2\Theta'_{12} \cos^2\Theta_{13} \sin(\rho_2-\rho_1+
{(\eta_2-\eta_1)\over 2}-\beta_1)\,.
\label{J_lep}\end{aligned}$$
Using Eq. (\[rkmult\]) the above Eq. (\[J\_lep\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
J &=&-\frac{\cos^2 \Theta_{13}}{2}\frac{1}
{\left[ (a^2+b^2)^2+c^4+2b^2c^2 \cos 2\theta+2c^2a^2 \cos 2\theta
\right]}\nonumber\\
&\times& \left[ \sin 2\Theta_{12} \cos \theta \{-c^2 \sin 2\theta \cos
\beta_1+(a^2+b^2+c^2 \cos 2\theta) \sin \beta_1 \}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. \times \sqrt{(a^2+b^2)^2+c^4+2c^2a^2+2b^2c^2 \cos 2\theta}\right.
\nonumber\\
&+& \left. \sin 2\Theta_{12} \sin \theta \{c^2 \sin 2\theta \sin \beta_1+
(a^2+b^2+c^2 \cos 2\theta) \cos \beta_1 \}\right.\nonumber\\
&& \left. \times \frac{(-a^4+b^4+c^4+2 b^2c^2 \cos 2\theta)}{\sqrt{(a^2+b^2)^2
+c^4+2 c^2a^2+2b^2c^2 \cos 2\theta}}\right.\nonumber\\
&+&\left. \cos 2\Theta_{12}\sin \theta \frac{2ab\{(a^2+b^2)^2+c^4+2b^2c^2
\cos 2\theta +2c^2a^2 \cos 2\theta \}}{\sqrt{(a^2+b^2)^2+c^4+2c^2a^2+
2b^2c^2 \cos 2\theta}} \right]\,.
\label{J-2-final}\end{aligned}$$ In the above Eq. (\[J-2-final\]) the allowed values of $\Theta_{12}$ is obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\cos \Theta'_{12} &=& \left[\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{\left(-a^{4}+b^{4}+
c^{4}+2b^{2}c^{2}\cos2\theta\right)\cos 2\Theta_{12}}{\sqrt{((a^2+b^2)^2+c^4+
2b^2c^2 \cos 2\theta)^2-4a^4c^4}}\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&-\left.\left.\sin2\Theta_{12} \frac{2ab\{ c^{2}\sin2\theta\sin\beta_{1}
+(a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2}\cos2\theta)\cos\beta_{1}\} }{\sqrt{((a^2+b^2)^2+c^4+
2b^2c^2 \cos 2\theta)^2-4a^4c^4}}\right] \right]^{1/2}\,,
\label{theta12_prime}\end{aligned}$$ by fixing $\Theta'_{12}=(33.9\pm 1.6)^\circ$. This is shown in fig. (\[theta12-theta\]).
From Eq. (\[J-2-final\]) one can see that $J \neq 0$ as $\theta
\rightarrow 0$ which is the condition for “no leptogenesis". Thus we see that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two $L$-number violating processes occurring at two different energy scales. However, it is always interesting to see the overlapping regions in the plane of $\frac{n_B}{n_\gamma}$ versus $J$ as $\theta$ varies from $0$ to $\pi$. This is shown in fig. (\[j2-asy\]) for a typical set of parameters. From fig. (\[j2-asy\]) one can see that for positive sign of the $B$-asymmetry the values of $J$ lie in between $-0.45$ to $-0.1$ for $(M_1/M_2)=0.1$. This range is further reduced to $(-0.4 - -0.15)$ for $(M_1/M_2)=0.01$. On the other hand, for the negative sign of the $B$-asymmetry the values of $J$ lie in the range $(0.05 - 0.45)$ for $(M_1/M_2)=0.1$ and in the range $(0.15 - 0.4)$ for $(M_1/M_2)=0.01$. Thus we see that within the allowed range of parameters the contrast between the positive and negative values of $\frac{n_B}{n_\gamma}$ is maximum for a given set of values of $J$. Therefore, we expect a knowledge of $J$ can precisely determine the sign of $B$-asymmetry since the value of $n_B/n_\gamma$ is known. Finally we note that, unlike $J_{CP}$, $J$ remains non-vanishing even if $\Theta_{13}=0$ [^2]. Now the remaining question to be addressed is how $n_B/n_\gamma$ varies with respect to $J$ for different values of $\beta_1$. This is shown in fig. (\[jvalues-asy\]) for a given set of parameters. One can see that for $\beta_1=0$ and $\beta_1=\pi$ both positive and negative values of $n_B/n_\gamma$ correspond to the same set of values of $J$ which is unwelcome for determination of sign of the asymmetry. On the other hand for $\beta_1\neq 0,\pi$ one can have maximal contrast between the positive and negative values of $n_B/n_\gamma$ for the given set of values of $J$ and hence can be chosen for the present purpose.
Conclusions
===========
We have studied the connecting links between the CP violating phase(s) giving rise to leptogenesis, occurring at a high energy scale, and the CP violating phases appearing in the low energy phenomena, i.e., neutrino oscillation and neutrinoless double beta decay processes. This is studied in the framework of two right-handed neutrino models. The low energy leptonic CP violation is studied in a re-phasing invariant formalism. It is shown that there are only two re-phasing invariants; (1) The lepton number conserving CP violating re-phasing invariant $J_{CP}$ which can be determined in the future long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, (2) The lepton number violating CP violating re-phasing invariant $J$ which can be determined in the neutrinoless double beta decay experiments. It is found that there is no one-to-one correspondence between these two CP violating phenomena, occurring at two different energy scales, even though the number of parameters involving in the seesaw is exactly same as the number of low energy observable parameters. However, in a suitable parameter space we have shown that the overlapping regions in the plane of $n_B/n_\gamma$ versus $J_{CP}$ and $n_B/n_\gamma$ versus $J$ can indeed determine the [*sign*]{} of the matter antimatter asymmetry of the present Universe assuming that the [*size*]{} of the asymmetry is precisely known.
Parameterization of $Y_{2RH}$ {#appA}
=============================
To parameterize the neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling in two right-handed neutrino models we follow the same procedure adopted in Ref. [@morozumietal]. Let ${\bf u_1}$, ${\bf u_2}$, ${\bf u_3}$ be three orthonormal 3 dimensional vectors. Using these basis vectors we can write the most general unitary matrix $U$ as: $$\begin{aligned}
U = ({\bf u_1}\,\,{\bf u_2}\,\,{\bf u_3})\,.
\label{udef1}\end{aligned}$$ Let us consider an arbitrary $3 \times 2$ matrix $Y$ which in terms of the 3-dimensional vectors ${\bf y_1}$ and ${\bf y_2}$ can be written as: $$\begin{aligned}
Y = ({\bf y_1}\,\,{\bf y_2})\,.
\label{ydef}\end{aligned}$$ Without loss of generality we choose ${\bf u_2}=\frac{{\bf y_1}}
{|{\bf y_1}|}$. As a result we get $$\begin{aligned}
U^\dagger Y =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0& & \alpha_{12}\\
|y_1| & & \alpha_{22}\\
0& & \alpha_{32}
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\label{udagy}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{ij}={\bf u_i}^\dagger \cdot {\bf y_j}$.
Let $V$ be another unitary matrix which we choose to be of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
V=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\frac{\alpha_{12}}{\sqrt{|\alpha_{12}|^2+|\alpha_{32}|^2}} & & 0 & &
\beta_{13}\\
0 & & 1 & & 0 \\
\frac{\alpha_{32}}{\sqrt{|\alpha_{12}|^2+|\alpha_{32}|^2}} & & 0 & &
\beta_{33}
\end{array}
\right)\,,
\label{vmat}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_{ij}$ must follow $\alpha_{12} \beta^*_{13}+\alpha_{32}
\beta^*_{33}=0$ and $|\beta_{13}|^2+|\beta_{33}|^2=1$. Consequently we have $$\begin{aligned}
V^\dagger U^\dagger Y =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0& & \sqrt{|\alpha_{12}|^2 + |\alpha_{32}|^2}\\
|y_1| & & \alpha_{22}\\
0 & & 0
\end{array}
\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we set $V_{32}=0$ by imposing the unitarity condition of $V$. This implies that we can always write any arbitrary $3\times 2$ matrix $$\begin{aligned}
Y = W Y_{2RH}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $W=VU$ is an unitary matrix and the texture of $Y_{2RH}$, the Yukawa coupling in the two right handed neutrino mass models, is given as $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{2RH}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & & x\\
z& & y e^{-i\theta}\\
0 & & 0
\end{array}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $x$, $y$, $z$ and $\theta$ are real numbers. Note that by appropriately choosing the $U$ and $V$ matrices one can construct the $Y_{2RH}$ matrix in twelve possible ways.
Possible textures of $Y_{2RH}$ and neutrino mixings {#appB}
===================================================
In this appendix we specify the various possible textures of $Y_{2RH}$. One of the particular texture of $Y_{2RH}$ has been used in section \[sec2\] for our work. In the table-I we write all the possible textures of $Y_{2RH}$.
[|c|c|c|]{}\
I & $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0\cr
z & y e^{-i\theta}\cr
0 & x \end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0\cr
0 & x\cr
z & ye^{-i\theta} \end{pmatrix}$ & $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0\cr
x & 0 \cr
y e^{-i\theta} & z\end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0\cr
y e^{-i\theta} & z\cr
x & 0 \end{pmatrix}$\
\
II & $\begin{pmatrix} z & y ^{-i\theta}\cr
0 & 0\cr
0 & x \end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & x\cr
0 & 0\cr
z & y e^{-i\theta}\end{pmatrix}$ & $\begin{pmatrix}y ^{-i\theta} & z\cr
0 & 0\cr
x & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} x & 0\cr
0 & 0\cr
y e^{-i\theta} & z \end{pmatrix}$\
\
III & $\begin{pmatrix} z & y e^{-i\theta}\cr
0 & x\cr
0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} $ $\begin{pmatrix} 0 & x\cr
z & y e^{-i\theta}\cr
0 & 0\end{pmatrix} $ &
$\begin{pmatrix} y e^{-i\theta} & z\cr
x & 0\cr
0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} x & 0\cr
y e^{-i\theta} & z\cr
0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$\
Each possible $Y_{2RH}$ in table-I will lead to various forms of $X$, apparent from Eq. (\[xdef\]). Accordingly the neutrino masses and mixing angles will be modified through the $m_D$ parameters.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
It is our pleasure to thank Prof. Anjan Joshipura for helpful discussions.
[99]{} Q.R. Ahmed [*et al*]{} (SNO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 011301-011302 (2002); J.N. Bahcall and C. Pena-Garay, \[arXiv:hep-ph/0404061\]. S. Fukuda [*et al*]{} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5656 (2001). K. Eguchi [*et al*]{} (KamLAND collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 021802 (2003). P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. [**B 67**]{}, 421 (1977); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky in [*Supergravity*]{} (P. van Niewenhuizen and D. Freedman, eds), (Amsterdam), North Holland, 1979; T. Yanagida in [*Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon number in the Universe*]{} (O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, eds), (Japan), KEK 1979; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{}, 912 (1980); J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. [**D 22**]{}, 2227 (1980).
M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B[**174**]{}, 45 (1986).
M.A. Luty, Phys. Rev. D[**45**]{}, 455 (1992); R.N. Mohapatra and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D[**46**]{}, 5331 (1992); A. Acker, H. Kikuchi, E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. [**D 48**]{}, 5006 (1993); M. Flanz, E.A. Paschos and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. [**B 345**]{}, 248 (1995); M. Flanz, E.A. Paschos, U. Sarkar and J. Weiss, Phys. Lett. [**B 389**]{}, 693 (1996); M. Plumacher, Z. phy. C74(1997)549; W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari and M. Plumacher, Annals Phys. [**315**]{}, 305 (2005),\[arXiv:hep-ph/0401240\]; J. Faridani, S. Lola, P.J. O’Donnell and U. Sarkar, Eur. Phys. Jour. [**C 7**]{}, 543 (1999); R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, A. Strumia and N. Tetradis, Nucl. Phys. B [**575**]{}, 61 (2000), \[arXiv:hep-ph/9911315\]; G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B [**685**]{}, 89 (2004), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0310123\]; N. Sahu and U. Sarkar, \[arXiv:hep-ph/0605007\]. D.N. Spergel [*et al*]{} Astrophys.J.Suppl. 148 (2003) 175 \[astro-ph/0302209\] A. S. Joshipura, E. A. Paschos and W. Rodejohann, JHEP [**0108**]{} (2001) 029 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0105175\]. S. Pascoli, S. T. Petcov and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 093007 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0302054\]. J. R. Ellis and M. Raidal, Nucl. Phys. B [**643**]{} (2002) 229 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0206174\]. G. C. Branco, T. Morozumi, B. M. Nobre and M. N. Rebelo, Nucl. Phys. B [**617**]{} (2001) 475 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0107164\]. N. Sahu and S. Uma Sankar, Nucl. Phys. B [**724**]{} (2005) 329 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0501069\]. M. C. Chen and K. T. Mahanthappa, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 035001 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0411158\]. M. N. Rebelo, Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 013008 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0207236\]. T. Endoh, S. Kaneko, S. K. Kang, T. Morozumi and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 231601 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0209020\]. P. H. Frampton, S. L. Glashow and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B [**548**]{} (2002) 119 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0208157\]. M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 322 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9605413\]; H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 4403 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9705208\]; S. M. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 033001 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9712537\]; J. Arafune, M. Koike and J. Sato, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 3093 (1997)’ \[Erratum-ibid. D [**60**]{}, 119905 (1999)\] \[arXiv:hep-ph/9703351\]; S. Pascoli, S. T. Petcov and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B [**549**]{}, 177 (2002), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0209059\]; S. M. Bilenky, S. Pascoli and S. T. Petcov, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 053010 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0102265\]. Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**28**]{}, 870 (1962). B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP [**7**]{}, 172 (1958) \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**34**]{}, 247 (1957)\]. B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP [**6**]{}, 429 (1957) \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**33**]{}, 549 (1957)\]. particle Physics Data Group, S. Eidelman [*et al.*]{},Phys. Lett. B [**592**]{}, 1 (2004).
A. Broncano, M. B. Gavela and E. Jenkins, Phys. Lett. B [**552**]{}, 177 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0210271\]. A. Ibarra and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. B [**591**]{} (2004) 285 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0312138\]. A. Ibarra, JHEP [**0601**]{}, 064 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0511136\]. G. C. Branco, M. N. Rebelo and J. I. Silva-Marcos, Phys. Lett. B [**633**]{}, 345 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0510412\]. See for recent review: R.N. Mohapatra and A. Smirnov, \[arXiv: hep-ph/0603118\].
See for recent results: G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Palazzo, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 57 (2006) 742-795.
A.D. Sakharov, JETP Lett. [**5**]{}, 24 (1967).
C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 1039 (1985). J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D [**36**]{}, 315 (1987); Y. Liu and U. Sarkar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**16**]{}, 603 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9906307\]; P. J. O’Donnell and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 1720 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9305338\]. T. Morozumi, T. Satou, M. N. Rebelo and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B [**410**]{} (1997) 233, \[arXiv:hep-ph/9703249\]; T. Fijihara, S. Kaneko, S. Kang, D. Kimura, T. Morozumi and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 016006 (2005), \[arXiv:hep-ph/0505076\].
[^1]: This parameterization is usually used for determining the leptonic mixing matrix in the PDG parameterization. Here we have used it for parameterizing $m_D$.
[^2]: In three generations there are two of them. See for example the paper by Y. Liu and U. Sarkar in ref. [@Nieves:1987pp]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The stochastic gravitational-wave background is a superposition of sources that are either too weak or too numerous to detect individually. In this study we present the results from a cross-correlation analysis on data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run (O2), which we combine with the results of the first observing run (O1). We do not find evidence for a stochastic background, so we place upper limits on the normalized energy density in gravitational waves at the 95% credible level of $\OGW<\RunOneTwoUniformPriorAlphaZeroLimit$ for a frequency-independent (flat) background and $\OGW< \RunOneTwoUniformPriorAlphaTwoThirdsLimit$ at for a background of compact binary coalescences. The upper limit improves over the O1 result by a factor of . Additionally, we place upper limits on the energy density in an isotropic background of scalar- and vector-polarized gravitational waves, and we discuss the implication of these results for models of compact binaries and cosmic string backgrounds. Finally, we present a conservative estimate of the correlated broadband noise due to the magnetic Schumann resonances in O2, based on magnetometer measurements at both the LIGO Hanford and LIGO Livingston observatories. We find that correlated noise is well below the O2 sensitivity.'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run'
---
*Introduction*— A superposition of gravitational waves from many astrophysical and cosmological sources creates a stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB). Sources which may contribute to the include compact binary coalescences [@2013MNRAS.431..882Z; @PhysRevD.84.124037; @PhysRevD.85.104024; @PhysRevD.84.084004; @2011ApJ...739...86Z; @rosado_stoch; @MarassiEA_2011; @ZhuEA_2013], core collapse supernovae [@Buonanno:2004tp; @Sandick:2006sm; @2009MNRAS.398..293M; @2010MNRAS.409L.132Z; @PhysRevD.72.084001; @PhysRevD.73.104024], neutron stars [@Ferrari:1998jf; @Regimbau:2001kx; @PhysRevD.87.063004; @2012PhRvD..86j4007R; @2011ApJ...729...59Z; @Rosado:2012bk; @2011MNRAS.411.2549M; @2011MNRAS.410.2123H; @WuEA_2013; @2004MNRAS.351.1237H], stellar core collapse [@2015PhRvD..92f3005C; @2017PhRvD..95f3015C], cosmic strings [@2005PhRvD..71f3510D; @1976JPhA....9.1387K; @2002PhLB..536..185S; @2007PhRvL..98k1101S; @O1_cosmic_strings], primordial black holes [@MandicEA_2016; @SasakiEA_2016; @Wang:2016ana], superradiance of axion clouds around black holes [@Brito:2017wnc; @Brito:2017zvb; @Fan:2017cfw; @Tsukada:2018mbp], and gravitational waves produced during inflation [@1994PhRvD..50.1157B; @1979JETPL..30..682S; @2007PhRvL..99v1301E; @2012PhRvD..85b3525B; @2012PhRvD..85b3534C; @Lopez:2013mqa; @1997PhRvD..55..435T; @2006JCAP...04..010E; @axion_inflation]. A particularly promising source is the from compact binary coalescences, especially in light of the detections of one binary neutron star and ten binary black hole mergers [@gw170814; @gw170608; @gw170104; @gw151226; @gw150914; @o1rates; @gw170817; @gwtc-1] by the Advanced LIGO Detector, installed in the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) [@aLIGO_2015], and by Advanced Virgo [@aVirgo_2015] so far. Measurements of the rate of binary black hole and binary neutron star mergers imply that the may be large enough to detect with the Advanced LIGO-Virgo detector network [@gw150914_stoch; @gw170817_stoch]. The stochastic background is expected to be dominated by compact binaries at redshifts inaccessible to direct searches for gravitational-wave events [@CallisterEA_2016]. Additionally, a detection of the would enable a model-independent test of general relativity by discerning the polarization of gravitational waves [@TestingGR_stoch; @stoch_nongr_O1]. Because general relativity predicts only two tensor polarizations for gravitational waves, any detection of alternative polarizations would imply a modification to our current understanding of gravity [@Eardley:1973br; @Eardley:1974nw; @Will:2014kxa]. For recent reviews on relevant data analysis methods, see [@RomanoCornish; @Christensen_2018]. In this manuscript, we present a search for an isotropic stochastic background using data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run (O2). As in previous LIGO and Virgo analyses, this search is based on cross-correlating the strain data between pairs of gravitational-wave detectors [@stoch_O1; @S5StochIso]. We first review the stochastic search methodology, then describe the data and data quality cuts. As we do not find evidence for the , we place upper limits on the possible amplitude of an isotropic , as well as limits on the presence of alternative gravitational-wave polarizations. Upper limits on anisotropic stochastic backgrounds are given in a publication that is a companion to this one [@PhysRevD.100.062001]. We then give updated forecasts of the sensitivities of future stochastic searches and discuss the implications of our current results for the detection of the stochastic background from compact binaries and cosmic strings. Finally, we present estimates of the correlated noise in the LIGO detectors due to magnetic Schumann resonances [@Schumann_theory], and discuss mitigation strategies that are being pursued for future observing runs.
*Method*— The isotropic can be described in terms of the energy density per logarithmic frequency interval $$\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) = \frac{f}{\rho_c} \frac{{\rm d} \rho_{\rm GW}}{{\rm d} f},$$ where ${\rm d}\rho_{\rm GW}$ is the energy density in gravitational waves in the frequency interval from $f$ to $f+{\rm d}f$, and $\rho_c = 3H_0^2 c^2/(8\pi G)$ is the critical energy density required for a spatially flat universe. Throughout this work we will use the value of the Hubble constant measured by the *Planck* satellite, $H_0 = \HubbleConstant$ [@Planck_2015].
We use the optimal search for a stationary, Gaussian, unpolarized, and isotropic , which is the cross-correlation search [@christensen92; @Allen_Romano_1999; @RomanoCornish; @Christensen_2018] (however, see [^1]). For two detectors, we define a cross-correlation statistic $\hat{C}(f)$ in every frequency bin $$\label{eq:def_cross_corr}
\hat C(f) = \frac{2}{T} \frac{{\rm Re}[\tilde{s}_1^\star(f) \tilde{s}_2(f)]}{\gamma_T(f) S_0(f)},$$ where $\tilde{s}_i(f)$ is the Fourier transform of the strain time series in detector $i=\{1,2\}$, $T$ is the segment duration used to compute the Fourier transform, and $S_{0}(f)$ is the spectral shape for an $\OGW={\rm const}$ background given by $$S_0(f) = \frac{3 H_0^2}{10\pi^2f^3}.$$ The quantity $\gamma_T(f)$ is the normalized overlap reduction function for tensor (T) polarizations [@christensen92], which encodes the geometry of the detectors and acts as a transfer function between strain cross-power and $\OGW(f)$. Equation has been normalized so that the expectation value of $\hat C(f)$ is equal to the energy density in each frequency bin $$\langle \hat C(f) \rangle =\OGW(f).$$ In the limit where the gravitational-wave strain amplitude is small compared to instrumental noise, the variance of $\hat C(f)$ is approximately given by $$\label{eq:def_sigma}
\sigma^2(f) \approx \frac{1}{2T \Delta f} \frac{P_1(f) P_2(f)}{\gamma_T^2(f) S_0^2(f)},$$ where $P_{1,2}(f)$ are the one-sided noise power spectral densities of the two detectors and $\Delta f$ is the frequency resolution, which we take to be $1/32$ Hz.
An optimal estimator can be constructed for a model of any spectral shape by taking a weighted combination of the cross-correlation statistics across different frequency bins $f_k$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \Omega_{\rm ref} &=& \frac{\sum_k w(f_k)^{-1} \hat C(f_k)\sigma^{-2}(f_k)}{\sum_k w(f_k)^{-2}\sigma^{-2}(f_k)}, \nonumber \\
\sigma_\Omega^{-2} &=& \sum_k w(f_k)^{-2} \sigma^{-2}(f_k),\end{aligned}$$ where the optimal weights for spectral shape $\OGW(f)$ are given by $$w(f) = \frac{\OGW(f_{\rm ref})}{\OGW(f)}.
\label{eq:optimal-w}$$ The broadband estimators are normalized so that $\langle \hat \Omega_{\rm ref}\rangle =\OGW(f_{\rm ref})$. By appropriate choices of the weights $w(f)$, one may construct an optimal search for with arbitrary spectral shapes, or for with scalar and vector polarizations.
Many models of the can be approximated as a power laws [@Allen_Romano_1999; @StochPE], $$\Omega_{\rm GW}(f) = \Omega_{\rm ref} \left(\frac{f}{f_{\rm ref}}\right)^\alpha,$$ with a spectral index $\alpha$ and an amplitude $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}$ at a reference frequency $f_\mathrm{ref}$. As in the search in Advanced LIGO’s first observing run (O1) [@stoch_O1], we will take $f_{\rm ref}=\fref$, which is a convenient choice in the most sensitive part of the frequency band. While we will seek to generically constrain both $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}$ and $\alpha$ from the data, we will also investigate several specific spectral indices predicted for different gravitational-wave sources. In the frequency band probed by Advanced LIGO, the from compact binaries is well approximated by a power law with $\alpha= 2/3$ [@Regimbau_2011]. Slow roll inflation and cosmic string models can be described with $\alpha = 0$ [@stoch_cosmo_review_2018]. Finally, following previous analyses [@stoch_O1], we use $\alpha=3$ as an approximate value to stand in for a variety of astrophysical models with positive slopes, such as unresolved supernovae [@2009MNRAS.398..293M; @2010MNRAS.409L.132Z; @PhysRevD.72.084001; @PhysRevD.73.104024].
*Data*— We analyze data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run, which took place from 16:00:00 UTC on 30 November, 2016 to 22:00:00 UTC on 25 August, 2017. We cross correlate the strain data measured by the two Advanced LIGO detectors, located in Hanford, WA and Livingston, LA in the United States [@aLIGO_2015]. Linearly coupled noise has been removed from the strain time series at Hanford and Livingston using Wiener filtering [@Noise_sub_O2; @Wiener_O2], see also [@Noise_sub_1; @Noise_sub_2; @Noise_sub_3]. By comparing coherence spectra and narrowband estimators formed with and without Wiener filtering, we additionally verified that this noise subtraction scheme does not introduce correlated artifacts into the Hanford and Livingston data.
Virgo does not have a significant impact on the sensitivity of the stochastic search in O2, because of the larger detector noise, the fact that less than one month of coincident integration time is available, and because the overlap reduction function is smaller for the Hanford-Virgo and Livingston-Virgo pairs than for Hanford-Livingston. Therefore we do not include Virgo data in the O2 analysis.
The raw strain data are recorded at 16,384 Hz. We first downsample the strain time series to 4096 Hz, and apply a 16th-order high-pass Butterworth filter with knee frequency of 11 Hz to avoid spectral leakage from the noise power spectrum below 20 Hz. Next we apply a Fourier transform to segments with a duration of 192 s, using 50% overlapping Hann windows, then we coarse-grain six frequency bins to obtain a frequency resolution of 1/32 Hz. As in [@stoch_O1], we observe in the band 20-1726 Hz. The maximum frequency of 1726 Hz is chosen to avoid aliasing effects after downsampling the data.
Next, we apply a series of data quality cuts that remove non-Gaussian features of the data. We remove times when the detectors are known to be unsuitable for science results [^2] and times associated with known gravitational-wave events [@gwtc-1]. We also remove times where the noise is non-stationary, following the procedure described in the supplement of [@S5StochIso] (see also [@stoch_O1]). These cuts remove % of the coincident time which is in principle suitable for data analysis, leading to a coincident livetime of .
In the frequency domain, we remove narrowband coherent lines that are determined to have instrumental or environmental causes, using the methods described in [@CWStochDetchar]. These cuts remove % of the total observing band, but only % of the band below 300 Hz, where the isotropic search is most sensitive. The narrow frequency binning of 1/32 Hz was needed to cut out a comb of coherent lines found at integer frequencies. A list of notch filters corresponding to lines which were removed from the analysis is also available on the public data release page [@o2_iso_data_behind_figures].
![The cross-correlation spectrum $\hat C(f)$ measured between Advanced LIGO’s Hanford and Livingston detectors during its second observing run. The estimator is normalized so that $\langle \hat C(f) \rangle = \Omega_{\rm GW}(f)$ for tensor-polarized gravitational waves. The black traces mark the $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainties on the measured cross-correlations. Coherent lines that were identified to have an instrumental cause have been removed from the spectrum. The loss in sensitivity visible at approximately 64 Hz is due to a zero in the tensor overlap reduction function $\gamma_T(f)$. []{data-label="fig:Y_sig"}](Fig1.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
*O2 Results*— In Figure \[fig:Y\_sig\], we plot the observed cross-correlation spectrum $\hat C(f)$ and uncertainty $\sigma(f)$ obtained from Advanced LIGO’s O2 run. We only plot the spectrum up to 100 Hz to focus on the most sensitive part of the frequency band. These data are also publicly available on the webpage [@o2_iso_data_behind_figures], and can be used to search for of any spectral shape.
We perform several tests that the cross-correlation spectrum is consistent with uncorrelated Gaussian noise. The $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom for the observed spectrum is 0.94. The loudest individual frequency bin is 51.53 Hz, with a signal-to-noise ratio $C(f)/\sigma(f)$ of 4.2. With a total of 46,227 (un-notched) frequency bins, there is a 71% probability that random Gaussian noise would yield an equally loud bin.
In Table \[tab:ul\], we list the broadband point estimates and 1$\sigma$ uncertainties obtained from the O2 data when assuming power laws with $\alpha=0$, $2/3$, and $3$. Given the uncertainties, uncorrelated Gaussian noise would produce point estimates at least this large with probability 30%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. We conclude there is not sufficient evidence to claim detection of the .
*Upper limits on isotropic stochastic background*— Since we do not find evidence for the , we place upper limits on the amplitude $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}$. We use the parameter estimation framework described in [@StochPE; @TestingGR_stoch; @stoch_nongr_O1], applied to the cross-correlation spectrum obtained by combining the results from O1 given in [@stoch_O1], with those from O2 which are described above (please see the Supplementary Material for more details). We present results assuming two priors, one which is uniform in $\Omega_{\rm ref}$ and one which is uniform in $\log{\Omega_{\rm ref}}$. We additionally marginalize over detector calibration uncertainties [@StochCalUncertainty]. In O2 we assume and amplitude uncertainties in Hanford and Livingston, respectively [@Cahillane:2017vkb; @Viets:2017yvy]. In O1, the calibration uncertainty for Hanford was 4.8% and for Livingston was 5.4% [@Cahillane:2017vkb]. Phase calibration uncertainty is negligible.
Figure \[fig:ULs\] shows the resulting posterior distribution in the $\Omega_{\rm ref}$ vs $\alpha$ plane, along with $68\%$ and $95\%$ credibility contours. Table \[tab:ul2\] lists the marginalized 95% credible upper limit on $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}$ (for both choices of amplitude prior), as well as the amplitude limits obtained when fixing $\alpha=0$, $2/3$, and $3$.
When adopting a uniform amplitude prior and fixing $\alpha=0$, we obtain an upper limit of $\Omega_{\rm ref}<\RunOneTwoUniformPriorAlphaZeroLimit$, improving the previous O1 result by a factor of . The $1\sigma$ error bar is $\IsoAlphaZeroSigma \times 10^{-8}$, a factor of 2.7 times smaller than the equivalent O1 uncertainty. This factor can be compared with the factor of that would be expected based on increased observation time alone, indicating that the search has benefited from improvements in detector noise between O1 and O2. For the compact binary model of $\alpha=2/3$, we place a limit of $\Omega_{\rm ref}<\RunOneTwoUniformPriorAlphaTwoThirdsLimit$, and for $\alpha=3$, $\Omega_{\rm ref} < \RunOneTwoUniformPriorAlphaThreeLimit$. Finally, when we marginalize over the power law index $\alpha$, we obtain the upper limit $\Omega_{\rm ref}<\ngrRunOneTwoPolTUniformPriorLimitT$. The prior for $\alpha$ is described in the Supplementary Material.
$\alpha$ $\hat{\Omega}_{\rm ref}$ (O2) $\hat{\Omega}_{\rm ref}$ (O1) O2 Sensitive band
---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------
0 $(\IsoAlphaZeroPtEst \pm \IsoAlphaZeroSigma) \times 10^{-8}$ $(\PrevIsoAlphaZeroPtEst \pm \PrevIsoAlphaZeroSigma) \times 10^{-8}$
2/3 $(\IsoAlphaCBCPtEst \pm \IsoAlphaCBCSigma) \times 10^{-8}$ $(\PrevIsoAlphaCBCPtEst \pm \PrevIsoAlphaCBCSigma) \times 10^{-8}$
3 $(\IsoAlphaThreePtEst \pm \IsoAlphaThreeSigma) \times 10^{-9}$ $(\PrevIsoAlphaThreePtEst \pm \PrevIsoAlphaThreeSigma) \times 10^{-9}$
: Point estimates and $1\sigma$ uncertainties for $\Omega_{\rm ref}$ in O2, for different power law models, alongside the same quantities measured in O1 [@stoch_O1]. We also show the minimum contiguous frequency band containing 99% of the sensitivity. For each power law, the maximum of the frequency band is within 5% of the value found in O1. The value of the Hubble constant used in this paper is different than what was used in the O1 analysis [@stoch_O1] ($68 \,\text{km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$}$), which has led to some differences in the numerical values of the point estimates and error bars that we report for O1.[]{data-label="tab:ul"}
---------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------
$\alpha$ O1+O2 O1 O1+O2 O1
0 $\RunOneTwoUniformPriorAlphaZeroLimit$ $\IsoAlphaZeroPrevUL$ $\RunOneTwoLogUniformPriorAlphaZeroLimit$ $\RunOneLogUniformPriorAlphaZeroLimit$
2/3 $\RunOneTwoUniformPriorAlphaTwoThirdsLimit$ $\IsoAlphaCBCPrevUL$ $\RunOneTwoLogUniformPriorAlphaTwoThirdsLimit$ $\RunOneLogUniformPriorAlphaTwoThirdsLimit$
3 $\RunOneTwoUniformPriorAlphaThreeLimit$ $\IsoAlphaThreePrevUL$ $\RunOneTwoLogUniformPriorAlphaThreeLimit$ $\RunOneLogUniformPriorAlphaThreeLimit$
Marg. $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOnePolTUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTLogUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOnePolTLogUniformPriorLimitT$
---------- --------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------
![Posterior distribution for the amplitude $\Omega_{\rm ref}$ and slope $\alpha$ of the , using a prior which is uniform in the logarithm of $\Omega_{\rm ref}$, along with contours with 68% and 95% confidence level, using combined O1 and O2 data. There is a small region of increased posterior probability centered around $\log \Omega_{\rm ref}=-8$ and $\alpha=2$. This is not statistically significant, and similar-size bumps have appeared in simulations of Gaussian noise. An analogous plot with a prior uniform in $\Omega_{\rm ref}$ can be found in the Supplementary Material.[]{data-label="fig:ULs"}](Fig2.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
Polarization Uniform prior Log-uniform prior
-------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Tensor $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorLimitT$
Vector $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorLimitV$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorLimitV$
Scalar $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorLimitS$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorLimitS$
: Upper limits on different polarizations. To obtain the upper limits, we assume a log uniform and a uniform prior on the amplitude $\Omega_{\rm ref}$ for each polarization, using combined O1 and O2 data. We assume the presence of a tensor, vector, and scalar backgrounds, then marginalize over the spectral indices and two amplitudes for the three different polarization modes, as described in the main text.[]{data-label="tab:nongrUL"}
*Implications for compact binary background*— In Figure \[fig:cbc\] we show the prediction of the astrophysical from binary black holes (BBH) and binary neutron stars (BNS), along with its statistical uncertainty due to Poisson uncertainties in the local binary merger rate. We plot the upper limit allowed from adding the background from neutron star-black hole (NSBH) binaries as a dotted line. We use the same binary formation and evolution scenario to compute the from BBH and BNS as in [@gw170817_stoch], but we have updated the mass distributions and rates to be consistent with the most recent results given in [@gwtc-1; @RatesAndPop_O2]. For NSBHs, we use the same evolution with redshift as BNSs. As in [@gw170817], for BBH we include inspiral, merger and ringdown contributions computed in [@AjithEA_2008], while for NSBH and BNS we use only the inspiral part of the waveform. For the BBH mass distribution, we assume a power law in the primary mass $p(m_1)\propto m_1^{-2.3}$ with the secondary mass drawn from a uniform distribution, subject to the constraints $5 M_\odot \leq m_2 \leq m_1 \leq 50 M_\odot$. In Ref. [@gwtc-1], rate estimates were computed by two pipelines, PyCBC [@pycbc-1] and GstLAL [@gstlal-1]. We use the merger rate measured by GstLAL, $R_{\rm local}=56^{+44}_{-27}{\rm Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ [@gwtc-1], because it gives a more conservative (smaller) rate estimate. Using the methods described in [@gw170817_stoch], the inferred amplitude of the is $\Omega_{\rm BBH}(25\ {\rm Hz})=5.3^{+4.2}_{-2.5}\times 10^{-10}$.
For the BNS mass distribution, following the analysis in [@gwtc-1], we take each component mass to be drawn from a Gaussian distribution with a mean of $1.33 M_\odot$ and a standard deviation of $0.09 M_\odot$. We use the GstLAL rate of $R_{\rm local}=920^{+2220}_{-790}{\rm Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}}$ [@gwtc-1]. From these inputs, we predict $\Omega_{\rm BNS}(25\ \rm Hz)=3.6^{+8.4}_{-3.1}\times 10^{-10}$. Combining the BBH and BNS results yields a prediction for the total SGWB of $\Omega_{\rm BBH+BNS}(25\ \rm Hz)=8.9^{+12.6}_{-5.6}\times 10^{-10}$. This value is about a factor of 2 smaller the one in [@gw170817_stoch], due in part to the decrease in the rate measured after analyzing O1 and O2 data with the best available sensitivity and data analysis techniques.
For NSBH we assume a delta function mass distribution, where the neutron star has a mass of 1.4 $M_\odot$ and the black hole has a mass of 10 $M_\odot$, and we take the upper limit on the rate from GstLAL [@gwtc-1]. The upper limit from NSBH is $\Omega_{\rm NSBH}(25\ {\rm Hz})=9.1\times 10^{-10}$. We show the sum of the upper limit of $\Omega_{\rm NSBH}(f)$, with the 90% upper limit on $\Omega_{\rm BBH+BNS}(f)$, as a dotted line in Figure \[fig:cbc\].
We also show the power-law-integrated curves (PI curves) [@locus] of the O1 and O2 isotropic background searches. A power-law that is tangent to a PI curve is detectable with ${\rm SNR} = 2$ by the given search. We additionally show a projected PI curve based on operating Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo at design sensitivity for 2 years, with 50% network duty cycle. By design sensitivity, we refer to a noise curve which is determined by fundamental noise sources. We use the Advanced LIGO design sensitivity projection given in [@new_design], which incorporates improved measurements of coating thermal noise relative to the one assumed in [@gw150914_stoch]. This updated curve introduces additional broadband noise at low frequencies relative to previous estimates. As a result, the updated design-sensitivity PI curve is less sensitive than the one shown in [@gw150914_stoch].
![Sensitivity curves for O1, combined O1+O2, and design sensitivity. A power law which lies tangent to one of these curves is detectable with 2$\sigma$ significance. We have used the Advanced LIGO design sensitivity given in [@new_design], which incorporates improved measurements of coating thermal noise. Design sensitivity assumes that the LIGO noise curve is determined by fundamental noise sources only. The purple line is the median total , combining BBH and BNS, using the model described in [@gw170817_stoch] with updated mass distributions and rates from [@gwtc-1; @RatesAndPop_O2], and the gray box is the Poisson error region. The dotted gray line is the sum of the upper limit for the BBH+BNS backgrounds with the upper limit on the NSBH background.[]{data-label="fig:cbc"}](OGW_CBC.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
*Implications for cosmic string models* — Cosmic strings [@Kibble:1976sj; @Vilenkin:2000jqa] are linear topological defects which are expected to be generically produced within the context of Grand Unified Theories [@Jeannerot:2003qv]. The dynamics of a cosmic string network is driven by the formation of loops and the emission of gravitational waves [@Vachaspati:1984gt; @Sakellariadou:1990ne]. One may therefore use the in order to constrain the parameters of a cosmic string network.
We will focus on Nambu-Goto strings [@NG_Nambu; @NG_Goto], for which the string thickness is zero and the intercommutation probability equals unity. Gravitational waves will allow us to constrain the string tension $G\mu/c^2$, where $\mu$ denotes the mass per unit length. This dimensionless parameter is the single quantity that characterizes a Nambu-Goto string network.
We will consider two analytic models of cosmic string loop distributions [@Blanco-Pillado:2013qja; @Lorenz:2010sm]. The former [@Blanco-Pillado:2013qja] gives the distribution of string loops of given size at fixed time, under the assumption that the momentum dependence of the loop production function is weak. The latter [@Lorenz:2010sm] is based on a different numerical simulation [@Ringeval:2005kr], and gives the distribution of non-self intersecting loops at a given time [^3].
The corresponding limits found by combining O1 and O2 data are $G\mu/c^2\leq 1.1 \times 10^{-6}$ for the model of [@Blanco-Pillado:2013qja] and $G\mu/c^2\leq 2.1 \times 10^{-14}$ for the model of [@Lorenz:2010sm]. The Advanced LIGO constraints are stronger for the model of [@Lorenz:2010sm] because the predicted spectrum is larger at 100 Hz for that model. This can be compared with the pulsar timing limits, $G\mu/c^2 \leq 1.6 \times 10^{-11}$ and $G\mu/c^2 \leq 6.2 \times 10^{-12}$, respectively [@Lasky:2015lej].
*Test of General Relativity*— Alternative theories of gravity generically predict the presence of vector or scalar gravitational-wave polarizations in addition to the standard tensor polarizations allowed in general relativity. Detection of the would allow for direct measurement of its polarization content, enabling new tests of general relativity [@TestingGR_stoch; @stoch_nongr_O1].
When allowing for the presence of alternative gravitational-wave polarizations, the expectation value of the cross-correlation statistic becomes $$\langle \hat C(f) \rangle = \sum_{A} \beta_{A}(f) \Omega_{\rm GW}^A(f) = \sum_A \beta_A(f) \Omega_{\rm ref}^A \left(\frac{f}{f_{\rm ref}}\right)^{\alpha_A},
\label{eq:nongrY}$$ where $\beta_A = \gamma_A(f)/\gamma_T(f)$, and $A$ labels the polarization, $A=\{T,V,S\}$. The functions $\gamma_T(f)$, $\gamma_V(f)$, and $\gamma_S(f)$ are the overlap reduction functions for tensor, vector, and scalar polarizations [@TestingGR_stoch]. Because these overlap reduction functions are distinct, the spectral shape of $\hat C(f)$ enables us to infer the polarization content of the . While we use the notation $\Omega^A_{\rm GW}(f)$ in analogy with the general relativity (GR) case, in a general modification of gravity, the quantities $\Omega^T_\mathrm{GW}(f)$, $\Omega^V_\mathrm{GW}(f)$, and $\Omega^S_\mathrm{GW}(f)$ are best understood as a measurement of the two-point correlation statistics of different components of the rather than energy densities [@Isi_Stein_NonGR_Energy].
Following Refs. [@TestingGR_stoch; @stoch_nongr_O1], we compute two Bayesian odds: odds $\mathcal{O}^\textsc{s}_\textsc{n}$ for the presence of a stochastic signal of any polarization(s) versus Gaussian noise, and odds $\mathcal{O}^\textsc{ngr}_\textsc{gr}$ between a hypothesis allowing for vector and scalar modes and a hypothesis restricting to standard tensor polarizations. Using the combined O1 and O2 measurements, we find $\log\mathcal{O}^\textsc{s}_\textsc{n} = \SNRLOGBFlogUniform$ and $\log\mathcal{O}^\textsc{ngr}_\textsc{gr} = \NGRGRLOGBFlogUniform$, consistent with Gaussian noise. Given the non-detection of any generic stochastic background, we use Eq. to place improved upper limits on the tensor, vector, and scalar background amplitudes, after marginalizing over all three spectral indices, using the priors described in the Supplementary Material. These limits are shown in Table \[tab:nongrUL\], again for both choices of amplitude prior.
*Estimate of correlated magnetic noise*— Coherent noise between gravitational-wave interferometers may be introduced by terrestrial sources such as Schumann resonances, which are global electromagnetic modes of the cavity formed by the Earth’s surface and ionosphere [@Schumann_theory]. These fields have very long coherence lengths [@Schumann_4] and can magnetically couple to the gravitational-wave channel and lead to broadband noise that is coherent between different gravitational-wave detectors. As the detectors become more sensitive, eventually this source of correlated noise may become visible to the cross-correlation search, and, if not treated carefully, will bias the analysis by appearing as an apparent . Unlike the lines and combs discussed in [@CWStochDetchar], we cannot simply remove affected frequency bins from the analysis because Schumann noise is broadband.
Here, we estimate the level of correlated electromagnetic noise (from Schumann resonances or other sources) in O2 following [@Schumann_1; @Schumann_2; @stoch_O1]. We first measure the cross-power spectral density $M_{12}(f)$ between two Bartington Model MAG-03MC magnetometers [@bartington] installed at Hanford and Livingston. We then estimate the transfer function $T_{i}(f)$ ($i=\{1,2\}$) between the magnetometer channel and the gravitational-wave channel at each site, as described in [@mag_TF_measurements]. Finally, we combine these results to produce an estimate for the amount of correlated magnetic noise, which we express in terms of an effective gravitational-wave energy density $\Omega_{\rm mag}(f)$ $$\Omega_{\rm mag}(f) = \frac{ |T_1(f)| |T_2(f)| {\rm Re}[M_{12}(f)]}{\gamma_T(f) S_0(f)} .$$ We show $\Omega_{\rm mag}(f)$ in Fig. \[fig:schumann\], alongside the measured O1+O2 PI curve and the projected design-sensitivity PI curve. The trend for the magnetic noise lies significantly below the O1+O2 PI curve, indicating that correlated magnetic noise is more than an order of magnitude below the sensitivity curve in O2, although it may be an issue for future runs. Experimental improvements can mitigate this risk by further reducing the coupling of correlated noise. From O1 to O2, for instance, the magnetic coupling was reduced by approximately an order of magnitude, as indicated by the dotted and dot-dashed curves in Fig. \[fig:schumann\]. Additionally, work is ongoing to develop Wiener filtering to subtract Schumann noise [@Schumann_2; @Schumann_3; @Schumann_4], and to develop a parameter estimation framework to measure or place upper limits on the level of magnetic contamination [@meyers_thesis]. This work will take advantage of low noise LEMI-120 magnetometers [@lemi] that were recently installed at both LIGO sites, as described in the Supplementary Material.
![Conservative estimate of correlated magnetic noise. We assume a conservative transfer function (TF) based on measurements as described in the text. The first Schumann resonance at 8 Hz is visible, higher harmonics are below the noise floor. There is a zero of the overlap function at 64 Hz which leads to an apparent feature in $\Omega_{\rm mag}$. Power line harmonics have been removed, as in the cross-correlation analysis. The two trend lines show power law fits to the magnetometer spectra, scaled by the O1 (purple dotted) and end-of-O2 (blue dot-dashed) transfer functions. This demonstrates the effect of reducing the magnetic coupling in O2. The trend for the noise budget lies well below the solid black O2 PI curve, which indicates that correlated magnetic noise is negligible in O2. However magnetic contamination may be an issue in future observing runs.[]{data-label="fig:schumann"}](Noise_Budget_full.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
*Conclusions*— We have presented the results of a cross-correlation search for the isotropic stochastic background using data from Advanced LIGO’s first and second observing runs. While we did not find evidence for the , we obtain the most sensitive upper limits to date in the $\sim$20-100 Hz frequency band. We have also placed improved upper limits on the existence of a from vector and scalar-polarized gravitational waves.
While the upper limits on the SGWB presented in this work are the strongest direct limits in the frequency band of current ground-based gravitational-wave detectors, other observations place stronger constraints in other frequency bands. The NANOGrav collaboration has reported the 95% upper limit of $\Omega_{\rm GW} < 7.4\times 10^{-10}$ at a frequency of $1\ {\rm yr}^{-1}$ after marginalizing over uncertainty in the solar system ephemeris [@Arzoumanian:2018saf]. Combining data from the *Planck* satellite and the BICEP2/Keck array constrain the tensor-to-scalar ratio from the CMB to be $r<0.064$ at 95% confidence at comoving scales of $k=0.002\ {\rm Mpc^{-1}}$, corresponding to a gravitational wave frequency of $f_{0.002}=(2\pi)^{-1} ck=3.1\times 10^{-18} {\rm Hz}$ [@Akrami:2018odb], assuming the single field slow roll consistency condition. Using Equation 4 of [@Lasky:2015lej], this can be converted into the constraint $\Omega_{\rm GW}(f)\leq 3.2 \times 10^{-16} \times (f/f_{\rm 0.05})^{-r/8}\left[16/9+f_{\rm eq}^{2}/(2f^2)\right]$, where $f_{\rm eq}$ is the frequency of a gravitational wave of which the wavelength was the size of the Universe at matter-radiation equality, and $f_{\rm 0.05}$ is the pivot scale. Combining constraints at different frequency ranges can probe models which span many orders of magnitude in frequency [@Lasky:2015lej; @Akrami:2018odb].
While we have targeted an isotropic, stationary, and Gaussian background, other search techniques can probe backgrounds that violate one or more of these assumptions. Upper limits on an anisotropic gravitational-wave background from O1 were presented in [@stoch_dir_O1]. Furthermore, non-Gaussian searches targeting the compact binary are currently being developed [@popcorn1; @popcorn2; @popcorn3; @tbs_methods]. A successful detection of the by any of these approaches would offer a new probe of the gravitational-wave sky.
*Acknowledgments* —
This article has been assigned the document number LIGO-P1800258.
[**Supplement To: A search for the isotropic stochastic background in Advanced LIGO’s second observing run**]{}\
(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration)
Stochastic Upper Limit Construction
===================================
Here we describe the parameter estimation procedure used to set upper limits on the amplitude of the stochastic background.
We assume a Gaussian likelihood for the measured cross-correlations $C(f)$ (see Eq. ), such that $$\mathcal{L}(C | \Theta, \mathcal{H})
\propto \exp\left(
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_k \frac{\left[C(f_k)-\langle C(\Theta; f_k)\rangle_\mathcal{H}\right]^2}{\sigma^2(f_k)}
\right).$$ Here, $\langle C(\Theta; f_k)\rangle_\mathcal{H}$ is the expected cross-correlation spectrum given hypothesis $\mathcal{H}$ and model parameters $\Theta$. The variance $\sigma^2(f)$ is defined in Eq. . To perform parameter estimation using the combined results from Advanced LIGO’s O1 and O2 observing runs, we use a joint likelihood of the form $$\mathcal{L}(C_\mathrm{O1},C_\mathrm{O2} | \Theta, \mathcal{H}) = \mathcal{L}(C_\mathrm{O1} | \Theta, \mathcal{H}) \mathcal{L}(C_\mathrm{O2} | \Theta, \mathcal{H}).$$
As discussed above, we adopt a power-law model for the energy-density spectrum of the stochastic background, giving the model spectrum $\langle C (f) \rangle = \Omega_\mathrm{ref}\left(f/f_\mathrm{ref}\right)^\alpha$. We consider different two prior probability density distributions on $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}$: a uniform distribution $p(\Omega_{\rm ref}) \propto 1$ and a log-uniform distribution $p(\Omega_{\rm ref})\propto \Omega_{\rm ref}^{-1}$. We use a peaked prior on the spectral index: $p(\alpha) \propto 1-\alpha/|\alpha_\mathrm{max}|$ with $\alpha_\mathrm{max} = 8$, preferring shallow slopes while still allowing for spectral indices far steeper than those predicted for known sources.
When allowing for alternative gravitational-wave polarizations, we will treat the total canonical energy density as a sum of three distinct power laws for the tensor, vector, and scalar-polarized components of the stochastic background. In this case, our model cross-correlation spectrum becomes (see Eq. ) $$\begin{aligned}
\langle C(f)\rangle_\mathrm{TVS} = \Omega^T_\mathrm{ref}(&f/f_\mathrm{ref})^{\alpha_T} + \beta_V(f)\Omega^V_\mathrm{ref}(f/f_\mathrm{ref})^{\alpha_V} \\
&+ \beta_S(f)\Omega^S_\mathrm{ref}(f/f_\mathrm{ref})^{\alpha_S},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega^A_\mathrm{ref}$ and $\alpha_A$ are the amplitudes and spectral indices of each polarization component. Note that $\beta_T(f)=\gamma_T(f)/\gamma_T(f)=1$. Table \[tab:nongrUL\] lists the 95% credible upper limits on the amplitudes $\Omega^A_\mathrm{ref}$, following marginalization over spectral indices.
Detailed Parameter Estimation Results
=====================================
A. Standard Isotropic Search
----------------------------
Figure \[fig:fullPosterior\_T\] shows the full posteriors obtained for the isotropic stochastic background’s amplitude $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}$ and spectral index $\alpha$ using both O1 and O2 data, assuming both log-uniform (left) and uniform (right) amplitude priors. Although the posteriors show a marginal feature at $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}\sim10^{-8}$ and $\alpha\sim 2$, this feature is not statistically significant, with a log Bayes factor of $\ln\mathcal{B}=\lnBayesTvsN$ between (tensor-polarized) signal and noise hypotheses. The two choices of prior imply different constraints on $\alpha$, with the log-uniform prior yielding a symmetric spectral index posterior while the uniform prior results in a posterior skewed towards negative spectral indices. For each choice of prior, Table \[tab:isotropicFullPE\] lists the 95% credible upper limits on $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}$, as well as the median and 95% credible bounds on $\alpha$.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior $\Omega^{95\%}_\mathrm{ref}$ $\alpha$
------------- ------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------
Uniform $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTUniformPriorAlphaT
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTUniformPriorAlphaTLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTUniformPriorAlphaTHighError}$
Log-uniform $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTLogUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTLogUniformPriorAlphaT
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTLogUniformPriorAlphaTLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTLogUniformPriorAlphaTHighError}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 95% credible upper limits on $\Omega_\mathrm{ref}$ and the median recovered spectral index (with 95% credible bounds) for both choices of amplitude prior, using combined data from Advanced LIGO’s O1 and O2 observing runs.[]{data-label="tab:isotropicFullPE"}
B. Alternative Polarizations
----------------------------
To compute odds $\mathcal{O}^\textsc{s}_\textsc{n}$ and $\mathcal{O}^\textsc{ngr}_\textsc{gr}$, we independently consider each possible combination of gravitational-wave polarizations [@TestingGR_stoch; @stoch_nongr_O1]. Signal sub-hypothesis T, for example, allows only for tensor-polarized signals, while sub-hypothesis TV allows simultaneously for tensor and vector modes, etc. In total, we must consider seven such sub-hypotheses: {T,V,S,TV,TS,VS,TVS}. The union of all seven possibilities gives our signal hypothesis, while the union of the six hypotheses allowing vector or scalar modes gives our non-GR (NGR) hypothesis. Table \[tab:modelEvidences\] lists the log-Bayes factors found between each sub-hypothesis and Gaussian noise, using data from Advanced LIGO’s O1 and O2 observing runs.
We must also choose the prior probabilities assigned to our various hypotheses. We assign equal prior probabilities to the signal and noise hypotheses and weight each signal sub-hypothesis equally, giving $\mathcal{O}^S_N = (1/7)\sum_\mathcal{H} \mathcal{B}^\mathcal{H}_\textsc{n}$ for $\mathcal{H}\in\mathrm{\{T,V,S,TV,TS,VS,TVS\}}$. To obtain $\mathcal{O}^\textsc{ngr}_\textsc{gr}$ we similarly choose equal prior probabilities for the NGR and GR hypotheses and equal weights for each sub-hypothesis: $\mathcal{O}^\textsc{ngr}_\textsc{gr} = (1/6)\sum_\mathcal{H} \mathcal{B}^\mathcal{H}_\textsc{t}$ for $\mathcal{H}\in\mathrm{\{V,S,TV,TS,VS,TVS\}}$.
Hypothesis $\ln\mathcal{B}$
------------ ------------------
T $\lnBayesTvsN$
V $\lnBayesVvsN$
S $\lnBayesSvsN$
TV $\lnBayesTVvsN$
TS $\lnBayesTSvsN$
VS $\lnBayesVSvsN$
TVS $\lnBayesTVSvsN$
: Log Bayes factors between each signal sub-hypothesis considered and the Gaussian noise hypothesis.[]{data-label="tab:modelEvidences"}
In Table \[tab:nongrUL\] above, we listed marginalized upper limits on possible tensor, vector, and scalar background amplitudes when allowing for the presence of all three polarization types (the TVS hypothesis). Figures \[fig:fullLogPosterior\_TVS\] and \[fig:fullUniformPosterior\_TVS\] show the corresponding six-dimensional posteriors on all amplitudes and spectral indices, under both log-uniform and uniform amplitude priors. The slight amplitude peak discussed above is also visible in Fig. \[fig:fullLogPosterior\_TVS\]. Interestingly, while one might expect a loud noise realization to contribute indiscriminately to all three polarization sectors, only the $\Omega^T_\mathrm{ref}$ posterior is peaked. Once again, though, this peak is not statistically significant, and the posteriors remain consistent with Gaussian noise.
Tables \[tab:ngrPEloguniform\] and \[tab:ngrPEuniform\] list marginalized limits on the amplitudes and spectral indices of tensor, vector, and scalar-polarized stochastic backgrounds for each signal hypothesis allowing alternative polarizations.
{width="95.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis $\Omega^{T,95\%}_\mathrm{ref}$ $\Omega^{V,95\%}_\mathrm{ref}$ $\Omega^{S,95\%}_\mathrm{ref}$ $\alpha_T$ $\alpha_V$ $\alpha_S$
------------ -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
V - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVLogUniformPriorLimitV$ - - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVLogUniformPriorAlphaV -
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolVLogUniformPriorAlphaVLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolVLogUniformPriorAlphaVHighError}$
S - - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolSLogUniformPriorLimitS$ - - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolSLogUniformPriorAlphaS
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolSLogUniformPriorAlphaSLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolSLogUniformPriorAlphaSHighError}$
TV $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVLogUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVLogUniformPriorLimitV$ - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVLogUniformPriorAlphaT $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVLogUniformPriorAlphaV -
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVLogUniformPriorAlphaTLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVLogUniformPriorAlphaVLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVLogUniformPriorAlphaTHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVLogUniformPriorAlphaVHighError}$
TS $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSLogUniformPriorLimitT$ - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSLogUniformPriorLimitS$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSLogUniformPriorAlphaT - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSLogUniformPriorAlphaS
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSLogUniformPriorAlphaTLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSLogUniformPriorAlphaSLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSLogUniformPriorAlphaTHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSLogUniformPriorAlphaSHighError}$
VS - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSLogUniformPriorLimitV$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSLogUniformPriorLimitS$ - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSLogUniformPriorAlphaV $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSLogUniformPriorAlphaS
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSLogUniformPriorAlphaVLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSLogUniformPriorAlphaSLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSLogUniformPriorAlphaVHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSLogUniformPriorAlphaSHighError}$
TVS $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorLimitV$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorLimitS$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaT $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaV $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaS
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaTLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaVLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaSLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaTHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaVHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSLogUniformPriorAlphaSHighError}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="95.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis $\Omega^{T,95\%}_\mathrm{ref}$ $\Omega^{V,95\%}_\mathrm{ref}$ $\Omega^{S,95\%}_\mathrm{ref}$ $\alpha_T$ $\alpha_V$ $\alpha_S$
------------ ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
V - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVUniformPriorLimitV$ - - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVUniformPriorAlphaV -
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolVUniformPriorAlphaVLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolVUniformPriorAlphaVHighError}$
S - - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolSUniformPriorLimitS$ - - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolSUniformPriorAlphaS
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolSUniformPriorAlphaSLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolSUniformPriorAlphaSHighError}$
TV $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVUniformPriorLimitV$ - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVUniformPriorAlphaT $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVUniformPriorAlphaV -
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVUniformPriorAlphaTLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVUniformPriorAlphaVLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVUniformPriorAlphaTHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVUniformPriorAlphaVHighError}$
TS $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSUniformPriorLimitT$ - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSUniformPriorLimitS$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSUniformPriorAlphaT - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSUniformPriorAlphaS
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSUniformPriorAlphaTLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSUniformPriorAlphaSLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSUniformPriorAlphaTHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTSUniformPriorAlphaSHighError}$
VS - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSUniformPriorLimitV$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSUniformPriorLimitS$ - $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSUniformPriorAlphaV $\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSUniformPriorAlphaS
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSUniformPriorAlphaVLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSUniformPriorAlphaSLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSUniformPriorAlphaVHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolVSUniformPriorAlphaSHighError}$
TVS $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorLimitT$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorLimitV$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorLimitS$ $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaT $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaV $\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaS
_{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaTLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaVLowError} _{-\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaSLowError}
^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaTHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaVHighError}$ ^{+\ngrRunOneTwoPolTVSUniformPriorAlphaSHighError}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low noise LEMI magnetometers
----------------------------
In future observing runs, correlated magnetic noise may require subtraction techniques [@Schumann_1; @Schumann_2; @Schumann_3; @Schumann_4] or parameter estimation [@meyers_thesis]. Sensitive LEMI-120 magnetometers [@lemi] have been installed at both sites. In Figure \[fig:bart\_vs\_lemi\], we show the power spectral density for a Bartington and a LEMI magnetometer at the Livingston site, using one hour of data during a day with low magnetic noise. The lower noise floor of the LEMI magnetometer can be used to perform a better measurement of the Schumann resonances in real time. We emphasize that this figure is only meant to compare the instruments. An accurate estimate of magnetic noise must compute the coherence over the entire run; the results of this analysis using Bartington magnetometers is shown in Figure \[fig:schumann\].
![Power spectral densities for the Bartington and LEMI magnetometers. We choose one hour of data, March 4 2017 06:00-07:00, which was a time with low magnetic noise, to compare the instruments. The inset shows the LEMI spectrum from 5-15 Hz, where the first Schumann resonance at $\sim$ 8 Hz is clearly visible.[]{data-label="fig:bart_vs_lemi"}](mag_comparison.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
[^1]: Strictly speaking, the optimal search would also include the detector auto-correlation in the likelihood, effectively describing subtraction of the noise power spectrum. However, in practice the Advanced LIGO noise spectrum is not known well enough for this approach to be effective.
[^2]: More precisely, we require that both detectors are in observing mode and that no Category 1 vetos are applied [@O1_CBC_DQ].
[^3]: These models are dubbed model $M=2$ and model $M=3$ in [@O1_cosmic_strings]. We do not discuss model $M=1$ of [@O1_cosmic_strings], which assumes that all loops are formed with the same relative size, since such a hypothesis is not supported by any numerical simulation of Nambu-Goto string networks.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a recent paper, Mohan et al. \[Can. J. Phys. [**95**]{} (2017) 173\] have reported results for collision strengths ($\Omega$) and effective collision strengths ($\Upsilon$) for transitions from the ground to higher 51 excited levels of F-like Ba XLVIII. For the calculations of $\Omega$, the Dirac atomic $R$-matrix code (DARC) and the flexible atomic code (FAC) have been adopted, in order to facilitate a direct comparison. However, for the subsequent calculations of $\Upsilon$, DARC alone has been employed. In this comment, we demonstrate that while their limited results for $\Omega$ are comparatively reliable, for $\Upsilon$ are not, particularly for the allowed transitions and at lower temperatures. Apart from the non expected behaviour, their $\Upsilon$ values are overestimated for several transitions, by about a factor of two.'
---
[ ]{}\
[**[Kanti M Aggarwal]{}**]{}\
Astrophysics Research Centre, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queen’s University Belfast,\
Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK\
e-mail: [email protected]\
Received: 26 October 2017; Accepted: 23 May 2018
[**Keywords:**]{} Oscillator strengths, collision strengths, effective collision strengths\
PACS numbers: 32.70.Cs, 34.80.Dp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
============
In a recent paper, Mohan et al. [@mm1] have reported results for collision strengths ($\Omega$) and effective collision strengths ($\Upsilon$) for transitions from the 2s$^2$2p$^5$ $^2$P$^o_{3/2}$ ground to 51 excited levels of F-like Ba XLVIII, which belong to the 2s$^2$2p$^5$, 2s2p$^6$, and 2s$^2$2p$^4$3$\ell$ configurations. For the calculations of $\Omega$, they have adopted two independent codes, namely the Dirac atomic $R$-matrix code (DARC) and the flexible atomic code (FAC). These codes are freely available on the websites\
[http://amdpp.phys.strath.ac.uk/UK\_APAP/codes.html]{} and [https://www-amdis.iaea.org/FAC/]{}, respectively. By making comparisons between the two calculations for $\Omega$, although for only limited ($<$4%) transitions, they have concluded a good agreement, for most transitions. However, for the subsequent calculations of $\Upsilon$, DARC alone has been employed. In the absence of any other existing similar results, no direct comparisons were possible, but they speculated their data to be ‘reliable, authentic, and accurate’. However, we find exactly the opposite of this, because their $\Upsilon$ results are neither correct in behaviour nor in magnitude.
Collision strengths and effective collision strengths
=====================================================
For the construction of wavefunctions, Mohan et al. [@mm1] adopted the general-purpose relativistic atomic structure package (GRASP). Several versions of this code are currently in use by many workers, but the one adopted by them is the original one, i.e. GRASP0, but considerably modified by P.H. Norrington and I.P. Grant. This is available at the same website as DARC, and can be directly linked to the latter. They included a large CI (configuration interaction) among 431 levels of 29 configurations, namely 2s$^2$2p$^5$, 2s2p$^6$, 2s2p$^5$3$\ell$, 2p$^6$3$\ell$, 2s$^2$2p$^4$3$\ell$, 2s$^2$2p$^4$4$\ell$, 2s2p$^5$4$\ell$, 2s$^2$2p$^4$5$\ell$, and 2s2p$^5$5$\ell$. Energies for these levels and oscillator strengths (f-values) for transitions among these have already been reported by them in a separate paper [@mm2]. Since inclusion of such a large number of levels in a scattering calculation requires significantly large computational resources, they restricted their work to the lowest 52 levels, which belong to the 2s$^2$2p$^5$, 2s2p$^6$, and 2s$^2$2p$^4$3$\ell$ configurations. In fact, these configurations generate 60 levels in total, but they have preferred to ignore the remaining 8. Nevertheless, CI for F-like ions is not very important as may be noted from our work on 17 ions with 37 $\le$ Z $\le$ 53 [@kma1]. Therefore, we have performed simple calculations among these 60 levels, which will facilitate a direct comparison with their results, and hence some assessment of the accuracy and reliability of their data.
For the calculations of $\Omega$, Mohan et al. [@mm1] adopted the DARC code, included a wide range of partial waves with angular momentum $J \le$ 41, considered a wide range of energy (up to 1000 Ryd), and resolved resonances to determine $\Upsilon$ at temperatures below 10$^6$ K. For our calculations, the FAC is employed which is based on distorted-wave (DW) approximation, and generally provides comparable results of $\Omega$ with $R$-matrix, as may also be noted from Table 2 of [@mm1]. Similarly, the energies obtained with this code are comparable with those of Mohan et al., and there are no appreciable discrepancies, in magnitude or orderings, for any level – see also Table 1 of [@mm1]. For this reason we are not listing our energy levels for Ba XLVIII. However, in our subsequent calculations of $\Upsilon$, resonances are not included, which mainly affect the forbidden transitions, not the allowed ones. For this reason we will focus our comparisons on some allowed transitions alone.
I J Transition GRASP FAC
--- ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------- --
1 22 2s$^2$2p$^5$ $^2$P$^o_{3/2}$ – 2s$^2$2p$^4$($^3$P$_2$)3d $^2$P$_{1/2}$ 0.120 0.119
1 23 2s$^2$2p$^5$ $^2$P$^o_{3/2}$ – 2s$^2$2p$^4$($^3$P$_2$)3d $^2$D$_{5/2}$ 0.624 0.636
1 24 2s$^2$2p$^5$ $^2$P$^o_{3/2}$ – 2s$^2$2p$^4$($^3$P$_2$)3d $^2$P$_{3/2}$ 0.463 0.437
1 25 2s$^2$2p$^5$ $^2$P$^o_{3/2}$ – 2s$^2$2p$^4$($^1$S$_0$)3d $^2$D$_{5/2}$ 0.464 0.455
: Comparison of oscillator strengths (f-values) for some transitions of Ba XLVIII from ground to higher excited levels.
[GRASP: calculations of Mohan et al. [@mm1],[@mm2] with GRASP\
FAC: present calculations with FAC\
]{}
In Table 1 we compare f-values between our work and that of Mohan et al. [@mm1] for four transitions, namely 1–22/23/24/25, i.e. 2s$^2$2p$^5$ $^2$P$^o_{3/2}$ – (2s$^2$2p$^4$)\[$^3$P$_2$\]3d $^2$P$^o_{1/2}$, \[$^3$P$_2$\]3d $^2$D$^o_{5/2}$, \[$^3$P$_2$\]3d $^2$P$^o_{3/2}$, and \[$^1$S$_0$\]3d $^2$D$^o_{5/2}$ – see Table 1 of [@mm1] for the definition of all levels. These transitions are allowed, comparatively stronger, and have no discrepancies in their f-values. Therefore, the corresponding results for $\Omega$ are also expected to be comparable (within a few percents), which indeed is the case as shown in Fig. 1. In Fig. 2 we make similar comparisons for $\Upsilon$, but the differences are striking between the two independent calculations, particularly at temperatures below 10$^5$ K. Since resonances (if any) do not make a significant contribution to the determination of $\Upsilon$, the reported results of Mohan et al. are not only abnormal in behaviour towards the lower end of the temperature range, but are also overestimated, by up to a factor of two.
Another example for the incorrect $\Upsilon$ results of Mohan et al. [@mm1] is the 1–3 transition, i.e. 2s$^2$2p$^5$ $^2$P$^o_{3/2}$ – 2s2p$^6$ $^2$S$_{1/2}$, for which they have shown $\Omega$ in their Fig. 2. It is clear that $\Omega$ values rise gradually over a wide energy range of about 100 Ryd, without any resonances. Therefore, corresponding $\Upsilon$ results should also either rise gradually, or remain nearly constant, over the small temperature range below 10$^6$ K, equivalent to $\sim$6.3 Ryd. This indeed is the case in our calculations as $\Upsilon$ is 0.053, whereas the corresponding results of Mohan et al. are 0.0767, 0.0516, and 0.0587 at the respective temperatures of 10$^4$, 10$^5$, and 10$^6$ K. The same conclusion of invariable $\Upsilon$, for this transition at temperatures below 10$^6$ K, was noted earlier for another F-like ion, namely Kr XXVIII [@kr28]. Therefore, for the 1–3 transition the $\Upsilon$ value of Mohan et al. is clearly overestimated by 50% at T$_e$ = 10$^4$ K.
The reason for the anomalous behaviour of $\Upsilon$ results by Mohan et al. [@mm1], particularly at lower temperatures, is not difficult to diagnose. This is primarily due to their choice of energy mesh ($\delta$E) for the resolution of resonances and the determination of $\Upsilon$. Their $\delta$E is 0.065 Ryd equivalent to $\sim$10 260 K, i.e. greater than the lowest T$_e$ (10 000 K) they considered. For an accurate performance of the integral in Eq. 13 of [@mm1], this energy mesh is (very) very coarse, and hence has greatly affected the $\Upsilon$ results. Although we have shown comparisons for allowed transitions alone, it is clear that their results will be in even greater error for the forbidden transitions, for which the resonances are numerous, as shown in their Figs. 1 and 3. An indication of that is visible in their results for the 1–7, 1–8, and 1–39 transitions, listed in their Table 3.
Conclusions
===========
By performing simple calculations in this short paper, we have demonstrated that the earlier reported $\Omega$ results of Mohan et al. [@mm1] are largely error free, but for $\Upsilon$ are overestimated by up to a factor of two, for several allowed transitions, mainly at lower temperatures. In addition, the behaviour of their $\Upsilon$ is not correct. Furthermore, they have reported $\Upsilon$ for less than 4% of the transitions (among 52 levels) of Ba XLVIII, whereas a complete set of data for all transitions is preferred in any diagnostic or modelling applications of plasmas. Similarly, in fusion plasmas for which such collisional data for this ion may be required, the prevailing temperatures are far higher, up to $\sim$10$^8$ K. Therefore, it is recommended that fresh calculations for this ion should be performed, for a much wider range of transitions and temperatures, for the reliable adoption of collisional data for this ion.
We will like to (re)emphasise again that the reliability of any calculation does not (much) depend on the (in)accuracy of the code adopted, but on its implementation. If a code is incorrectly and/or non-judicially applied then large discrepancies may occur, as demonstrated in this paper. A number of large discrepancies, for several atomic parameters, have been noted earlier for many ions, and these have been highlighted in our recent paper [@atom], along with suggestions for their resolutions.
[999]{} M. Mohan, A. Goyal, I. Khatri, S.S. Singh, and A.K. Singh. Can. J. Phys. [**95**]{}, 173 (2017). I. Khatri, A. Goyal, S. Aggarwal, A.K. Singh, and M. Mohan. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**107**]{}, 367 (2016). K.M. Aggarwal and F.P. Keenan. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**109-110**]{}, 205 (2016). K.M. Aggarwal, F.P. Keenan, and K.D. Lawson. At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**97**]{}, 225 (2011). K.M. Aggarwal. Atoms [**5**]{}, 5040037 (2017).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Möbius polynomial is an invariant of ranked posets, closely related to the Möbius function. In this paper, we study the Möbius polynomial of face posets of convex polytopes. We present formulas for computing the Möbius polynomial of the face poset of a pyramid or a prism over an existing polytope, or of the gluing of two or more polytopes in terms of the Möbius polynomials of the original polytopes. We also present general formulas for calculating Möbius polynomials of face posets of simplicial polytopes and of Eulerian posets in terms of their $f$-vectors and some additional constraints.'
author:
- 'Meena Jagadeesan, Susan Durst'
bibliography:
- 'MobiusPolynomialsPaper.bib'
title: Möbius Polynomials of Face Posets of Convex Polytopes
---
Introduction
============
A *ranked poset* is a poset $P$, together with a rank function $|\cdot|: P\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$, such that whenever $p>q$ and for any $p\geq r\geq q$ we have $p=r$ or $q=r$, we have $|p|=|q|+1$. Given a finite ranked poset $P$, we define the **Möbius polynomial** of $P$ to be $$\mathcal{M}_P(z)=\sum_{p\leq q\in P}\mu(p,q)z^{|q|-|p|},$$ where $\mu$ is the Möbius function defined on $P$.
Our interest in the Möbius polynomial stems from previous work on the splitting algebra or universal labeling algebra of a poset, introduced by Gelfand, Retakh, Serconek, and Wilson in their 2005 paper [@AlgebrasAssocToDirGraphs]. In their 2007 paper [@HilbertSeriesPaper], they showed that the Hilbert series of the algebra $A(P)$ associated to a finite ranked poset $P$ could be calculated using the formula: $$H(A(P),z)=\frac{1-z}{1-z\mathcal{M}_P(z)}.$$ Using this fact, they were able to calculate the Hilbert series of the algebra associated to the Boolean lattice of order $n$, and to the poset of subspaces of a finite-dimensional vector space over a finite field.
In 2009, Duffy used the same result to calculate the Hilbert series of the algebra associated to the face poset of an $n$-gon. She also found that the graded trace generating function for the automorphism of $A(P)$ induced by an automorphism $\sigma$ of the poset $P$ is given by $$Tr_\sigma(A(P),z)=\frac{1-z}{1-z\mathcal{M}_{P^\sigma}(z)},$$ where $P^\sigma$ is the poset consisting of fixed points of $P$ under the automorphism $\sigma$.
In their 2009 paper [@GenLayeredGraphs], Retakh and Wilson generalize their Hilbert series result to posets which have a weaker rank function $\rho$, which only satisfies the property that if $p<q$, then $\rho(p)<\rho(q)$. In this setting, they define $$\mathcal{M}_P(z)=\sum_{p\leq q\in P}\mu(p,q)z^{\rho(q)-\rho(p)},$$ and they present a generalization of the universal labeling algebra, which they also call $A(P)$, satisfying the same Hilbert series equation. This paper also contains formulas for calculating the Möbius polynomial of a poset under various operations, including adding intermediate elements, adding additional relations between existing elements, and joining two posets by identifying their maximal and/or minimial vertices. In 2014, Durst showed [@DirectProductsPaper] that given two posets $P$ and $Q$, the Möbius polynomial of their direct product $P\times Q$ is given by $$\mathcal{M}_{P\times Q}(z)=\mathcal{M}_P(z)\mathcal{M}_Q(z),$$ and used this to calculate the Hilbert series and graded trace generating functions associated to the poset of factors of a natural number $n$ ordered by divisibility.
In this paper we continue the study of Möbius polynomials, focusing our attention on the face posets of convex polytopes. The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2, we present basic definitions. In Section 3, we present a result regarding the sum of the coefficients of the Möbius polynomials. In Section 4, we recall known results about face posets and include a proof that every interval of a face poset is itself a face poset. In Section 5, we proceed to compute the Möbius polynomial of the face poset of a pyramid over a polytope terms of the Möbius polynomial of the face poset of the original polytope. In Section 6, we compute the Möbius polynomial of the face poset of a prism over a polytope in terms of the Möbius polynomial of the face poset of the original polytope and its bottom polynomial, which we will define in Section 3. In Section 7, we compute the Möbius polynomial of the face poset of polytopes glued together, in terms of the Möbius polynomial of the original polytopes and their top polynomials, which we will define in Section 3. In Section 8, we compute the Möbius polynomial of the face poset of a simplicial polytope in terms of its $f$-vector. In Section 9, we compute the Möbius polynomial of an Eulerian poset in terms of its $f$-vector and some additional constraints. This gives us a general formula for computing the Möbius polynomial of the face poset of an arbitrary convex polytope.
Definitions
===========
A ranked poset is a poset $P$, together with a rank function $| \cdot|: P \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ satisfying the following properties:
- If $p > q$, and for any $p \ge r \ge q$ we have $r=p$ or $r=q$, then $|p| = |q| + 1$.
- If $p$ is minimal in $P$, then $|p| = -1$.
In a ranked poset $P$, for each $p \in P$, we call $|p|$ the rank of $p$. We use the following notation: $$\begin{aligned}
P_i &= \left\{ p \in P \mid |p| =i \right\} \\
P_{\ge i} &= \left\{ p \in P \mid |p| \ge i \right\} \\
P_{\le i} &= \left\{ p \in P \mid |p| \le i \right\}\end{aligned}$$ We define the rank of a poset $P$ to be $\max\left\{|p| \mid p \in P \right\}$.
Notice that this is not the standard definition of rank. In the standard definition, minimal elements have rank $0$. We have set our minimum rank to $-1$ so that rank will correspond to dimension in face posets of convex polytopes.
Given $p, q \in P$ we define the closed interval $[p, q] \in P$ by $$[p,q] = \left\{s \in P \mid p \le s \le q \right\}.$$ If $p \not\leq q$, then $[p ,q]$ is defined to be the empty set. We define $I(P)$ to be the set of all closed intervals of the poset $P$.
The Möbius function $\mu^P: I(P) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ is defined by
- $ \mu^P [p, p] = 1$ for $p \in P$\
- $\mu^P [p, q] = - \sum_{p \le s < q} \mu^P [p, s]$ for $p < q \in P$\
- $\mu^P [p, q] = 0$ for $p \not\leq q \in P$.
Notice that $$\displaystyle \sum_{p \le s < q} \mu^P [p, s] = - \sum_{p < s \le q} \mu^P [s, q],$$ so $$\displaystyle \mu^P [p, q] = - \sum_{p < s \le q} \mu^P [s, q].$$ For ease of notation, we will often write $\mu$ rather than $\mu^P$.
Given a ranked poset $P$, we define the polynomial Möbius function $\mu_z^P: I(P) \rightarrow \mathbb{N} (z)$ by $$\displaystyle \mu_z^P [p, q] = \mu^P [p, q] z^{|q| - |p|}.$$
For ease of notation, we will often write $\mu_z$ rather than $\mu_z^P$. Notice that $\mu_1 [p, q] = \mu [p, q]$.
The Möbius polynomial $\mathcal{M}_P(z)$ of a poset $P$ is given by $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P(z)= \sum_{p \le q \in P} \mu_z [p,q].$$
Given posets $P$ and $Q$, we define the direct product of $P$ and $Q$ to be $$\displaystyle P \times Q = \left\{(p, q) \mid p \in P, q \in Q \right\}$$ with ordering relation $\le_{P \times Q}$ defined so that $(p_1, q_1) \le_{P \times Q} (p_2, q_2)$ if and only if $p_1 \le_P p_2$ and $q_1 \le_Q q_2$.
We will use the following result from [@DirectProductsPaper]:
\[dp\] Given posets $P$ and $Q$ with direct product $P \times Q$, $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{P \times Q}(z) = \mathcal{M}_P(z) \cdot \mathcal{M}_Q (z).$$
Coefficients of Möbius Polynomials
==================================
Let $-1 \le r \le |P|$. We define the $r$-polynomial $g_r^P(z)$ of the poset $P$ to be $$\sum_{|p| \le r \le |q|} \mu_z^P [p, q].$$ We refer to $g_{|P|}^P(z)$ as the top polynomial and $g_{-1}^P(z)$ as the bottom polynomial.
\[Muiszero\] For any $p, q \in P$ $$\displaystyle \sum_{p \le s \le q} \mu [p, s] = \sum_{p \le s \le q} \mu [s, y] = 0.$$
By definition, we have $$\displaystyle \mu [p, q] = -\sum_{p < s \le y} \mu [s, q]$$\
This implies $$\displaystyle\sum_{p \le s \le q} \mu [s, q] = 0.$$\
We also have $$\displaystyle\mu [p, q] = -\sum_{p \le s < q} \mu [s, q],$$ which implies $$\displaystyle\sum_{p \le s \le q} \mu [p, s] = 0.$$\
\[unmaxmin\] If a poset P has a unique maximum element or unique minimum element, then $\mathcal{M}_P (1) = 1$.
First we will prove the result for a poset $P$ with unique maximum element $\hat{1}$. We proceed by induction on $|P|$. If $|P| = -1$, then $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = \mu_z [\hat{1}, \hat{1}] = 1,$$ and it follows that $\mathcal{M}_P (z) = 1$.\
Now assume that $|P| \ge 0$, and that the result holds for posets with smaller rank. No interval in $P$ can contain more than one element of $P_{-1}$ since there do not exist $p, q \in P_{-1}$ with $p < q$. Hence $g_{-1}^P (z)$ is the sum of the generalized Möbius functions of all intervals in $P$ that contain one of the $p$ in $P_{-1}$ with no interval counted more than once. Thus $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (1) = g_{-1}^P (1) + \mathcal{M}_{P_{\ge 0}} (1).$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
g_{-1}^P (1) &= \sum_{|p| \le -1 \le |q|} \mu_z [p, q] \\
&= \sum_{p \in P_{-1}} \sum_{p \le q \le \hat{1}} \mu_z [p, q].\end{aligned}$$ This is equal to $0$ by Lemma \[Muiszero\].\
This gives us $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (1) = \mathcal{M}_{P_{\ge 0}} (1).$$ By the induction hypothesis, $\mathcal{M}_{P_{\ge 0}} (1) = 1$. Thus for any $P$ with a unique maximum element, $\mathcal{M}_P (1) = 1$. The proof for $P$ with a unique minimum element is completely analogous.
For a poset $P$, we define the poset $\tilde{P}$ to be $P \cup \left\{\hat{0} \right\} \cup \left\{\hat{1} \right\}$ with ordering relation $\le_{\tilde{P}}$ given by:\
For $p, q \in P$, $p \le_{\tilde{P}} q$ if $p \le_P q$.\
For $p \in \tilde{P}$, $p \le_{\tilde{P}} {\hat{1}}$ and $\hat{0}\le_{\tilde{P}} p$.
For any poset $P$, $\mathcal{M}_P (1) = \mu^{\tilde{P}} [\hat{0}, \hat{1}] + 1.$
For any $p \in \tilde{P}$, we have $\hat{0} \le p \le \hat{1}.$ Hence, $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{\tilde{P}} (1) = \sum_{\hat{0} \le p \le \hat{1}} \mu [\hat{0}, p] + \sum_{\hat{0} \le p \le \hat{1}} \mu [p, \hat{1}] - \mu [\hat{0}, \hat{1}] + \mathcal{M}_P (1).$$ By Lemma \[Muiszero\], $$\displaystyle \sum_{\hat{0} \le p \le \hat{1}} \mu [\hat{0}, p] = \sum_{\hat{0} \le p \le \hat{1}} \mu [p, \hat{1}] = 0.$$ This means that $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{\tilde{P}} (1) = \mathcal{M}_P (1) - \mu [\hat{0}, \hat{1}].$$
By Lemma $\ref{unmaxmin}$, $$\displaystyle
\mathcal{M}_{\tilde{P}} (1) = 1.$$
Hence, $$\displaystyle 1 = \mathcal{M}_P (1) - \mu [\hat{0}, \hat{1}].$$
It follows that $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (1) = 1 + \mu [\hat{0}, \hat{1}].$$
Face Posets
===========
Given a convex polytope $\mathpzc{P}$ with vertex set $V$, for each face $\mathpzc{p}$, we define $p_V$ to be the set of vertices contained in $\mathpzc{p}$. Hence, $$\displaystyle p_v = \left\{ v \in V \mid v \in \mathpzc{p}\right\}.$$ We define the face poset $P$ to be: $$\displaystyle \left\{p_v \mid \mathpzc{p} \in \mathpzc{P} \right\} \cup \left\{\emptyset \right\}$$ with ordering given by set inclusion.
For ease of notation, we will often write $p$ rather than $p_v$ in a face poset.\
Notice that with our definition of the rank function, an $r$-dimensional face $\mathpzc{p}$ of a polytope $\mathpzc{P}$ corresponds to a rank $r$ element $p$ in the face poset $P$.
In a $d$-dimensional convex polytope $\mathpzc{P}$, we define $\mathpzc{f_r}$ to be the number of $r$-dimensional faces of $\mathpzc{P}$ for $-1 \le r \le d$. We define $\mathpzc{f_{-1}}$ to be $1$. We call $\mathpzc{(f_{-1}, f_0,...,f_d)}$ the $\mathpzc{f}$-vector of $\mathpzc{P}$.
In an arbitrary poset $P$, we define $f_r$ to be the number of elements of rank $r$, $|P_r|$. We call $(f_{-1}, f_0,...,f_d)$ the $f$-vector of $P$.
For a convex polytope $\mathpzc{P}$ with face poset $P$, this means that $\mathpzc{f_r}$ represents the number of $r$-dimensional faces of $\mathpzc{P}$ and $f_r$ represents the number of elements of rank $r$ in its face poset $P$. Hence, the $\mathpzc{f}$-vector of $\mathpzc{P}$ is equal to the $f$-vector of $P$.
Given a poset $P$, we define the dual poset $P^{*}$ to be the set $P$ with ordering relation as follows: $p \le_{P^{*}} q$ if and only if $q \le_P p$.
Note that the poset $P^{**}$ is isomorphic to the poset $P$.\
By part (iv) of Theorem 2.7 in [@lec], we know that the dual poset $P^{*}$ of a face poset $P$ of a convex polytope $\mathpzc{P}$ is itself a face poset of a convex polytope. We call this polytope the dual polytope of $\mathpzc{P}$, denoted by $\mathpzc{P^{*}}$.
Any interval of a face poset $P$ of a convex polytope is itself a face poset of some convex polytope.
This result is part (ii) of Theorem 2.7 in [@lec]. Ziegler provides a geometric proof of this result. Here we present a combinatorial proof.
Consider the interval $[p,q]$. Note that the interval $[\hat{0}^P, q]$ is the face poset of $\mathpzc{q}$. Call this subposet $Q$. Consider the dual poset $Q^{*}$. This corresponds to the face poset of the dual polytope $q^{*}$. Note that $\hat{0}^{Q^{*}} = q$. Since $p \le q$ in $Q$, $\hat{0}^{Q^{*}} = q \le p$ in $Q^{*}$. The interval $[\hat{0}^{Q^{*}}, p]$ is the face poset of the convex polytope into which $\mathpzc{p}$ gets transformed in the dual polytope $\mathpzc{q}^{*}$. Call this polytope $\mathpzc{s}$. Now, consider $Q^{**} = Q$. The interval $[p, q] \in Q$ is the face poset of the dual polytope $\mathpzc{s}^{*}$.
\[Faceuler\] In any face poset $P$, $\mu [p, q] = (-1)^{|q| - |p|}$
By the above theorem, it suffices to prove that $\mu [\hat{0}^P, \hat{1}^P] = (-1)^{d+1}]$ for all convex polytopes $P$ of dimension $d$ for $d \ge 0.$ We proceed by induction on $|q| - |p|$.\
For our base cases, we know that $\mu [p,p] = 1$. Consider a convex polytope with dimension $d = 0$. Note that the face poset of this polytope is a totally ordered set of size 2. Hence $\mu [p,q] = -1$.\
Now, assume that the statement holds for $d \le i$ We will show that it holds for $d = i+1$. Note that $$\displaystyle \mu [\hat{0}^P, \hat{1}^P] = -\sum_{p \in P} \mu [\hat{0}^P, p].$$ By the induction hypothesis, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu [\hat{0}^P, \hat{1}^P] &= -\sum_{r=-1}^k f_i * (-1)^{r+1} \\
&= -[1 -\sum_{r=0}^i f_r * (-1)^{r}].\end{aligned}$$ Using the Euler characteristic of convex polytopes: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu [\hat{0}^P, \hat{1}^P] &= -[1 -((-1)^{i+2} + 1)] \\
&= -[-(-1)^{i+2}] \\
&= (-1)^{i+2}. \end{aligned}$$ Hence $\mu_z [p, q] = (-z)^{|q| - |p|}$.
\[facepoly\] In a poset $P$ with rank $d$, $$\displaystyle g_{|P|}^P (z) = \sum_{r=-1}^{d} f_r \cdot (-z)^{d-r}$$ $$\displaystyle g_{-1}^P (z) = \sum_{r=-1}^d f_r \cdot (-z)^{r+1}.$$
Note that $$\displaystyle g_{|P|}^P (z) = \sum_{p \le \hat{1} \le q} \mu_z [p, q].$$ Since $p \le {\hat{1}}$ for all $p \in P$ and the only $q \in P$ such that $\hat{1} \le q$ is $q = \hat{1}$, $$\displaystyle g_{|P|}^P (z) = \sum_{p \in P} \mu_z [p,\hat{1}]$$ and $$\displaystyle \mu_z [p, \hat{1}] = (-z)^{|\hat{1}| - |p|} = (-1)^{d - |p|}.$$ Hence, $$\displaystyle g_{|P|}^P (z) = \sum_{|p|= r} (-z)^{d-r}.$$ Since there are $f_r$ elements in $P$ of rank $r$, $$\displaystyle g_{|P|}^P (z) = \sum_{r=-1}^d f_r \cdot (-z)^{d-r}.$$ The proof is analogous for $g_{-1}^P$.
Pyramids
========
Given a $d$-dimensional convex polytope $\mathpzc{P}$, we can obtain the $(d+1)$-dimensional pyramid over $\mathpzc{P}$, denoted $\mathpzc{Py(P)}$, as follows: Locate $\mathpzc{P}$ on the plane $x=0$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. We construct an additional vertex $\alpha$ in the plane $x=1$ and take the union of lines connecting $\mathpzc{P}$ with $\alpha$.
For each $r$-dimensional face $\mathpzc{p}$ in the polytope $\mathpzc{P}$, there exists a corresponding $(r+1)$ dimensional face $\mathpzc{p}'$ in $\mathpzc{Py(P)}$ connecting the vertex $\alpha$ with $\mathpzc{p}$. All faces in $\mathpzc{Py(P)}$ are of the form $\mathpzc{p}$ or $\mathpzc{p}'$.
Figure \[PyramidOverSquare\] shows the pyramid construction applied to a square.
  \[PyramidOverSquare\]
Given a face poset $P$, for each element $p \in P$, define $p'$ so that $p' = p \cup {\alpha}$. Let $\lambda_P = \left\{p' | p \in P\right\}$. We call $\lambda_P$ the pyramid addition poset of $\lambda_P$. We define the poset $Py(P)$ to be $P \cup \lambda_P$ where the relation is set inclusion. We call $Py(P)$ the pyramid of $P$.
Note that if $P$ is the face poset of $\mathpzc{P}$, then, by construction $Py(P)$ is the face poset of $\mathpzc{Py(P)}$. Figure \[PyramidAddition\] shows the face poset of a square and its corresponding pyramid addition poset—it is clear that the two posets are isomorphic. Below, we will prove that this is always the case.
 \[PyramidAddition\]
\[bij\] Let $P$ be a face poset with pyramid addition poset $\lambda_P$.Then $$\displaystyle \lambda_P \cong P.$$
Define a function $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
\phi&:&P&\rightarrow&\lambda_P\\
&&p&\mapsto&p'\\
\end{array}$$ We wish to show that $p \le_P q$ if and only if $p' \le_{\lambda_P} q'$. We know $p \le_P q$ if and only if $p \subseteq q$. Furthermore, $p \subseteq q$ if and only if $p \cup \left\{\alpha \right\} \subseteq q \cup \left\{\alpha\right\}$. Since $p' = p \cup \left\{\alpha \right\}$and $q' = q \cup \left\{\alpha\right\}$, we know that $q' = q \cup \left\{\alpha\right\}$ if and only if $p' \subseteq q'$. By definition, $p' \subseteq q'$ if and only if $p' \le_{\lambda_P}q'$.\
Hence, $\phi$ defines an isomorphism of posets and $\lambda_P \cong P$.
Let $T_2 = \left\{t_1, t_2 \right\}$ be a totally ordered poset on two elements such that $t_1 \le_{T_2} t_2$.
Figure \[DirectProduct\] shows the face poset of a pyramid with a square base. This poset is the direct product of the face poset of the square with the poset $T_2$. The diagram is broken down to emphasize this: the grey lines represent the original face poset, the dashed lines show the isomorphic pyramid addition poset, and the solid black lines represent the isomorphic copies of $T_2$ connecting them. The face poset of a pyramid over a polytope will always have this direct product structure, as we will prove below.
![[]{data-label="DirectProduct"}](Figure5b)
\[pydp\] Let $P$ be a face poset with pyramid $Py(P)$. Then, $$\displaystyle Py(P) \cong P \times T_2.$$
Define a function: $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
\psi&:&P \times T_2&\rightarrow&Py(P)\\
&&(p, t_1)&\mapsto&p\\
&&(p, t_2)&\mapsto&p'.\\
\end{array}$$ We wish to show that $(p, s) \le (q,t)$ if and only if $\psi((p,s)) \le \psi((q,t)).$
For $s = t = t_1$, we need to show that $(p, t_1) \le (q, t_1)$ if and only if $ \psi((p, t_1)) \le \psi ((q, t_1))$. We know that $(p, t_1) \le_{P \times T_2} (q, t_1)$ if and only if $p \le_P q$. For $p, q \in P$, we have $p \le_P q$ if and only if $p \le_{Py(P)} q$. Since $\psi((p, t_1)) = p$ and $\psi((q, t_1)) = q$, we have$p \le_{Py(P)} q$ if and only if $\psi((p, t_1)) \le_{Py(P)} \psi ((q, t_1))$.
For $s = t = t_2$, we need to show that $(p, t_2) \le (q, t_2)$ if and only if $\psi((p, t_2)) \le \psi ((q, t_2))$. We know that $(p, t_2) \le_{P \times T_2} (q, t_2)$ if and only if $p \le_P q$. By Lemma $\ref{bij}$, we have $p \le_P q$ if and only if $p' \le_{\lambda_P} q'$. We know that $p' \le_{\lambda_P} q'$ if and only if $p' \le_{Py(P)} q'$. Since $\psi((p, t_2)) = p'$ and $\psi((q, t_2)) = q'$, we know that $p' \le_{Py(P)} q'$ if and only if $\psi((p, t_2)) \le_{Py(P)} \psi ((q, t_2))$.
For $s = t_1 , t = t_2$, we need to show that $(p, t_1) \le (q, t_2)$ if and only if $\psi((p, t_1)) \le \psi((q, t_2))$. We know that $(p, t_1) \le_{P \times T_2} (q, t_2)$ if and only if $p \subseteq q$. Furthermore, we know that $p \subseteq q$ if and only if $p \subseteq q \cup \left\{\alpha\right\}$. Since $q' = q \cup \left\{\alpha\right\}$, we know that $p \subseteq q \cup \left\{\alpha\right\}$ if and only if $p \subseteq q'$. Since $p = \psi((p, t_1))$ and $\psi((q, t_2)) = q'$, we know that $p \subseteq q'$ if and only if $\psi((p, t_1)) \le \psi((q, t_2))$.
For $s = t_2, t = t_1$, we need to show that $(p, t_2) \le (q, t_1)$ if and only if $\psi((p, t_2)) \le \psi ((q, t_1))$. Since $t_2 > t_1$ there do not exist $p, q \in P$ such that $(p, t_2) \le_{P \times T_2} (q, t_1)$. We will now show there do not exist $p, q \in P$ such that $\psi((p, t_2)) \le \psi ((q, t_1))$. We know that $\psi((p, t_2)) \le \psi ((q, t_1))$ if and only if $p' \le q$. This holds if and only if $p \cup \left\{\alpha\right\} \subseteq q$. Since $q \cap \left\{\alpha\right\} = \emptyset$ for all $q \in P$, there do not exist $p, q \in P$ such that $p \cup \left\{\alpha\right\} \subseteq q$.
Hence, $\psi$ defines an isomorphism of posets and we have our result.
\[pyramid\] Given a $d$-dimensional convex polytope $\mathpzc{P}$ with face poset P, $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{Py(P)} (z)= (2-z) \cdot \mathcal{M}_P (z).$$
By Proposition $\ref{pydp}$ and Lemma $\ref{dp}$, we know that $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{Py(P)} (z) = \mathcal{M}_P (z) \cdot \mathcal{M}_{T_2} (z) = (2-z) \cdot \mathcal{M}_P (z).$$
\[simplex\] If $\mathpzc{S}^d$ is a $d$-dimensional simplex with face poset $S^d$, then $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{S^d} (z) = (2-z)^{d+1}.$$
We proceed by induction on $d$. For our base case, consider a simplex with dimension $d=0$. Notice that $S^0 \cong T_2$. Hence, $\mathcal{M}_{S^0} (z) = 2-z$.\
Now, we assume that $d > 0$ and that the result holds for simplices of smaller dimension. Notice that $\mathpzc{S}^{d}$ is the $d$ dimensional pyramid over $\mathpzc{S}^{d-1}$. This means that $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{S^{d+1}} (z) = (2-z) \cdot (2-z)^{d+1} = (2-z)^{d+2}.$$ Thus, the result holds for any simplex $\mathpzc{S}^d$ with face poset $S^d$ for any $d \ge 0$.
Prisms
======
Given a $d$-dimensional convex polytope $\mathpzc{P}$, we can obtain the $(d+1)$-dimensional pyramid over $\mathpzc{P}$, denoted $\mathpzc{Pr(P)}$, as follows:Let $\mathpzc{P}_1$ and $\mathpzc{P}_2$ be isomorphic copies of $\mathpzc{P}$. Locate $\mathpzc{P}_1$ on the plane $x=0$ and $\mathpzc{P}_2$ on the plane $x=1$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. We take the union of lines corresponding points on $\mathpzc{P_1}$ and $\mathpzc{P_2}$. Let $V$ be the vertex set of $\mathpzc{P}$, let $V_1$ be the vertex set of $\mathpzc{P}_1$, and let $V_2$ be the vertex set of $\mathpzc{P}_2$.
For every $r$-dimensional face $\mathpzc{p}$ in the polytope $\mathpzc{P}$, there exists a corresponding $r$-dimensional face $\mathpzc{p}_1$ in the polytope $\mathpzc{P}_1$, $r$-dimensional face $\mathpzc{p}_2$ in the polytope $\mathpzc{P}_2$, and $(r+1)$-dimensional face $\mathpzc{p}'$ in $\mathpzc{Pr(P)}$ connecting $\mathpzc{p}_1$ and $\mathpzc{p}_2$. All faces in $\mathpzc{Pr(P)}$ are of the form $\mathpzc{p}'$, $\mathpzc{p}_1$ or $\mathpzc{p}_2$. Figure \[prism\] shows the prism construction applied to a square.
![[]{data-label="prism"}](Figure1 "fig:") ![[]{data-label="prism"}](Figure6 "fig:")
Given a face poset $P$ of $\mathpzc{P}$, let $P_1$ and $P_2$ be isomorphic copies of $P$, such that $P_1$ is the face poset of $\mathpzc{P}_1$ and $P_2$ is the face poset of $\mathpzc{P}_2$. Just as elements of $P$ are subsets of the vertex set $V$ of $\mathpzc{P}$, elements of $P_1$ are subsets of the vertex set $V_1$ of $\mathpzc{P}_1$ and elements of $P_2$ are subsets of the vertex set $V_2$ of $\mathpzc{P}_2$. For $p \in P$ corresponding to $p_1 \in P_1$ and $p_2 \in P_2$, define $p'$ so that $p' = p_1 \cup p_2$. Let $\beta_P = \left\{p' | p \in P\right\}$. We call $\beta_P $ the prism addition poset of $P$. We define the prism of $P$ to be $Pr(P) = P_1 \cup P_2 \cup \beta_P$ with ordering relation given by set inclusion.
Note that if $P$ is the face poset of $\mathpzc{P}$, then by construction $Pr(P)$ is the face poset of $\mathpzc{Pr(P)}$.
\[bijj\] Let $P$ be a face poset with prism addition poset $\beta_P $. Then $$\displaystyle (\beta_P)_{\ge 0} \cong P_{\ge 0}.$$
We define a function $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
\phi&:&P'&\rightarrow&(\beta_P)_{\ge 0}\\
&&p&\mapsto&p'.\\
\end{array}$$ We wish to show that $\phi$ is an isomorphism of posets, so we need to show that $p \le_{P_{\ge 0}} q$ if and only if $p' \le_{(\beta_P)_{\ge 0}} q'$.
We know that $p \le_{P_{\ge 0}} q$ if and only if $p \subseteq q$. This is equivalent to $p_1 \subseteq q_1$ and $p_2 \subseteq q_2$, or $p_1 \cup p_2 \subseteq q_1 \cup q_2$. Since $p' = p_1 \cup p_2$ and $q' = q_1 \cup q_2$, we know that $p_1 \cup p_2 \subseteq q_1 \cup q_2$ if and only if $p' \subseteq q'$. Furthermore, $p' \subseteq q'$ if and only if $p' \le_{(\beta_P)_{\ge 0}} q'$. This gives us our result
Let $U$ be to a poset such that $$\displaystyle U = \left\{u, v, q \right\}$$ with ordering relation defined such that $v, w \le_U u$. Figure \[U\] shows the poset $U$.
![[]{data-label="U"}](Figure9)
\[prdp\] Let $P$ be a face poset with prism $Pr(P)$. Then, $$\displaystyle Pr(P)_{\ge 0} \cong P_{\ge 0} \times U.$$
Define a bijection $\psi: P_{\geq 0}\times U\rightarrow Pr(P)$ by $$\psi:\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
(p, u)&\mapsto&p' \\
(p, v)&\mapsto&p_1\\
(p, w)&\mapsto&p_2
\end{array}\right..$$ We wish to show that $\psi$ is a bijection. To do so, we need to show that $(p, s) \le (q,t)$ if and only if $\psi((p,s)) \le \psi((q,t)).$
For $s = t = u$, we need to show that $(p, u) \le (q, u)$ if and only if $\psi((p,u)) \le \psi((q,u))$. We know that $(p, u) \le (q, u)$ if and only if $p \le_{P_{\ge 0}} q$. By Lemma $\ref{bijj}$, we have $p \le_{P_{\ge 0}} q$ if and only if $p' \le_{\beta_P} q'$. For $p', q' \in (\beta_P)_{\ge 0}$, we have $p' \le_{(\beta_P)_{\ge 0}} q'$ if and only if $p' \le_{Pr(P)_{\ge 0}} q'$. Since $\psi((p,u)) = p'$ and $\psi((q,u)) = q'$, we know that $p' \le_{Pr(P)_{\ge 0}} q'$ if and only if $\psi((p,u)) \le_{Pr(P)_{\ge 0}} \psi((q,u))$.
For $s = t = v$ , we need to show that $(p, v) \le (q, v)$ if and only if $\psi((p,v)) \le \psi((q,v))$. We know that $(p, v) \le_{P_{\ge 0} \times U} (q, v)$ if and only if $p \le_{P_{\ge 0}} q$. Since $P_{\ge 0}$ is isomorphic to $(P_1)_{\ge 0}$, we know $p \le_{P_{\ge 0}} q$ if and only if $p_1 \le_{(P_1)_{\ge 0}} q_1$. For $p_1, q_1 \in (P_1)_{\ge 0}$, we have $p_1 \le_{(P_1)_{\ge 0}} q_1$ if and only if $p_1 \le_{Pr(P)_{\ge 0}} q_1$. Since $\psi((p,r)) = p_1$ and $\psi((q,r)) = q_1$, we know that $p_1 \le_{Pr(P)_{\ge 0}} q_1$ if and only if $\psi((p,v)) \le \psi((q,v)).$
A similar argument shows that $(p, s) \le (q,t)$ if and only if $\psi((p,s)) \le \psi((q,t))$ in the case where $s = t = w$.
For $s = u, t = v$, we want to show $(p, u) \le (q, r)$ if and only if $\psi((p,u)) \le \psi((q,v))$. Since $u > v$, there do not exist $p, q$ in $P_{\ge 0}$ such that $(p, u) \le (q,v)$. We will show there do not exist $p, q$ in $P_{\ge 0}$ such that $\psi((p,u)) \le \psi((q, v))$. We know that $\psi((p,u)) \le \psi((q,v))$ if and only if $p' \subseteq q_1$. Since $p' = p_1 \cup p_2$, there do not exist $p, q \in P_{\ge 0}$ such that $p' \subseteq q_1$.
A similar argument shows that $(p, s) \le (q,t)$ if and only if $\psi((p,s)) \le \psi((q,t))$ in the case where $s =u, t=w$.
For $s = v, t = u$, we need to show that $(p, v) \le (q, u)$ if and only if $\psi((p,v)) \le \psi((q,u))$. We know that $(p, v) \le (q, u)$ if and only if $p \subseteq q$. Since $p_1 \cap q_2 = \emptyset$ for all $p, q \in P_{\ge 0}$, we know that $p \subseteq q$ if and only if $p_1 \subseteq q_1 \cup q_2$. Since $q' = q_1\cup q_2$, we have $p_1 \subseteq q_1\cup q_2$ if and only if $p_1 \subseteq q'$. Since $\psi((p,v)) = p_1$ and $ \psi((q,u)) = q'$, we know that $p_1 \subseteq q'$ if and only if $\psi((p,v)) \le \psi((q,u))$.
A similar argument shows that $(p, s) \le (q,t)$ if and only if $\psi((p,s)) \le \psi((q,t))$ in the case where $s =w, t=u$.
For $s = v, t = w$, we need to show $(p, v) \le (q, w)$ if and only if $\psi((p,v)) \le \psi((q,w))$. Since $v$ is not below $w$ in the poset U, there does not exist $p, q$ in $P_{\ge 0}$ such that $(p, v) \le (q,w)$. We want to show there does not exist $p, q$ in $P_{\ge 0}$ such that $\psi((p,v)) \le \psi((q,w))$. We know that $\psi((p,v)) \le \psi((q,w))$ if and only if $p_1 \subseteq q_2$. However, for all $\left\{p, q \in P_{\ge 0}\mid p_1 \subseteq q_2 \right\}= \emptyset$. Hence, there do not exist $p, q \in P_{\ge 0}$ such that $p_1 \subseteq q_2$.
A similar argument shows that $(p, s) \le (q,t)$ if and only if $\psi((p,s)) \le \psi((q,t))$ in the case where $s =w, t=v$.
Hence, $\psi$ defines an isomorphism of posets and so $Pr(P)_{\ge 0} \cong P_{\ge 0} \times U$.
\[prismform\] $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{Pr(P)} (z) = (3-2z) \cdot \left(\mathcal{M}_P (z) - g_{-1}^P (z)\right) + g_{-1}^{Pr(P)}.$$
By Proposition $\ref{prdp}$ and Lemma $\ref{dp}$, we know $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{Pr(P)_{\ge 0}} (z) = \mathcal{M}_{P_{\ge 0}} (z) \cdot \mathcal{M}_U (z) = (3-2z) \cdot \mathcal{M}_{P_{\ge 0}} (z).$$ Note that $\mathcal{M}_{P_{\ge 0}} (z) = \mathcal{M}_P (z) - g_{-1}^P (z)$ and $\mathcal{M}_{Pr(P)} (z) = \mathcal{M}_{Pr(P)_{\ge 0}} (z) + g_{-1}^{Pr(P)} (z)$. Hence, $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{Pr(P)} (z) = (3-2z) \cdot \left(\mathcal{M}_P (z) - g_{-1}^P (z)\right) + g_{-1}^{Pr(P)} (z).$$
We now use this theorem to give a proof of the following result, originally proved in 2012 by Colleen Duffy, Wai Shan Chan, and Cary Schneider at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire:
\[hypercube\] If $\mathpzc{C}^d$ is a $d$-dimensional hypercube with face poset $C^d$, then $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{C^d} (z) = (-2z+3)^d - z(2-z)^d + 1.$$
We will use the following lemma in our proof:
\[botpoly\] If $\mathpzc{C}^d$ is a $d$-dimensional hypercube with face poset $C^d$, then $$\displaystyle g_{-1}^{C^d} (z) = 1 - z(2-z)^d.$$
By Lemma $\ref{facepoly}$, we know that $$\displaystyle g_{-1}^{C^d} (z) = \sum_{r=-1}^d f_r \cdot (-z)^{r+1}.$$ Notice that $f_{-1} = 1.$ We need to calculate $f_r$ for $r \ge 0$ in terms of $d$. Notice that the convex hull of the set of points $(\pm 1, \pm 1,..., \pm 1)$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ corresponds to a $d$-dimensional hypercube. We can count the number of $r$-dimensional faces $\mathpzc{f}_r$ as follows:\
There are ${d \choose r}$ ways to choose the $r$ dimensions of the hyperplane. Consider the set of vertices of the hypercube contained in the hyperplane. There are $2^{d-r}$ ways to choose the coordinates of the remaining $d-r$ dimensions that must remain fixed over all points in the hyperplane. Notice that there is only way to fill in the remaining $r$ coordinates which must range over all possible combinations of $\pm 1$. Thus, $\mathpzc{f}_r = 2^{d-n} {d \choose r}.$ Hence, we know that $$\begin{aligned}
g_{-1}^{C^d} (z) &= 1 + \sum_{r=0}^{d} 2^{d-r} {d \choose r} (-z)^{r+1} \\
&= 1 - z \cdot \sum_{r=0}^d 2^{d-r} {d \choose r} (-z)^r \\
&= 1 - z(2-z)^d. \end{aligned}$$
We proceed by induction on $d$. For $d=0$, notice that $C^0 \cong T_2$. Hence, $\mathcal{M}_{C^0} = 2-z.$\
Now assume that $d > 0$ and that the result holds for hypercubes of smaller dimension. Notice that a hypercube of dimension $d$ is the prism over a hypercube of dimension $d-1$. Hence, we know that $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{C^d} (z) = (3-2z) \cdot \left(\mathcal{M}_{C^{d-1}}(z) - g_{-1}^{C^{d-1}} (z)\right) + g_{-1}^{C^d}.$$ By Lemma $\ref{botpoly}$ and the induction hypothesis, we know that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{C^d} (z) &= (3-2z) \cdot \left((-2z+3)^{d-1} - z(2-z)^{d-1} + 1 - (1 - z(2-z)^{d-1})\right) \\
&+ 1 - z(2-z)^d \\
&= (-2z+3)^{d} - z(2-z)^d +1. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, the result holds for any hypercube $\mathpzc{C}^d$ with face poset $C^d$ for any $d \ge 0$.
Gluing Together Convex Polytopes
================================
Given $d$-dimensional convex polytopes $\mathpzc{P}$,$\mathpzc{Q}$, and $(d-1)$-dimensional convex polytope $\mathpzc{R}$, such that $\mathpzc{P}$ and $\mathpzc{Q}$ contain isomorphic copies $\mathpzc{R}_P$ and $\mathpzc{R}_Q$ of $\mathpzc{R}$, respectively, we can obtain the $d$-dimensional convex polytope $\mathpzc{GL(P,Q, R)}$ as follows:
Glue $\mathpzc{P}$ and $\mathpzc{Q}$ along their isomorphic copies of $\mathpzc{R}$, so that $\mathpzc{R}_P$ and $\mathpzc{R}_Q$ line up. Then delete the faces $\mathpzc{R}_P$ and $\mathpzc{R}_Q$ which are now in the interior of the convex polytope.
This operation does not allow for a face $\mathpzc{f} \in \mathpzc{P}$ and a face $\mathpzc{g} \in \mathpzc{Q}$ to be at angles such that, after the gluing, $\mathpzc{f}$ and $\mathpzc{g}$ become one face. For example, the following construction is not permitted:
Let $\mathpzc{P}$ and $\mathpzc{Q}$ be cubes of side length $1$. Let $\mathpzc{R}$ be a square of side length $1$. Then the gluing process yields a rectangular prism. However, a square face in $\mathpzc{P}$ and a square face in $\mathpzc{Q}$ formed a single rectangular face in the gluing. This is not permitted.
We use the following definitions in this section:
For a poset $P$, we define the poset $\hat{P}$ to be $P \cup \left\{\hat{1}^{\hat{P}}\right\}$ with ordering relation given by
- For $p, q \in P$, $p \le_{\hat{P}} q$ if $p \le_P q$.
- For $p \in P$, $p \le_{\hat{P}} \hat{1}^{\hat{P}}$.
For a poset $P$ with a unique maximal element $\hat{1}^P$, we define the poset $\dot{P}$ to be $\hat{P} \setminus \left\{\hat{1}^P \right\}$ with ordering relation given by
- For $p, q \in P \setminus \left\{\hat{1}^P \right\}$, $p \le_{\dot{P}} q$ if $p \le_{P} q$.
- For $p \in P$, $p \le_{\dot{P}} \hat{1}^{\hat{P}}$.
Given face posets $P$, $Q$ of rank $d$, and $R$ of rank $d-1$, such that $P$ and $Q$ contain isomorphic copies $R_P$ and $R_Q$ of $R$, with isomorphism maps $\phi^P: R \rightarrow R^P$ and $\phi^Q: R \rightarrow R^Q$ define the gluing poset of $P$, $Q$ along $R$ to be $$\displaystyle Gl(P,Q,R) = (P \setminus \hat{R}_P) \cup (Q \setminus \hat{R}_Q) \cup \dot{R}.$$ where $\hat{R}_P = R_P \cup \left\{\hat{1}^P\right\}$ and where $\hat{R}_Q = R_Q \cup \left\{\hat{1}^Q\right\}$.
For ease of notation, we will refer to $Gl(P, Q, R)$ as $Gl$ when there is no risk of ambiguity.
We define the ordering relation $\le_{Gl}$ as follows:
- For $p, q \in P \setminus \hat{R}_P, p \le_{Gl} q$ if $p \le_P q$.
- If $p, q \in Q \setminus \hat{R}_Q, p \le_{Gl} q$ if $p \le_Q q$.
- If $p, q \in \dot{R}$ and $p \le_{Gl} q$ if $p \le_{\dot{R}} q$.
- If $p \in P \setminus \hat{R}_P$ and $q \in \dot{R}, p \le_{Gl} q$ if $p \le_P \phi^P(q)$.
- If $p \in \dot{R}$ and $q \in P \setminus \hat{R}_P, , p \le_{Gl} q$ if $\phi^P(p) \le_P q$.
- If $p \in Q \setminus \hat{R}_Q$ and $q \in \dot{R}, p \le_{Gl} q$ if $p \le_Q \phi^Q(q)$.
- If $p \in \dot{R}$ and $q \in Q \setminus \hat{R}_Q, p \le_{Gl} q$ if $\phi^Q(p) \le_Q q$.
Notice that $\hat{1}^{\dot{R}} = \hat{1}^{\hat{R}} = \hat{1}^{Gl}$, and that by construction, $Gl(P,Q,R)$ is the face poset of the convex polytope $\mathpzc{GL(P,Q,R)}$.
\[glue\] $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{Gl} (z) = \mathcal{M}_P (z) + \mathcal{M}_Q (z) - \mathcal{M}_R (z) - 1 +z - (1-z) \cdot g_{|R|}^R (z).$$
We will prove this using the following lemmas:
\[hat\] $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) = \mathcal{M}_R (z) + 1 - z.$$
We have $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) = \mathcal{M}_R (z) + \mu_z^{\hat{R}} [\hat{1}^R, \hat {1}^{\hat{R}}] + \sum_{p \in R, p \neq \hat{1}^R} \mu_z^{\hat{R}} [p, \hat{1}].$$
We have $$\displaystyle \mu [p, \hat{1}] = -\sum_{p \leq q, q \in R} \mu [p,q] = \mu {p \leq x \leq \hat{1}^R} [p,x] = 0.$$
This means that $$\displaystyle \mu_z^{\hat{R}} [p, \hat{1}] = 0.$$
Note that $$\displaystyle \mu_z^{\hat{R}} [\hat{1}^R, \hat{1}] = 1-z.$$
This means that
$$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) = \mathcal{M}_R (z) + 1 - z.$$
\[dot\] $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{\dot{R}} (z) = \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) - (1-z) \cdot g_{|R|}^R(z)$$
We have
$$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{\dot{R}} (z) = \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) - \sum_{p \in R} \mu_z^R [p, \hat{1}^R] + E$$ where $E$ is the effect of deleting $\hat{1}^R$ on $\mu_z^{Gl(P, Q, R)} [p, \hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}]$ for all $p \in R$.
We will begin by proving $$\displaystyle E = \sum_{p \in R} z^{|\hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q, R)}| - |p|} \cdot \mu [p, \hat{1}^R]$$
We know that in $\dot{R}$, $\mu_g [p, \hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}] = -\sum_{p \leq q < \hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}} z^{|\hat{1}| - |p|} \cdot \mu [p, q]$. Take $q \in [p, \hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}]$ in the poset $\hat{R}$ such that $q \neq \hat{1}^R$. We know that $q < \hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}$ in $\dot{R}$, so each term $z^{|\hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}| - |p|} \cdot \mu [p, q]$ is present in the sum, except for $z^{|\hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}| - |p|} \cdot \mu [p, \hat{1}^R]$. Hence, $z^{|\hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}| - |p|} \cdot \mu [p, \hat{1}^R]$ must be added back for all $p \in R$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{\dot{R}} (z) &= \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) - \sum_{p \in R} \mu_z^R [p, \hat{1}^R] + \sum_{p \in R} z^{|\hat{1}^{Gl(P,Q,R)}| - |p|} \cdot \mu [p, \hat{1}^R]\\
&= \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) - \sum_{p \in R} \mu_z^R [p, \hat{1}^R] + z \cdot \sum_{p \in R} z^{|\hat{1}^R| - |p|} \cdot \mu [p, \hat{1}^R] \\
&= \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) - (1-z) \cdot \sum_{p \in R} \mu_z^R [p, \hat{1}^R] \\
&= \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) - (1-z) \cdot g_{|R|}^R (z). \end{aligned}$$
By the definition of $Gl(P, Q, R)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_Gl (z) &= \mathcal{M}_P (z) - \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}_P} (z) + \mathcal{M}_Q (z) - \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}_Q} (z) + \mathcal{M}_{\dot{R}} (z) \\
&= \mathcal{M}_P (z) + \mathcal{M}_Q (z) - 2 \cdot \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) + \mathcal{M}_{\dot{R}} (z).\end{aligned}$$ If we apply Lemma $\ref{hat}$ and Lemma $\ref{dot}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_Gl (z) &= \mathcal{M}_P (z) + \mathcal{M}_Q (z) - 2 \cdot \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) + \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) - (1-z) \cdot g_{|R|}^R (z) \\
&= \mathcal{M}_P (z) + \mathcal{M}_Q (z) - \mathcal{M}_{\hat{R}} (z) - (1-z) \cdot g_{|R|}^R (z)\\
&= \mathcal{M}_P (z) + \mathcal{M}_Q (z) - \mathcal{M}_R (z) - 1 +z - (1-z) \cdot g_{|R|}^R (z). \\\end{aligned}$$
Simplicial Polytopes
====================
We define a boolean lattice of $n$ elements, denoted $2^{[n]}$ to be the set of subsets of $\left\{1, 2, ..., n\right\}$ ordered by set inclusion.
We define a simplicial poset $P$ to be any ranked poset such that every interval $I \in I(P)$ is a boolean lattice.
\[simp\] In a simplicial poset $P$ with rank $d$, a unique minimum element $\hat{0}$, and $f$-vector $(f_{-1}, f_0,...,f_{d})$ $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = \sum_{-1 \le r \le d} (1-z)^{r +1} f_r.$$
We will use the following lemma in our proof.
\[boolpoly\] In a boolean lattice, $2^{[n]}$ with rank $n-1$, $$\displaystyle g_{n-1}^{2^{[n]}} (z) = (1-z)^n$$
Since $S^{n-1} \cong 2^{[n]}$, $2^{[n]}$ is isomorphic to a face poset. Hence, by Lemma $\ref{facepoly}$, if $(f_{-1}, f_0,...f_{n-1})$ is the $f$-vector of $2^{[n]}$, then $$\displaystyle g_{n-1}^{2^{[n]}} (z) = \sum_{r=-1}^{n-1} f_r (-z)^{n-1-r}.$$ Notice that $f_r = {n \choose {r+1}}$. It follows that $$\displaystyle g_{n-1}^{2^{[n]}} (z) = \sum_{r=-1}^{n-1} {n \choose r+1} (-z)^{n-(r+1)}.$$ Applying the binomial theorem, we obtain $$\displaystyle g_{n-1}^{2^{[n]}} (z) = (1-z)^n$$
Notice that $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{P} (z) = \sum_{p \in P} \sum_{q \le p} \mu_z [q, p].$$
Take $p \in P$ with rank $r$. Notice that $$\displaystyle [\hat{0}, p] = \left\{q \in P_{\ge d-1} \mid q \le p \right\}.$$ Hence,
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{q \le p} \mu_z [q, p] &= \sum_{q \in [\hat{0},p]} \mu_z [q, p] \\
&= g^{[\hat{0},p]}_{|p|} (z)\end{aligned}$$
By the definition of a simplicial poset, we know $[\hat{0}, p] \cong 2^{[r+1]}$. Hence, by Lemma $\ref{boolpoly}$, we have
$$\displaystyle \sum_{q \le p} \mu_z [q, p] = (1-z)^{r + 1}.$$
It follows that,
$$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{P} (z) = \sum_{p \in P} (1-z)^{r + 1}.$$
Grouping the elements by rank, we obtain
$$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{P} (z) = \sum_{-1 \le r \le d} (1-z)^{r + 1} f_r.$$
We define a simplicial polytope to be a $d$-dimensional convex polytope $\mathpzc{P}$ such that any $(d-1)$-dimensional face is a simplex.
We define a near-simplicial poset $P$ to be any ranked poset such that $P_{\le |P|-1}$ is a disjoint union of simplicial posets with unique minimum elements.
Notice that the face poset $P$ of a simplicial polytope $\mathpzc{P}$ is near-simplicial.
\[nearsimp\] In a near-simplicial poset $P$ with rank $d$ and $f$-vector $(f_{-1}, f_0,...f_{d})$ $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = g^P_{d} (z) + \sum_{-1 \le r \le d -1} (1-z)^{r +1} f_r.$$
Notice that $\mathcal{M}_P (z) = g^P_{d} (z) + \mathcal{M}_{P_{\le d-1}} (z)$. First, we consider $\mathcal{M}_{P_{\le d-1}} (z)$. Since $P_{\le d-1}$ is a disjoint union of simplicial posets with unique minimum elements, we can obtain $\mathcal{M}_{P_{\le d-1}}$ by taking the sum of the Möbius polynomials of each of these simplicial posets. By Theorem $\ref{simp}$, $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_{P_{\le d-1}} (z) = \sum_{-1 \le r \le d-1} (1-z)^{r + 1} f_r.$$
It follows that,
$$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = g^P_{d} (z) + \sum_{-1 \le r \le d -1} (1-z)^{r +1} f_r.$$
In a face poset $P$ with rank $d$, by Lemma $\ref{facepoly}$, we know that $g_{d}^{P} (z) = \sum_{r=-1}^{d} f_r (-z)^{d-r}$. Hence, we can simplify Theorem $\ref{simp}$ for the face posets of simplicial polytopes.
Given a $d$-dimensional simplicial polytope $\mathpzc{P}$ with face poset $P$,
$$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = \sum_{r=-1}^{d} f_r (-z)^{d-r} + \sum_{-1 \le r \le d -1} (1-z)^{r +1} f_r.$$
Eulerian Posets
===============
An Eulerian poset is a ranked poset $P$ with unique maximum and minimum elements such that, for all $p, q \in P$ with $p \le q$, $$\displaystyle \mu [p,q] = (-1)^{|q| - |p|}.$$
Note that any interval of an Eulerian poset is itself an Eulerian poset. By Lemma $\ref{Faceuler}$, we know all face posets of convex polytopes are Eulerian posets. In this section, we will discuss the Möbius polynomials of Eulerian posets. Fix an Eulerian poset $P$ of rank $d$. We define $N_{i,j}$ to be the number of intervals $[p, q]$ such that $p$ is an element of rank $i$ and $q$ is an element of rank $j$ for $-1 \le i \le j$. We can calculate the Möbius polynomial of $P$ in terms of the $N_{i, j}$ values: $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = \sum_{0 \le l \le n+1} \sum_{j-i = l} N_{i, j} (-z)^{l}$$
Hence, to calculate the Möbius polynomial of an Eulerian poset $P$, it suffices to calculate $N_{i,j}$ for $-1 \le i \le j \le |P|$. We know that $N_{-1, r}, N_{r, |P|},$ and $N_{r, r}$ are all equal to $f_r$. It remains to calculate $N_{i,j}$ for $0 \le i < j < d$. We will use the following lemmas:
\[eulerchar\] For an Eulerian poset $P$ with rank $d$ and $f$-vector
$(f_{-1}, f_0,..., f_d)$, we have $$\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{d-1} f_i \cdot (-1)^i = (-1)^{d + 1} + 1$$
By Lemma \[Muiszero\] $$\displaystyle \sum_{\hat{0} \le p \le \hat{1}} \mu [\hat{0}, p] = 0.$$ Separating the elements by rank, we get: $$\displaystyle \sum_{i= -1}^d \sum_{p \in P_i} \mu [\hat{0}, p] = 0.$$ Since $\mu [\hat{0}, p]$ is $(-1)^{|p| + 1}$, we get: $$\displaystyle \sum_{i= -1}^d (-1)^{i+1} f_i = 0.$$ Moving the $i = -1$ and $i = d$ terms to the right side, we get: $$\displaystyle \sum_{i= 0 }^{d-1} (-1)^{i+1} f_i = (-1)[(-1)^{d +1} + 1].$$ Hence, $$\displaystyle \sum_{i= 0 }^{d-1} (-1)^{i} f_i = (-1)^{d +1} + 1.$$
\[System\] For an Eulerian poset $P$ with rank $d$, and $f$-vector
$(f_{-1}, f_0...f_d)$, we have the following system of $2d-2$ equations:
- For $1 \le j \le d-1,$ $$\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (-1)^i N_{i, j} = ((-1)^{j+1} + 1) f_j.$$
- For $0 \le j \le d-2$, $$\sum_{j=i+1}^{d-1} (-1)^{j-i-1} N_{i, j} = ((-1)^{d-i} + 1) f_i$$
We begin by proving (i). For an element $p \in P$, let $B_i^p$ be the number of elements of rank $i$ below $p$. That is, $$\displaystyle B_{i, p} = |P_i \cap \left\{q \in P \mid q \le p \right\}|.$$ Notice that $\sum_{p \in P_j} B_{i, p} = N_{i,j}$. Thus, we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (-1)^i N_{i, j} &= \sum_{i=0}^{j-1} \sum_{p \in P_j} (-1)^i B_{i, p} \\
&= \sum_{p \in P_j} \sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (-1)^i B_{i,p}.\end{aligned}$$
We know that the interval $[\hat{0}, p]$ is an Eulerian poset for all $p \in P$. Thus for all $p \in P$, Lemma $\ref{eulerchar}$ gives us $$\displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (-1)^i B_{i, p} = (-1)^{j+1} + 1.$$ Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (-1)^i N_{i, j} &= \sum_{p \in P_j} \left[(-1)^{j+1} + 1 \right] \\
&= \left[(-1)^{j+1} + 1 \right] f_j.\end{aligned}$$
The proof of (ii) is similar. For each $p \in P$, we define $A_{p, j}$ to be the number of elements of rank $j$ above $p$. That is, $$\displaystyle A_{p, j} = |P_j \cap \left\{q \in P \mid q \ge p \right\}|.$$ Notice that $\sum_{p \in P_i} A_{p, j} = N_{i, j}$. Thus, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=i+1}^{d-1} (-1)^{j-i-1} N_{i, j} &= \sum_{j=i+1}^{d-1} \sum_{p \in P_i} (-1)^{j-i-1} A_{p, j} \\
&= \sum_{p \in P_i} \sum_{j=i+1}^{d-1} (-1)^{j-i-1} A_{p,j}. \end{aligned}$$ Since the interval $[p, \hat{1}]$ is Eulerian, Lemma $\ref{eulerchar}$ gives us gives us $$\displaystyle \sum_{j=i+1}^{d-1} (-1)^{j-i-1} A_{p, j} = (-1)^{d-i} + 1.$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=i+1}^{d-1} (-1)^{j-i-1} N_{i, j} &= \sum_{p \in P_i} \left[(-1)^{d-i} + 1 \right] \\
&= \left[(-1)^{d-i} + 1 \right] f_i.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that of the equations in (i) of Lemma $\ref{System}$, $$\displaystyle \sum^{d-1}_{i=0} N_{i,d-1} = (-1)^d +1$$ is a linear combination of the others. We will show that the remaining $(2d-3)$ equations are linearly independent by solving these equations in the Proof of Theorem $\ref{GenMob}$.
In the case where $d=3$, we can calculate the $N_{i,j}$ from $f_0, f_1,$ and $f_2$. This gives us the following:
\[three\] For an Eulerian poset $P$ with rank $3$ and $f$-vector
$(f_{-1}, f_0, f_1, f_2, f_3)$, $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = (2+f_0+f_1+f_2) - (f_0+4f_1+f_2)*z + 4f_1 z^2 - (f_0+f_2) z^3 + z^4.$$
By Lemma $\ref{System}$ we have three equations in three variables: $$\begin{aligned}
N_{0,1} &= 2f_1 \\
N_{0,2} - N_{1,2} &= 0 \\
N_{0,1} - N_{0,2} &= 0. \\\end{aligned}$$ Solving, we obtain $N_{0,1} = 2f_1, N_{0,2} = 2f_1, N_{1,2} = 2f_1$. We know $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z)= \sum_{0 \le l \le 4} \sum_{j-i = l} N_{i, j} \cdot (-z)^{l}.$$ We will calculate $\sum_{j-i = l} N_{i, j}$ for $l$ from $0$ to $4$.
For $l=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j-i = 0} N_{i, j} &= N_{-1, -1} + N_{0,0} + N_{1,1} + N_{2,2} + N_{3,3} \\
&= f_{-1}+f_0+f_1+f_2 + f_{-3} \\
&= 2 + f_0 + f_1 + f_2. \end{aligned}$$
For $l=1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j-i = 1} N_{i, j} &= N_{-1,0} + N_{0,1} + N_{1,2} + N_{2,3} \\
&= f_0 + 2f_1 + 2f_1 + f_2 \\
&= f_0 + 4f_1 + f_2. \end{aligned}$$
For $l=2$, we have $$\displaystyle \sum_{j-i = 2} N_{i, j} = N_{-1,1} + N_{0,2} + N_{1,3} = f_1 + 2f_1 + f_1 = 4f_1.$$
For $l=3$, we have $$\displaystyle \sum_{j-i = 3} N_{i, j} = N_{-1,2} + N_{0,3} = f_0 + f_2.$$
For $l=4$, we have $$\displaystyle \sum_{j-i = 4} N_{i, j} = N_{-1,3} = 1.$$
It follows that: $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = (2+f_0+f_1+f_2) - (f_0+4f_1+f_2)*z + 4f_1 z^2 - (f_0+f_2) z^3 + z^4.$$
For Eulerian posets of rank greater than $3$, we cannot calculate the Möbius polynomial in terms of the the $f_r$ values. To see that this is the case, consider the following example:
By Steinitz’ Lemma [@stein], we know that we can construct a convex polytope $\mathpzc{K}$ with $\mathpzc{f}$-vector $(1, 18, 38, 22, 1)$. Let $\mathpzc{P}$ be the convex polytope given by $\mathpzc{P} = \mathpzc{Py (K)}$.
Let $$\displaystyle\mathpzc{Q} = \mathpzc{Gl(Gl(Gl(C^4, Py(C^3), C^3), Py(C^3), C^3), Py(C^3), C^3)}.$$
By construction, both $\mathpzc{P}$ and $\mathpzc{C^i}$ have the same $\mathpzc{f}$-vector: $$\displaystyle (1, 19, 56, 60, 23, 1).$$
Using Theorem $\ref{three}$ and Theorem $\ref{pyramid}$, we can show that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_P (z) &= (2 - z) (80 - 192 z + 152 z^2 - 40 z^3 + z^4) \\
&= 160 - 464 z + 496 z^2 - 232 z^3 + 42 z^4 - z^5.\end{aligned}$$
Using the formulas in Theorem $\ref{glue}$, Theorem $\ref{pyramid}$, and Theorem $\ref{hypercube}$, we find that $\mathcal{M}_Q (z)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&(-2z + 3)^4 - z (2-z)^4 + 1 + 3 (2 - z) ((-2 z + 3)^3 - z (2 - z)^3 + 1) \\
&-3 ((-2 z + 3)^3 - z (2 - z)^3 + 1) - 3 (1 - z) \\
&- 3 (1 - z) (1 - 6 z + 12 z^2 - 8 z^3 + z^4 )\end{aligned}$$ which reduces to $$\displaystyle 160 - 478 z + 524 z^2 - 246 z^3 + 42 z^4 - z^5.$$ Hence, we have found two face posets with the same $f$-vector but different Möbius polynomials. This demonstrates that the Möbius polynomial cannot be calculated from the $f$-vector for an arbitrary Eulerian poset of rank greater than $3$.
We will now choose $N_{i,j}$ values to be given along with the $f_r$ values to make the system in Lemma $\ref{System}$ solvable. The other $N_{i,j}$ values can be solved in terms of these given values.
Assuming the equations in Lemma $\ref{System}$ are linearly independent, we should be able to calculate the $\mathcal{M}_P (z)$ from the $f$-vector and some collection of all but $2d-3$ of the $N_{i, j}$. The following theorem shows that this is indeed possible:
\[GenMob\] Let $P$ be a rank-$d$ Eulerian poset. Given the $f$-vector $(f_{-1}, f_0,...,f_d)$ and the values $N_{i,j}$ for $0 < i+1 < j < d-1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_P (z) &= \sum_{i=-1}^d f_i - z (f_0 + 2f_1 + 2f_{d-2} + f_{d-1} + \sum_{i=0}^{d-3} ((-1)^{i} +1) f_{i+1}) \\
&+ (\sum_{0 \le k < i \le d-3} (-1)^{i+1-k} N_{k,i+1})) + \sum_{l=2}^{d-2} (-z)^l (f_{l-1} + f_{d-l} \\
&+ \sum^{d-2}_{j=l} (N_{j-l, j}) + ((-1)^{l-1} +1) f_{d-l-1} + ((-1)^{d-1} + (-1)^{l}) f_{d-l} \\
&+ \sum^{d-l-2}_{k=0} \left[(-1)^{d-k} N_{k,d-l}\right] + \sum^{d-2}_{j = d-l+1} ((-1)^{d-j} N_{d-l-1, j})) \\
&+ (-z)^{d-1} (((-1)^{d} + 1)f_0 + f_1 + 2(-1)^{d-1} + 1) f_{1} + f_{d-2} \\
&+ \sum^{d-2}_{j = 2} \left[N_{0, j} (-1)^{d+j}\right]) + (-z)^{d} \left[f_{d-1} + f_0 \right] + (-z)^{d+1}.
\end{aligned}$$
We begin by solving for the missing $N_{i,j}$ values.
Part $(i)$ of Lemma $\ref{System}$ gives us $$\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} (-1)^i N_{i, j} = ((-1)^{j+1}+1) f_j$$ for $1 \le j \le d-1$. It follows that $N_{0,1} = 2f_1$, and that for $1 \le i \le d-2$ $$\displaystyle N_{i, i+1} = ((-1)^{i} +1) f_{i+1} + \sum^{i-1}_{k=0} (-1)^{i+1-k} N_{k,i+1}.$$
Part $(ii)$ of Lemma $\ref{System}$ gives us $$\displaystyle \sum_{j=i+1}^{d-1} (-1)^{j-i-1} N_{i, j} = ((-1)^{d-i}+1) f_i$$ for $0 \le j \le d-2$. This gives us $$\displaystyle N_{i, d-1} = ((-1)^{d-i} + 1) f_i + \sum^{d-2}_{j = i+1} (-1)^{d-j} N_{i,j}.$$ Using our values for $N_{i,i+1}$, we obtain $$\displaystyle N_{0, d-1} = ((-1)^{d} + 1) f_0 + (-1)^{d-1} 2f_1 + \sum^{d-2}_{j = 2} (-1)^{d-j} N_{0,j}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
N_{i, d-1} &= ((-1)^{d-i} + 1) f_i + ((-1)^{d-1} + (-1)^{d-i-1}) f_{i+1} \\
&+ \sum_{k=0}^{i-1} (-1)^{d-k} N_{k, i+1} + sum^{d-2}_{j = i+2} (-1)^{d-j} N_{i,j}\end{aligned}$$ for $0 < i <d-2$. We calculate $N_{d-2, d-1}$ using $(ii)$ $$\displaystyle N_{d-2, d-1} = (-1)^{(d-1) - (d-2)} (-1) ((-1)^{d - (d-2)} + 1) f_{d-2} = 2f_{d-2}.$$ We will now use these values to calculate $\mathcal{M}_P (z)$. We know $$\displaystyle \mathcal{M}_P (z) = \sum_{0 \le l \le d+1} \sum_{j-i = l} N_{i, j} (-z)^{l}.$$ We will calculate $\sum_{j-i = l} N_{i, j}$ for $l$ from $0$ to $d+1$.\
For $l=0$, we have $$\displaystyle \sum_{j-i = 0} N_{i, j} = \sum_{i=-1}^{d} N_{i, i}\sum_{i=-1}^d f_i.$$
For $l=1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j-i = 1} N_{i, j} &= N_{-1, 0} + N_{0,1} + \sum^{d-3}_{i=0} N_{i, i+1} + + N_{d-2, d-1} + N_{d-1,d} \\
&= f_0 + 2f_1 + 2f_{d-2} + f_{d-1} + \sum_{i=0}^{d-3} (((-1)^{i} +1) f_{i+1} \\
&+ \sum^{i-1}_{k=0} (-1)^{i+1-k} N_{k,i+1}) \\
&=f_0 + 2f_1 + 2f_{d-2} + f_{d-1} + \sum_{i=0}^{d-3} ((-1)^{i} +1) f_{i+1}) \\
&+ (\sum_{0 \le k < i \le d-3} (-1)^{i+1-k} N_{k,i+1}).\end{aligned}$$
For $2 \le l \le d-2$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j-i = l} N_{i, j} &= N_{-1, l-1} + \sum^{d-2}_{j=l} N_{j-l, j} + N_{d-l-1, d-1} + N_{d-l, d} \\
&= f_{l-1} + f_{d-l} + \sum^{d-2}_{j=l} (N_{j-l, j}) + ((-1)^{l-1} +1) f_{d-l-1} + ((-1)^{d-1} \\
&+ (-1)^{l}) f_{d-l} + \sum^{d-l-2}_{k=0} \left[(-1)^{d-k} N_{k,d-l}\right] \\
&+ \sum^{d-2}_{j = d-l+1} ((-1)^{d-j} N_{d-l-1, j}).\end{aligned}$$
For $l = d-1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j-i = d-1} N_{i, j} &= N_{-1, d-2} + N_{0, d-1} + N_{1, d} \\
&= f_1 + f_{d-2} + ((-1)^{d} + 1)f_0 + ((-1)^{d-1}) 2f_{1} \\
&+ \sum^{d-2}_{j = 2} \left[N_{0, j} (-1)^{d+j}\right] \\
&= ((-1)^{d} + 1)f_0 + f_1 + (2(-1)^{d-1} + 1) f_{1} + f_{d-2} \\
&+ \sum^{d-2}_{j = 2} \left[N_{0, j} (-1)^{d+j}\right].
\end{aligned}$$
For $l = d$, we have $$\displaystyle \sum_{j-i = d} N_{i, j} = N_{-1, d-1} + N_{0, d} = f_{d-1} +
f_0.$$
For $l = d+1$, we have $$\displaystyle \sum_{j-i = d+1} N_{i, j} = N_{-1, d} = 1.$$
It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_P (z) &= \sum_{i=-1}^d f_i - z (f_0 + 2f_1 + 2f_{d-2} + f_{d-1} + \sum_{i=0}^{d-3} ((-1)^{i} +1) f_{i+1}) \\
&+ (\sum_{0 \le k < i \le d-3} (-1)^{i+1-k} N_{k,i+1})) + \sum_{l=2}^{d-2} (-z)^l (f_{l-1} + f_{d-l} \\
&+ \sum^{d-2}_{j=l} (N_{j-l, j}) + ((-1)^{l-1} +1) f_{d-l-1} + ((-1)^{d-1} + (-1)^{l}) f_{d-l} \\
&+ \sum^{d-l-2}_{k=0} \left[(-1)^{d-k} N_{k,d-l}\right] + \sum^{d-2}_{j = d-l+1} ((-1)^{d-j} N_{d-l-1, j})) \\
&+ (-z)^{d-1} (((-1)^{d} + 1)f_0 + f_1 + 2(-1)^{d-1} + 1) f_{1} + f_{d-2} \\
&+ \sum^{d-2}_{j = 2} \left[N_{0, j} (-1)^{d+j}\right]) + (-z)^{d} \left[f_{d-1} + f_0 \right] + (-z)^{d+1}.
\end{aligned}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Heusler alloys containing Co and Mn are amongst the most heavily studied half-metallic ferromagnets for future applications in spintronics. Using state-of-the-art electronic structure calculations, we investigate the effect of doping and disorder on their electronic and magnetic properties. Small degrees of doping by substituting Fe or Cr for Mn scarcely affect the half-metallicity. A similar effect is also achieved by mixing the sublattices occupied by the Mn and sp atoms. Thus the half-metallicity is a robust property of these alloys.'
author:
- 'I. Galanakis$^1$, K. Özdogan$^2$, E. Şaşioglu$^{3,4}$, and B. Aktaş$^2$'
title: 'Effect of doping and disorder on the half-metallicity of full Heusler alloys'
---
The intensive development of electronics based on the combination of magnetic and semiconducting materials has brought in the center of scientific research new exotic materials. Half-metallic ferromagnets, which were first predicted by de Groot and collaborators in 1983,[@deGroot] have the peculiarity that the band-structure of the minority-spin electrons is semiconducting while of the majority-spin electrons is a normal metallic one. Such materials could maximize the efficiency of spintronic devices.[@Zutic] Several Heusler compounds like NiMnSb and Co$_2$MnSi have been predicted to be half-metals.[@Galanakis]
Ishida and collaborators were, to the best of our knowledge, the first to study by means of *ab-initio* calculations the full-Heusler compounds of the type Co$_2$MnZ, where Z stands for Si and Ge, and have shown that they are half-metals.[@Ishida] Later the origin of half-metallicity in these compounds has been largely explained.[@Galanakis] Many experimental groups during the last years have worked on these compounds and have tried to synthesize them mainly in the form of thin films and incorporate them in spintronic devices. The group of Westerholt has extensively studied the properties of Co$_2$MnGe films and they have incorporated this alloy in the case of spin-valves and multilayer structures.[@Westerholt] The group of Reiss managed to create magnetic tunnel junctions based on Co$_2$MnSi.[@Reiss] A similar study of Sakuraba and collaborators resulted in the fabrication of magnetic tunnel junctions using Co$_2$MnSi as one magnetic electrode and Al-O as the barrier (Co$_{75}$Fe$_{25}$ is the other magnetic electrode) and their results are consistent with the presence of half-metallicity for Co$_2$MnSi.[@Sakuraba] Dong and collaborators recently managed to inject spin-polarized current from Co$_2$MnGe into a semiconducting structure.[@Dong] Finally Kallmayer *et al.* studied the effect of substituting Fe for Mn in Co$_2$MnSi films and have shown that the experimental extracted magnetic spin moments are compatible with the half-metallicity for small degrees of doping.[@Kallmayer]
It is obvious from the experimental results that the full-Heusler compounds containing Co and Mn are of particular interest for spintronics. Not only they combine high Curie temperatures and coherent growth on top of semiconductors (they consist of four fcc sublattice with each one occupied by a single chemical element) but in real experimental situations they can preserve a high degree of spin-polarization at the Fermi level. In order to accurately control their properties it is imperative to investigate the effect of defects, doping and disorder on their properties. Recently Picozzi *et al.* published a study on the effect of defects in Co$_2$MnSi and Co$_2$MnGe.[@Picozzi] Our work aims to further study the effect of doping and disorder on the electronic and magnetic properties of such compounds. Doping is simulated by substituting Fe or Cr for Mn while disorder occurs between the Mn and the sp atom. The electronic structure calculations are performed using the full–potential nonorthogonal local–orbital minimum–basis band structure scheme (FPLO).[@koepernik] Details of similar type of calculations have been published elsewhere.[@Ozdogan]
![(Color online)Spin-resolved total density of states (DOS) for the case of Co$_2$Mn$_{1-x}$Cr$_x$Si and Co$_2$Mn$_{1-x}$Fe$_x$Si for three difference values of the doping concentration $x$. DOS’s are compared to the one of the undoped Co$_2$MnSi alloy. In the onsets we have blown up the region around the Fermi level (which we have set as the zero of the Energy axis). Note that positive values of DOS refer to the majority-spin electrons and negative values to the minority-spin electrons.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1_new.eps)
Total Co Mn Cr sp Total Co Mn Fe sp
------ ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ ------ ------ -------
$x$
0.00 5.00 1.96 3.13 -0.09 5.00 1.96 3.13 -0.09
0.05 4.95 1.97 3.12 2.06 -0.09 5.05 2.02 3.13 2.87 -0.09
0.10 4.90 1.97 3.12 2.07 -0.09 5.09 2.06 3.17 2.85 -0.08
0.20 4.80 1.97 3.12 2.09 -0.08 5.14 2.13 3.16 2.82 -0.08
$x$
0.00 5.00 1.87 3.20 -0.06 5.00 1.87 3.20 -0.06
0.05 4.95 1.86 3.21 2.05 -0.06 5.05 1.91 3.22 2.88 -0.06
0.10 4.90 1.86 3.22 2.07 -0.06 5.10 1.96 3.23 2.88 -0.06
0.20 4.80 1.86 3.22 2.10 -0.06 5.19 2.06 3.26 2.89 -0.05
$x$
0.00 5.02 1.78 3.32 -0.08 5.02 1.78 3.32 -0.08
0.05 4.98 1.77 3.34 2.24 -0.08 5.06 1.82 3.35 2.89 -0.08
0.10 4.92 1.77 3.34 2.24 -0.08 5.11 1.87 3.36 2.90 -0.07
0.20 4.82 1.76 3.35 2.27 -0.08 5.20 1.98 3.38 2.91 -0.07
: Total and atom-resolved spin magnetic moments for the case of Fe and Cr doping of the Mn site in $\mu_B$. The total moment in the cell is the sum of the atomic ones multiplied by the concentration of this chemical element.[]{data-label="table1"}
The first part of our investigation concerns the doping of Co$_2$MnSi, Co$_2$MnGe and Co$_2$MnSn. To simulate the doping by electrons we substitute Fe for Mn while to simulate the doping of the alloys with holes we substitute Cr for Mn. We study the cases of moderate doping substituting 5%, 10% and 20% of the Mn atoms. The use of coherent potential approximation in our calculations ensures that the doping is performed in a random way. In Table \[table1\] we have gathered the total and atom-resolved spin moments for all cases under study and in Fig. \[fig1\] the total density of states (DOS) for the Co$_2$Mn$_{1-x}$Fe$_x$Si and Co$_2$Mn$_{1-x}$Cr$_x$Si compounds blowing up in the onsets the region around the Fermi level where the gap exists.
We will start our discussion from the DOS presented in Fig. \[fig1\]. As discussed in Ref. the gap is created between states located exclusively at the Co sites. The states low in energy (around -6 eV) originate from the low-lying $p$-states of the $sp$ atoms (there is also an $s$-type state very low in energy which is not shown in the figure). The majority-spin occupied states form a common Mn-Co band while the occupied minority states are mainly located at the Co sites and minority unoccupied at the Mn sites. Doping the perfect ordered alloy with either Fe or Cr first smoothens the valleys and picks along the energy axis. This is a clear sign of the chemical disorder; Fe and Cr induce picks at slightly different places than the Mn atoms resulting to this smoothening and as the doping increases this phenomenon becomes more intense. The important detail is what happens around the Fermi level and in what extent is the gap in the minority band affected by the doping. So now we will concentrate only at the enlarged regions around the Fermi level. The blue dashed lines represent the Cr-doping while the red dash-dotted lines are the Fe-doped alloys. Cr-doping has only marginal effects to the gap. Its width is narrower with respect to the perfect compounds but overall the compounds retain their half-metallicity. In the case of Fe-doping the situation is more complex. Adding electrons to the system means that, in order to retain the perfect half-metallicity, these electrons should occupy high-energy lying antibonding majority states. This is energetically not very favorable and for these moderate degrees of doping a new shoulder appears in the unoccupied states which is close to the right-edge of the gap; a sign of a large change in the competition between the exchange splitting of the Mn majority and minority states and of the Coulomb repulsion. In the case of the 20% Fe doping this new peak crosses the Fermi level and the Fermi level is no more exactly in the gap but slightly above it. Further substitution should lead to the complete destruction of the half-metallicity as in the Quaternary Heusler alloys with a Mn-Fe disordered site.[@GalaQuat]
![(Color online) Atom resolved DOS for the cases of Si (left panel) and Mn (right panel) excess in Co$_2$MnSi alloy with respect to the perfect one ($x$=0). In the onsets we have blown up the region around the Fermi level. \[fig2\]](fig2_new.eps)
------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ ------ -------
$x$ Total Co Mn Si Total Co Mn Ge Total Co Mn Sn
-0.20 4.40 1.92 3.19 -0.06 4.40 1.83 3.29 -0.05 4.41 1.78 3.41 -0.08
-0.10 4.70 1.95 3.15 -0.08 4.70 1.84 3.25 -0.06 4.73 1.75 3.41 -0.08
-0.05 4.85 1.96 3.14 -0.08 4.85 1.85 3.23 -0.06 4.88 1.76 3.37 -0.08
0.00 5.00 1.96 3.13 -0.09 5.00 1.87 3.20 -0.06 5.02 1.78 3.32 -0.08
0.05 5.15 1.99 3.10 -0.10 5.15 1.88 3.19 -0.07 5.17 1.80 3.28 -0.08
0.10 5.30 2.00 3.09 -0.10 5.30 1.90 3.16 -0.08 5.32 1.81 3.26 -0.09
0.20 5.60 2.03 3.05 -0.11 5.60 1.95 3.11 -0.10 5.62 1.82 3.24 -0.10
------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ ------ ------- ------- ------ ------ -------
In Table \[table1\] we have gathered the spin magnetic moments for all cases under study. The total spin moment $M_t$ of the perfect compounds follows the Slater Pauling behavior being the number of the valence electrons in the unit cell minus 24.[@Galanakis] In the case of the chemically disordered compounds, doping by 5%, 10% or 20% of Cr (or Fe) atoms, means that the mean value of the total number of valence electrons in the unit cell is decreased (or increased respectively) by 0.05, 0.10 and 0.20 electrons, respectively. In most of the cases the total spin moments follow this behavior a clear sign of the preservation of the half-metallicity, but in the case of Co$_2$Mn$_{0.8}$Fe$_{0.2}$Si compound the total moment is 5.14 $\mu_B$ instead of the ideal value of 5.20 $\mu_B$. In the case of the corresponding Ge and Sn compounds the Fermi level is more deep in the gap and for the Sn compound it does not cross any more the minority states. The atom-resolved moments present no peculiarity and are little sensitive to the doping. Our findings agree with the conclusions drawn by Kallmayer *et al.* for the Fe-doped Co$_2$MnSi films.[@Kallmayer]
In the second part of our study we study the effect of disorder between the Mn and the $sp$ atoms. In Fig. \[fig2\] we present the atom-resolved DOS for both excess of the $sp$ atom on the left column and excess of the Mn atoms on the right column. In Table \[table2\] we have gathered the total and atomic spin moments for all cases. Firstly note that the gap is much wider for the Mn and $sp$ atoms than for the Co atoms since the states around the gap are of Co-character only. Mixing Mn and $sp$ atoms changes the symmetry of the Co sites and in this way can induce new states in the gap and affect the half-metallicity. As shown in Fig. \[fig2\], substituting Si for Mn induces states just at the right edge of the gap while substituting Mn for Si pushes the unoccupied minority states even higher in energy and the gap becomes wider. Overall the DOS is smoothened by the disorder between the Mn and Si atoms but the main picks do not change energy position.
In Table \[table2\] we have gathered the total spin moments for all cases under study. Substituting 5%, 10% or 20% of the Mn atoms by the Si, Ge or Sn ones (which are all isoelectronic, *e.g.* same number of valence electrons) corresponding to the negative values of $x$ in the table, results in a decrease of 0.15, 0.30 and 0.60 of the total number of valence electrons in the cell, while the inverse procedure results to a similar increase of the mean value of the number of valence electrons. The compounds containing Si and Ge show perfect Slater-Pauling behavior while the Co$_2$Mn$_{1+x}$Sn$_{1-x}$ deviate from the ideal values of the total spin moment although in this case the Fermi level is nearer the center of the gap. Sn is a much heavier element than both Si and Ge and its mixing with Mn alters considerably the Coulomb repulsions in the system having a more profound effect on the half-metallicity of the corresponding alloy. Thus disorder is more important for the heavy $sp$ elements.
It is interesting also to look at the Mn spin moments. In the case of doping presented in the first part of our study doping scarcely changed the Mn spin moments. Mn atoms remained at the same sublattice with no immediate change to their close environment. In the case of disorder excess of Mn means that Mn atoms occupy also sites in the sublattice of the $sp$ atoms while excess of the $sp$ atoms means that $sp$ atoms are found also in the sublattice occupied by Mn having a much larger effect on the Mn magnetic properties than in the case of doping where Cr and Fe atoms were found in the Mn-occupied sublattice. As a result the Mn spin moment can change by as much as $\sim$0.2 $\mu_B$ between the disordered and the perfect compound.
We have studied the effect of doping and disorder on the magnetic properties of the Co$_2$MnSi, Co$_2$MnGe, Co$_2$MnSn full-Heusler alloys. Doping simulated by the substitution of Cr and Fe for Mn overall keeps the half-metallicity. Its effect depends clearly on the position of the Fermi level, having the largest one in the case of Co$_2$MnSi where the Fermi level is near the edge of the minority-spin gap. On the other hand disorder between the Mn and the $sp$ atom is more important for the heavy $sp$ atoms like Sn. Both disorder and doping have little effect on the half-metallic properties of the compounds which we study and they keep a high degree of spin-polarization. It seems that Co$_2$MnGe should be the most robust compound with respect to its half-metallic character for experimentalists and realistic applications.
[999]{}
R. A. de Groot. F. M. Mueller, P. G. van Engen, and K. H. J. Buschow, Phys. Rev. Lett. **50**, 2024 (1983).
I. Žutić, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. **76**, 323 (2004).
I. Galanakis, Ph. Mavropoulos, and P. H. Dederichs, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. **39**, 765 (2006); I. Galanakis, P. H. Dederichs, and N. Papanikolaou, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 174429 (2002).
S. Ishida, S. Fujii, S. Kashiwagi, and S. Asano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **64**, 2152 (1995).
A. Bergmann, J. Grabis, B. P. Toperverg, V. Leiner, M. Wolff, H. Zabel, and K. Westerholt, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 214403 (2005); J. Grabis, A. Bergmann, A. Nefedov, K. Westerholt, and H. Zabel, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 024437 (2005); *idem*, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 024438 (2005.)
S. Kämmerer, A. Thomas, A. Hütten, and G. Reiss, Appl. Phys. Lett. **85**, 79 (2004); J. Schmalhorst, S. Kämmerer, M. Sacher, G. Reiss, A. Hütten, and A. Scholl, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 024426 (2004).
Y. Sakuraba, J. Nakata, M. Oogane, H. Kubota, Y. Ando, A. Sakuma, and T. Miyazaki, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. **44**, L1100 (2005)
X. Y. Dong, C. Adelmann, J. Q. Xie, C. J. Palmström, X. Lou, J. Strand, P. A. Crowell, J.-P. Barnes, and A. K. Petford-Long, Appl. Phys. Lett. **86**, 102107 (2005).
M. Kallmayer, H. J. Elmers, B. Balke, S. Wurmehl, F. Emmerling, G. H. Fecher and C. Felser, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. **39**, 786 (2006).
S. Picozzi, A. Continenza, and A. J. Freeman, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 094423 (2004).
K. Koepernik and H. Eschrig, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 3174 (1999); K. Koepernik, B. Velicky, R. Hayn, and H. Eschrig, Phys. Rev. B **58**, 6944 (1998).
K. Özdogan, I. Galanakis, E. Şaşioglu, and B. Aktaş, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **18**, 2905 (2006).
I. Galanakis, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **16**, 3089 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Galaxy clusters are dominated by dark matter, and may have a larger proportion of surviving substructure than, e.g, field galaxies. Due to the presence of galaxy clusters in relative proximity and their high dark matter content, they are promising targets for the indirect detection of dark matter via $\gamma$ rays. Indeed, dedicated studies of sets of up to 100 clusters have been made previously, so far with no clear indication of a dark matter signal. Here we report on $\gamma$-ray observations of some 26,000 galaxy clusters based on Pass-7 Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) data, with clusters selected from the Tully 2MASS Groups catalog. None of these clusters is significantly detected in $\gamma$ rays, and we present $\gamma$-ray flux upper limits between 20 GeV and 500 GeV.
We estimate the dark matter content of each of the clusters in these catalogs, and constrain the dark matter annihilation cross section, by analyzing Fermi-LAT data from the directions of the clusters. We set some of the tightest cluster-based constraints to date on the annihilation of dark matter particles with masses between 20 GeV and 500 GeV for annihilation to a gamma-ray line. Our cluster based constraints are not yet as strong as bounds placed using the Galactic Center, although an uncertainty still exists regarding the “boost factor” from cluster substructure, where we have chosen a rather conservative value. Our analysis, given this choice of possible boost, is not yet sensitive enough to fully rule out typical realistic DM candidates, especially if the gamma-ray line is not a dominant annihilation mode.
author:
- Douglas Quincy Adams
- Lars Bergstrom
- Douglas Spolyar
title: |
Improved Constraints on Dark Matter Annihilation to a Line\
using Fermi-LAT observations of Galaxy Clusters
---
=1
Introduction
============
Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) (for reviews, see Refs. [@Jungman:1995df; @Bergstrom:2000pn; @Bertone:2004pz]) are thought to be among the best motivated dark matter (DM) candidates. Some of these candidates annihilate among themselves in the early universe with a strength to naturally provide the correct relic density today to explain the dark matter abundance in the universe. It is natural to assume then that these DM candidates go through similar annihilation processes in the present universe, wherever the DM density is sufficiently high. This is the basis for DM indirect detection experiments, which search for the annihilation products of such dark matter particle candidates. Possible interesting annihilation model final end products include, but are not limited to: electrons and/or positrons, antiprotons, photons, and neutrinos.
Two of the most promising DM annihilation products to observe are neutrinos and photons. Neutrinos and photons have the advantage that they are not charged and therefore deflected by magnetic fields in the Galaxy. Therefore directionality for source of origin can be preserved for indirect DM searching. Recent searches for DM annihilation to neutrinos have found no excess over background towards the Sun [@2016JCAP...04..022A; @2015arXiv150304858T], Galactic Center [@2009arXiv0905.4764S; @2016arXiv160600209I] , and nearby galaxies and clusters [@2013PhRvD..88l2001A]. (For problems and possibilities concerning charged antimatter particles, see the reviews [@Jungman:1995df; @Bergstrom:2000pn; @Bertone:2004pz]). Promising sites for photons include our Galactic Halo [@Ellis:1988qp; @Turner:1989kg; @Kamionkowski:1990ty; @Silk:1984zy], the Galactic Center [@Bergstrom:1997fj], dwarf satellite galaxies [@Evans:2003sc; @Bergstrom:2005qk], clusters of galaxies [@Colafrancesco:2005ji; @Pinzke:2009cp; @Pinzke:2011ek], and DM substructures [@Bergstrom:1998jj; @Bertone:2005xz; @Sandick:2010yd; @Sandick:2011zs; @Lavalle:2012ef].
The Large Area Telescope of the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope (Fermi-LAT) [@Collaboration:2009zk] has searched for $\gamma$-rays as a signature of DM annihilation. (The strategy was outlined in [@Baltz:2008wd].) The best regions investigated so far using the Fermi Telescope have been those with a large abundance of DM: the Galactic Center, clusters, and dwarf galaxies, some of the most dark matter dominated objects known. Currently, an excess of $\sim$GeV gamma rays that could be due to DM annihilation has been observed by Fermi-LAT near the Galactic Center (GC) [@0910.2998; @1010.2752; @1012.5839; @1110.0006; @1207.6047; @1302.6589; @1306.5725; @1307.6862; @1312.6671; @1402.4090; @1402.6703; @1406.6948; @1409.0042; @1410.6168; @Murgia2014]. At present the true origin of these $\gamma$-rays is uncertain, with alternate explanations including a new population of millisecond pulsars (MSPs) [@1011.4275; @1305.0830; @1309.3428; @1402.4090; @1404.2318; @Calore:2014oga; @1407.5625; @1411.2980; @1411.4363; @OLeary:2015gfa], cosmic-ray injection [@Carlson:2014cwa; @Petrovic:2014uda], or unresolved point sources in the Inner Galaxy [@Lee:2015fea].
Other than the Galactic Center, the lack of excess signal over background is used to place $\gamma$-ray flux upper limits for energies between 500 MeV and 500 GeV. These bounds are then used to constrain the dark matter annihilation for a broad range of particle masses and annihilation channels. For current bounds on DM annihilation, see the Fermi-LAT combined analysis of dwarf galaxies [@Ackermann:2015zua], VERITAS [@Aliu:2012ga], and MAGIC [@Aleksic:2013xea] observations of Segue 1, as well as results of the H.E.S.S. collaboration [@Abramowski:2014tra] on Sagittarius and other dwarf galaxies. In addition, Ref. [@Lopez:2015uma] showed that Fermi/LAT observations of Dwarf Galaxies highly constrain a dark matter interpretation of excess positrons seen in AMS-02[@Accardo:2014lma], HEAT [@Barwick:1997ig], and PAMELA data [@Adriani:2008zr].
In this paper, we focus on searches for $\gamma$-ray signatures of DM annihilation from galaxy clusters in Fermi-LAT data. These include the most massive virialized DM structures in the universe and could produce substantial DM annihilation signals. We use a dark matter annihilation model within galaxy clusters from which luminosity is derived from two components. The “smooth" component can be described by a radial model within each cluster. The “clumpy" component is described by a large number of subhaloes predicted by numerical simulations to exist within the clusters. The annihilation signal is likely enhanced by the “clumpy" component from the substructure, and this is expected to dominate over the smooth component by a large enhancement, or “boost" factor. Previous searches finding no evidence for gamma-rays from clusters have been used to set bounds on DM annihilation [@Aleksic:2009ir; @Ackermann:2010rg; @Huangetal2012; @Han:2012uw]. A novel feature in the present analysis is that, whereas previous work examined at most $\sim 100$ clusters in total, we enlarge the sample to encompass tens of thousands of galaxy clusters. We also investigate directly these stacked data for structure in the energy distribution from the clusters (which all are at low redshift enough to have negligible energy shift compared to the $\sim$10–20% instrument resolution). We note that our strategy is different from that of recent previous studies, where attention is instead given to angular correlations between galaxy gamma-ray data and data of other wavelengths [@cuoco; @ando]. It is more similar in spirit to a recent analysis of the Fermi-LAT collaboration where, however, only 16 nearby clusters were studied [@Anderson:2015dpc]. In fact, one of the first analyses of this kind [@hektor] claimed observation of a gamma-ray line signal around 130 GeV from galaxy clusters that would have been consistent with the indications from [@Bringmann:2012vr; @weniger_line]. These interesting indications have, however, not been verified with further Fermi-LAT data [@fermi_no_line].
The motivation for our analysis is the large number of galaxy groups identified by Tully in the 2MASS Redshift Survey (2MRS) data [@tully]. We search in the direction of these tens of thousands of galaxy groups (hereafter denoted clusters) for an excess of $\gamma$-rays over expected backgrounds. In this first paper, we look for a $\gamma$-ray line [@Bergstrom:1988fp; @Bergstrom:1997fj] where, due to the low velocity of the annihilating particles, the energy of the photons is equal to that of the WIMP mass, $$E_\gamma = m_\chi \ \, .$$ In a forthcoming paper, we will generalize to searching for gamma-rays from DM annihilation through a variety of other channels in addition to annihilation directly to a line.
For the IR-selected galaxies in the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), redshifts are provided by the 2MASS Redshift Survey (2MRS) [@2MRS]. The 2MRS galaxies have been selected to be at Galactic latitude $|b| \geq 5^\circ$ ($\geq 8^\circ$ towards the Bulge). Previous work studying DM annihilation with 2MASS data includes [@Ando:2014aoa]. Using a combination of 2-D spatial position from 2MASS together with the redshifts, Tully was able to identify galaxies grouped together in clusters [@tully]. Given their redshifts, one knows the distances to the clusters. Errors on the distance will be related to redshift space distortions (bulk movement of galaxies) and the uncertainty on the Hubble constant. These clusters all have redshifts consistent with being nearby, within 280 Mpc (most within 50-100 Mpc). The IR light from galaxies is used to determine their stellar masses, from which one can obtain the total mass using abundance matching. This mass estimation is quite accurate because of the lack of extinction in IR. For the largest masses, velocity dispersion can be used to estimate the total mass of the cluster, and for smaller groups more detailed kinematics of nearby groups can be used to find empirical estimates [@tully]. The estimates should be accurate to $\sim 20\%$. The clusters in Tully’s catalogue have masses in the range $10^{12}-10^{15} M_\odot$. With the halo masses and distances provided in [@tully], we will thus be able to calculate the predicted $\gamma$-ray flux from dark matter (for a given WIMP mass and annihilation cross-section).
Our general approach is as follows. For each cluster, we define a region of interest containing 95% of the expected DM annihilation luminosity. We slide a bin of energy range $\sim$ twice the energy resolution of Fermi-LAT across our full spectrum of interest, centered at photon energies from 20 GeV up to 500 GeV in steps of 2 GeV. We then add up all the observed photons for all the clusters for each energy window, and compare our observed photon count to the expected count. We search for a bump in the observed photon count above an expected power law background, i.e. we search for a line (or internal bremsstrahlung [@Bergstrom:1989jr; @Bringmann:2012vr]) signal at an energy equal to the WIMP mass due to DM annihilation. Since no excess above background is found, we use the null signal to place bounds on the DM annihilation cross section as a function of WIMP mass.
Dark Matter Annihilation $\gamma$-ray Flux
==========================================
The differential $\gamma$-ray flux $\frac{d\phi_k } { dE d\Omega}$ from DM annihilation in cluster $k$ can be written as the product of two components, a factor ${\ensuremath{\frac{d\Phi_{\makebox[0pt][l]{\tiny pp}}}{dE}\phantom{i}}}\ $ that encodes all the particle physics and the so-called J-factor [@Bergstrom:1997fj] that contains the astrophysics,
$$\label{eqn:dphidE}
(\mathbf{I}_{m_\chi})_k= \frac{d\phi_k }{dE d\Omega} = {\ensuremath{\frac{d\Phi_{\makebox[0pt][l]{\tiny pp}}}{dE}\phantom{i}}}\times J_k
= \bigg(\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{\langle \sigma v \rangle}{m_\chi^2}\, \delta(E-m_\chi) \bigg)
\times\bigg(\int_{\textrm{l.o.s.}} \rho^2(r)\,dr\, \bigg)_k \, .$$
Here, ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$ is the DM annihilation cross section, $m_\chi$ is the DM mass, and the $\delta$ function indicates that we are interested in a line signal. The J-factor (the term in the second set of parentheses) integrates the square of the DM density $\rho_\chi$ along the line of sight. For each cluster we must now obtain an estimate of the total J-factor. The J-factor has two contributions, the smooth halo component and the substructure (clumpy) component.
### The Smooth Component
From simulations [@Navarro:1996gj; @Han:2012uw], for the smooth component of our DM haloes we take the Navarro, Frenk, and White (NFW) density profile $$\rho_{NFW}(r) = {\rho_s \over { (r/r_s) (1+r/r_s)^2} }$$ where the characteristic density $\rho_s$ and radius $r_s$ are related to halo concentration and virial radius through the relations, $\rho_s=\dfrac{200}{3}\dfrac{c^3\rho_c}{{\rm log}(1+c)-c/(1+c)}$ and $r_s=r_{200}/c$. Here $\rho_c$ is the critical density of the universe, $r_{200}$ is the cluster virial radius within which the average density is $200\rho_c$, and the concentration parameter $c$ is given by $$c=5.74(\frac{M_{200}}{2\times 10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot})^{-0.097}$$ [@Duffy:2008pz]. Here $M_{200}$ is the virial mass given by Tully.
The J-factor integrated over a large enough solid angle can be used to define the total flux, $\mathcal{J}_{int}=\int_{\Delta \Omega} J d\Omega$ (this value would be appropriate for a point source approximation). For the smooth component of a cluster, Han [*et al.*]{} [@Han:2012uw] find that (see also [@Bergstrom:2005qk]) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_{NFW} &= {4 \pi \over 3} {1 \over D_A^2} \rho_s^2 r_s^3 {1 \over 8.5 {\rm kpc}} \biggl({1 \over 0.3 {\rm GeV/cm^3}} \biggr)^2 \
\end{aligned}
\label{J_NFW}$$ Here $D_A$ is the angular diameter distance of the cluster.
$\mathcal{J}_{NFW}$ is a quantity we will use for cluster selection and normalization for the boost factor described shortly.
### The Clumpy Component
We must now account for enhancement due to substructure inside the cluster, which is expected to account for the majority of the dark matter signal from galaxy clusters [@Colafrancesco:2005ji; @Pinzke:2009cp; @Pinzke:2011ek; @Han:2012uw]. While the total sub-halo mass constitutes only 10 to 20 percent of the total halo mass, the DM density inside the subhaloes is considerably higher density than within the smooth component of the cluster. Indeed, in comparing with data, it is the substructure $\mathcal{J}_{sub}$ that is the dominant component in the last term of Eqn. (\[eqn:dphidE\]).
We define a boost factor $$\begin{aligned}
B =\mathcal{J}_{sub}/\mathcal{J}_{NFW}
\end{aligned}$$ as the ratio of the total integrated luminosity due to the substructure (subscript $sub$) to the total integrated luminosity due to the smooth NFW component. The notation is as above, with the total integrated flux from the substructure (over a large enough solid angle) as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_{sub}=\int_{\Delta \Omega} J_{sub} d\Omega
\end{aligned}$$ In the last few years much progress has been made in determining the boost factor of dark matter annihilation in clusters (see [@Moline:2016pbm] and references therein). The improvements have been a result of improvements in estimating the number of substructures in a halo, and the annihilation rate in a give sub-halo(which depends strongly on the sub-halo concentration parameter) [@Pinzke:2009cp; @Pinzke:2011ek; @Han:2012uw]. The best-guess boost factor per halo is between about 20 and 50 depending on the mass of the halo in our mass range, with boost increasing with cluster mass. Thus in our work we use the conservative boost factor of [@Moline:2016pbm; @Anderson:2010df] ranging from B=20 for $10^{12} M_\odot$ clusters to B=55 for $10^{15} M_\odot$ clusters (as opposed to the less conservative one of Bi [*et al.*]{} [@Bi:2006vk] which is roughly a factor of 20 or more larger).
As substructures are to a large extent destroyed by tidal effects near the central parts of the clusters, the DM photon annihilation profile will be substantially more extended than the NFW mass profile [@Pinzke:2009cp; @Pinzke:2011ek; @Han:2012uw]. We are therefore using the lack of observed line signals in a relatively large region around each cluster to place bounds on the DM contribution. We consider a region of interest which will provide at least 95 percent of photons from cluster which as mentioned typically corresponds to about a degree on the sky.
Simulations of [@Han:2012au] show that the surface brightness profile of sub-halo emission can be fitted within $r_{200}$ by $$J_{sub}(r)=\frac{16 B\mathcal{J}_{NFW}}{\pi
\ln(17)}\frac{D_A^2}{r_{200}^2+16r^2}\;\;\;\;\; (r \leq r_{200}).$$ Following [@Han:2012uw], we take for the subhalo emission surface brightness beyond the virial radius an exponential decay, $$J_{sub}(r)=J_{sub}(r_{200})e^{-2.377(r/r_{200}-1)}\;\;\;\;\; (r \geq
r_{200}).$$
### The Total Differential Flux and Cutoff Radius
The total annihilation profile, which is the sum of the contributions from a smooth NFW profile and the subhalo emission, is completely dominated by subhalo emission except in the very center of the cluster where the smooth NFW cusp is important.
Rather than accumulating all the photons emitted by a cluster, we perform a signal cut at a radius from the center of the cluster that contains 95% of the DM signal (from the substructure). Thus we take the expected differential flux of photons from a cluster $k$ due to DM annihilation to a line to be \[eq:J95\] [d\_k dE ]{} = [$\frac{d\Phi_{\makebox[0pt][l]{\tiny pp}}}{dE}\phantom{i}$]{}(\_[0.95]{})\_k where $$\mathcal{J}_{0.95}= 0.95 \mathcal{J}_{sub} \sim 0.95 B \mathcal{J}_{NFW}$$ is the integrated J-factor that includes 95% of the photons from the substructure of the cluster.
Given $ \mathcal{J}_{0.95}$ from theoretical estimates of DM annihilation, we now look for a conical section from the point of view of the Earth, defined by and angle $\theta_{max}$, that satisfies 2 \_0\^[\_[max]{}]{} J\_[sub]{} 2 \_0\^[\_[max]{}]{} J\_[sub]{} =\_[sub]{} 0.95=\_[0.95]{} . This angle then defines a radius $$r_{max}=\theta_{max}\times D_A \,\,\,\, {\rm (small} \,\, {\rm angle} \,\, {\rm approximation)}$$ that contains 95% of the DM annihilation signal from substructure (We are not including instrumental error in $r_{max}$. We will return to the effect of the point spread function when defining the region of interest). The angular diameter distance to the cluster $D_A$ is obtained from data as described in the next section. We will cutoff any signal beyond this radius $r_{max}$, which is typically roughly twice the viral radius of the cluster. In our analysis, we ignore the smooth component of the halo, thereby underpredicting the DM signal and obtaining slightly more conservative bounds. [^1]
Data Selection
==============
We perform what is denoted as a stacked cluster approach in our data selection and analysis. Previous work done using clusters to constrain dark matter annihilation into a line have taken two different approaches: a detailed cluster approach or a stacked cluster approach. For a given set of clusters, the detailed approach has stronger bounds than the stacking method. In the detailed case, each halo is carefully analyzed and finally a joint likelihood is performed on tens of objects [@ProkhorovAndChurazov]. These authors have typically used galaxy clusters which are bright in X-ray (also presumably also dark matter rich). In the stacking approach, the data is stacked before performing joint likelihood analysis. One such stacking approach is [@RasatAndLandAndLahavAndAbdalla], which looks at a cross correlation between photons from the Fermi-LAT with galaxy surveys such as 2MASS and SDSS.
Selecting Galaxy Clusters
-------------------------
We use Tully’s 2MRS catalog of clusters or groups of galaxies, which is widely regarded as one of the best and most comprehensive catalogs of galaxy clusters derived from 2MASS data. 2MRS includes redshift information. Tully’s catalog of 2MRS data is optimal for our work for two reasons. First, the large number of clusters guarantees that we will find promising targets from the point of view of large dark matter annihilation signal and no coincidence with background point sources as described further below. Second, in a proper analysis we would like to have detailed and unbiased statistical description of the halo properties which will play a part in the dark matter signal, namely the halo’s mass and distance. Some authors have previously exploited the 2MASS data (for example [@Xia:2011ax]) to construct galaxy cluster catalogs; however, Tully obtains improved estimates of the mass and distance to the clusters (see [@tully] for more details on the various statistical tests used in his work).
\[tab:BrightestGal\]
--------- ------------------------------------------------ -------------------- ------------- --------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ------- --
Nest ID J-factor Brightest (k-band) \# galaxies Mass of Cluster G-Lat G-Lon Distance Size
$\log_{10}(J_\text{nfw}/\GeV^2\text{cm}^{-5})$ Galaxy In Cluster $(10^{12} M_{sum})$ (Deg) (Deg) (Mpc) (Deg)
200002 17.4 PGC2801990 167 1270 -7.3 325 73 1.8
111812 17.3 M82 1 1.17 40.6 141 4 3.1
100128 17.3 NGC004594 15 93.7 52.8 300 24 2.2
101312 17.3 NGC5236 3 11.4 31.9 31 11 2.5
100122 17.2 NGC3376 11 40.4 57.7 233 19 2.1
--------- ------------------------------------------------ -------------------- ------------- --------------------- ------- ------- ---------- ------- --
: Five Brightest Clusters Used in our Analysis
We also note that 2MASS data have advantages over other surveys previously used to do studies of DM annihilation from clusters — clusters in X-ray catalogs, SDSS data, and using the S-Z effect. 2MASS has the two advantages of providing a larger number of clusters and, since they are nearby ($z<0.01$ ), they have higher luminosities. For example, the 10 brightest clusters in our study are nearly three times brighter than the X-ray clusters used in the work of Anderson etal [@Anderson:2015dpc]. Here brightest means the highest $ \mathcal{J}_{NFW} $. Table \[tab:BrightestGal\] shows the five brightest clusters used in our analysis. Indeed none of our 16 brightest clusters overlaps with the 16 clusters used in Anderson etal, as shown in Fig. \[700BGal\] in comparison with Fig. \[600BGal\]. One reason for the lack of overlap is that 2MASS contains so many clusters that we simply throw away those that overlap with any of the 150 brightest objects in the Fermi/LAT point source catalog. Whereas two of the brightest objects in the sky from the point of view of DM annihilation are Virgo and Fornax, we do not include them in our studies due to the point source contamination. Anderson etal dealt with the point sources by doing careful modeling of the clusters and cutting out the point sources using spatial information. We, on the other hand, throw them out completely in favor of using some of the many other clusters in the 2MASS data. In principle it would be interesting to add them back in to obtain tighter bounds on DM annihilation from the combination of the data.
Henceforth our studies are performed for three different cuts on halos: all the halos in the Tully 2MASS catalog, the 2500 brightest halos, and the 600 brightest halos. Again, we use the word “brightest" to mean those clusters with the highest value of $ \mathcal{J}_{NFW} $. Table \[tab:TotalJ\] illustrates the total value of $ \mathcal{J}_{NFW} $ added up for all the clusters in each of the three cuts.
Cut: $\mathcal{J}_{NFW}$ Total $(GeV)^{2} / (cm^{5})$
------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
All Clusters $9 \times 10^{19}$
2500 Brightest Clusters $5 \times 10^{19}$
600 Brightest Clusters $3 \times 10^{19}$
: Total value of $ \mathcal{J}_{NFW} $ added up for all the clusters in each of the three cuts
\[tab:TotalJ\]
\[fig:ClustersAll\] {width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Selecting $\gamma-rays$ from Fermi-LAT
---------------------------------------
The LAT instrument aboard the Fermi satellite is a pair-conversion telescope measuring $\gamma$-rays in the energy range from 20 MeV to $>$ 500 GeV. For a more detailed description, see [@Atwood:2009ez; @Ackermann:2012kna]. We analyze five years of public Fermi-LAT Pass 7 reprocessed data taken between 4 Aug 2008 to 8 Mar 2012 in the energy range between 20 and 500 GeV.
We apply the celestial zenith-angle cut $ \theta < 100 ^{\circ} $ in order to avoid contamination with the earth albedo, as well as the recommended quality-filter cut $DATA\_QUAL==1$. We use the $ULTRACLEAN$ events selection, i.e. the highest quality data, from $P7REP\_ULTRACLEAN\_V15$. We use both front- and back-converted events. The selection of events as well as the calculation of exposure maps is performed using the most recent version of Fermi Science Tools as of 2015 Jul 1.[^2] We now select the subset of the photons in the Fermi-LAT data coming from the direction of the clusters in all of our catalogs.
\[fig:allPhotons\] {width="\textwidth"}
As mentioned previously, we sub-select again to reject background by removing the 5% brightest point sources identified by Fermi-LAT which are coincident with the clusters we are studying. Consequently we only include clusters which do not overlap with any of brightest 150 Fermi-LAT point sources. By doing so, we exclude some of the brightest clusters (from the point of view of $\gamma$-ray production due to DM annihilation) on the sky such as Fornax and Virgo, see Fig. \[600BGal\]. Still after this sub-selection, we retain the vast majority of the clusters in the catalogs included; on the order of a few hundred clusters were removed out of 26,000 we work with. Similarly, when we apply the cut down to only the 600 brightest clusters, we have lost about 100 clusters. Compare Fig. \[600BGal\] with Fig. \[700BGal\].
{width="\textwidth"}
### Region of Interest
To compare the expected number of photons to observations, we must determine which photons in the Fermi-LAT data to include in our analysis of a given cluster. There are two ingredients in this choice. Previously we found (see Eqn. (18)) the maximum radius $r_{max}$ from the center of the cluster that satisfies the requirement of retaining 95% of the signal from the substructure. Second, we must account for the instrumental smearing of the directionality of the signal due to the point spread function (PSF). We note that the Fermi-LAT PSF varies as a function of energy, and above energies of 40 GeV the PSF varies slowly.
To calculate the selection radius of photons for a given cluster, the most accurate approach would be to convolve the point-spread function (PSF) of Fermi-LAT with the DM profile of the cluster. We can, however, take a simpler approximation. After extracting the PSF from the Fermi Tools, for each value of the DM mass, we calculated the radius within which 95% of the photons lie due to the uncertainty of the detector $r_{PSF,0.95}$. Specifically, the 95 percent PSF containment angle is radial angle describing a circle around a point source such that 95 percent of the photons from that point source are observed in that angle accounting for instrument error. The PSF containment angle typically ends up being on the order of a degree for energies above 100 GeV. Then for each cluster, we consider a Region of Interest (ROI) for incoming photons taken to be the sum $$r_{ROI} = r_{max} + r_{PSF,0.95} \, .$$ Our region of interest corresponds to a radius within which we look in the Fermi-LAT data for photons from any given cluster in the Tully data.
![ Binned energy spectra for Fermi-LAT $\gamma$-rays. All curves are normalized such that the area under the curve integrates to 1. The green curve plots the energy spectra for all the Fermi-LAT observed photons. Black is for photons from outside the Galactic Plane( $|b| > 10\degree$) that are associated with galaxy clusters. Red is for photons again outside the Galactic Plane but unassociated with galaxy clusters and unassociated with any of the 150 brightest point sources. Blue is for all photons outside the Galactic Plane (the sum of associated and unassociated). Energy values run from 20 GeV to 500 GeV in bins of 10 GeV. []{data-label="fig:SpectrumComparison"}](SpectrumComparisonUpdated.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![ Binned energy spectrum of Fermi-Lat $\gamma$-rays associated with: all the clusters, the 2500 brightest clusters, and the 600 brightest clusters shown from 20 GeV-500 GeV in 10 GeV bins. Again, all curves are normalized such that the area under the curve integrates to 1. []{data-label="fig:SpectrumHalos"}](SpectrumHalos.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Photon Number Count and Energy Spectrum
----------------------------------------
The photon number count is shown in Table \[tab:photons\] for a variety of different selection cuts for photon energies in the range 10 GeV $< E_\gamma <$ 1 TeV. Only photons from outside the Galactic Plane with Galactic latitude $|b| > 10\degree$ are included in all cases. The total photon count outside the Plane is shown, followed by photons associated with all clusters, photons associated with the 2500 brightest clusters, the 600 brightest clusters, and the 150 brightest point sources in the Fermi-LAT data. Finally, the photon number count from outside the Galactic Plane but unassociated with clusters is shown as well.
Selection Cut Total Photon Count
--------------------------------------------- --------------------
Outside Galactic Plane 89,000
Associated With All Clusters 75,000
Associated With 2500 Brightest Clusters 35,000
Associated With 600 Brightest Clusters 12,000
Associated With 150 Brightest Point Sources 7,000
Unassociated 7,000
: Number of Photons for Different Selection Cuts with $ 10 {\rm GeV} < E_{\gamma} < 1 {\rm TeV} $
\[tab:photons\]
Fig. \[fig:SpectrumComparison\] illustrates the photon energy spectra for a variety of selection cuts similar to those in the Table. The green curve illustrates the spectrum for all the Fermi-LAT observed photons. Black is for photons from outside the Galactic Plane( $|b| > 10\degree$) that are associated with galaxy clusters. Blue is for all photons outside the Galactic Plane (the sum of associated and unassociated). Red is for photons again outside the Galactic Plane but unassociated with galaxy clusters and unassociated with any of the 150 brightest point sources. We have normalized the curves such that the area under each curve will equal one. All of the curves have similar shapes except that the green curve appears to fall less steeply with energy, because it includes sources in the plane of the Galaxy. The large error bars in the unassociated spectrum (red curve) at high energy are due to the low number of photons in that case (as shown in Table \[tab:photons\]).
Fig. \[fig:SpectrumComparison\] can be used to illustrate two points. First, within our energy windows, the spectra can roughly be fit by power laws. Thus it is reasonable to use a series of power laws (within each energy windows) to approximate the background. The unassociated photons in particular are a separate sample from the clusters we are studying and provide a reasonable background estimate. Our maximum likelihood approach to handle background will be described in the next section. Second, a line signal would show up as a bump in this figure and, at least by eye, there doesn’t appear to be any. Our analysis will confirm that no line is in the data at any great significance, hence allowing us to place limits on DM properties.
We also illustrate how the spectrum will vary for our different cuts on the clusters and galaxies in Figure \[fig:SpectrumHalos\]. We plot the three different case considered in the paper: the spectrum for all of the clusters, the spectrum from 2500 clusters, and for 600 clusters. The spectral shape appears to be roughly the same for the different cases, yet with fluctuations between the different data sets that will affect our resulting bounds.
Expected Number of Photons from Signal and Background in the Fermi-LAT
======================================================================
We follow the approach of Weniger [@weniger_line], Section 2.5 to calculate the total number of expected events $\nu_w$ in the energy window $(w)$ between $E_w^-$…$E_w^+$ $$\label{Vw1}
\nu_w =\sum_k^{\text{clusters}}\int d\Omega_k \int_{E_w^-}^{E_w^+} dE
\int dE' \int_0^\pi d\theta \sum_{j=f,b} D(E|E', \theta, j) A(E', \theta, j)
\bigg(\frac{dT}{d\theta}\bigg)_k \mathbf{I}(E')_k\;.$$ where we have summed over all of the clusters $k$ and integrated over the solid angle $d\Omega_k$ over each cluster.
Here we have defined: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta &= \text{ impact angle of photon events with respect to the instrument axis, } \\
(dT/d\theta)_k &= \text{ the observational time at this impact angle for a cluster $k$, } \\
A(E', \theta, j) &= \text{ the effective area, } \\
E' &= \text{ the true energy, } \\
j=f,b &= \text{ denotes front- and back-converted events, } \\
E &= \text{ the reconstructed energy } \\
D(E|E',\theta, j) &= \text{ the energy dispersion of the LAT. } \\
\end{aligned}$$
We have also defined the following flux quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
(I_{m_{\chi}})_{k} &= \text{differential flux from dark matter into a line (see Eq. \ref{eqn:dphidE} ) } \\
(I_{b})_{k} &= \text{differential background flux } \\
I_{k} &= (I_{m_{\chi}})_{k} + (I_{b})_{k} \text{= total differential flux}
\end{aligned}$$
For a given dark matter mass, we picked a window which is sufficiently large to effectively model the background. The energy resolution of Fermi-LAT is roughly 10-20 percent over the energies we are considering (see Fig. \[fig:AverDisp\] ). We take the energy window to be $m_\chi/1.4 < E < 1.4 m_\chi$, but with a maximum value for the lower limit of the energy window $E^-_{max} = 200$GeV (due to a dearth of very high energy photons). With a 100 GeV line, our window would then go from 71 to 140 GeV. We have found that taking a larger or slight smaller window does not affect the overall constraint, as has been similarly shown in [@weniger_line].
We average over the instrument angle and back-and-front converted events. Again we follow Weniger and define an effective exposure for a cluster $k$ as $$\label{eq:xeff}
X_{eff}(E')_k \equiv \int_0^\pi d\theta \sum_{j=f,b} A(E', \theta, j) \bigg(\frac{dT}{d\theta}\bigg)_k\;$$ and an effective energy dispersion for cluster $k$ as $$\label{eq:Deff}
D_{eff}(E|E')_k\equiv \int_0^\pi d\theta \sum_{j=f,b} D(E|E', \theta, j) P(\theta, j,
E')_k\;.$$
{width="\textwidth"}
For cluster $k$, the expected distribution of the conditional parameters $\theta$ and $j$ for events with energy $E'$ is $$P(\theta, j| E')_k\equiv\frac{A(E', \theta, j) (dT/d\theta)_k}{X_{eff}(E')_k}\;.$$ From the publicly available Fermi Science Tools[^3], we obtained the dispersion function $D(E|E', \theta, j)$, effective area $A(E', \theta, j)$ , and $dT/d\theta$ for each cluster.
Now that we have obtained the effective energy dispersion function for each cluster in Eq.(\[eq:Deff\]), we can obtain an “average effective energy dispersion function" $ D_{eff}(E|E')_\text{ave}$ over the entire sky. We first average over the clusters to find ($dT/d \theta)_{ave}$. With this new quantity, we then average over the instrument angle and back-and-front converted events to obtain the average effective dispersion function over the clusters: P\_[eff]{}(, j| E’)\_( ) where $$X_{eff}(E')_\text{ave} \equiv \int_0^\pi d\theta \sum_{j=f,b} A(E', \theta, j)_k \bigg(\frac{dT}{d\theta}\bigg)_\text{ave}\;.$$ and $$\label{eq:Deffave}
D_{eff}(E|E')_\text{ave}\equiv \int_0^\pi d\theta \sum_{j=f,b} D(E|E', \theta, j) P(\theta, j,
E')_\text{ave}\; .$$ In Fig. \[fig:AverDisp\], we show $D_{eff}(E|E')_\text{ave}$ for the case ($E'=m_\chi=100$ GeV). Weniger argues that the average effective dispersion function is a good approximation at any location in the sky. Thus, for a given dark mass $m_\chi$, for all of the clusters we will use the same average dispersion function.
We now calculate the expected number of photons in some energy window $(w)$, $$\nu_w = \int_{E_w^-}^{E_w^+} dE \int dE'
D_{eff}(E|E')_\ave \sum_k^{\text{clusters}}X_{eff}(E')_k\int d\Omega_k \mathbf{I}(E')_k\;.$$ Here the solid angle integral $d\Omega_k$ is over the ROI for the given cluster. The effective exposure varies slowly across the sky; we note that we do not use the average effective exposure here, but instead the local one. Since the ROI of a halo is typically only of order a degree on the sky, we can treat the exposure as constant across a cluster and take it out of the integral over $d\Omega_k$.
We take the differential photon number count due to the background component to be a power law (within an energy window ranging from $E_w^-=m_\chi/1.4$ to $E_w^+=1.4m_\chi$) of the form = dE’ D\_[eff]{}(E|E’)\_\_k\^ X\_[eff]{}(E’)\_k d\_k \_(E’)\_k =()\^[-]{} . Different WIMP masses have different power laws for their background fits.
Now for the DM signal, the differential photon number count within the same energy window would be = dE’ D\_[eff]{}(E|E’)\_\_k\^ X\_[eff]{}(E’)\_k d\_k \_[m\_]{}(E’)\_k= D\_[eff]{}(E|m\_)\_\_T . The first term on the RHS accounts for the instrument and the second term accounts for the particle physics. The last term defines a new quantity (which we call the exposed integrated J-factor) that accounts for both the astrophysics and exposure for each cluster, \[eq:J0\] \_k\^ (\_[0.95]{})\_k X\_[eff]{}(E\_)\_k =\_k\^\_k \_k=\_k\^\_k=\_T . Here we have used Eq. (\[eq:J95\]) to determine the integrated J-factor $(\mathcal{J}_{0.95})_k$ for cluster k. The notation $\mathcal{(JX)}_T$ is intended to guide the eye of the reader to the fact that this quantity has been obtained by summing the product of two quantities: the integrated J-factor for each cluster times its exposure. The subscript $T$ refers to the fact that this a total quantity. In addition, we use $\mathcal{J}_k\mathcal{X}_k=\mathcal{(JX)}_k$ as a shorthand for the individual J-factor and exposure for a given galaxy $k$, which will be useful in describing the J-factor Likelihood.
We now have our expected photon energy spectrum, \[eq:specTotal\] = D\_[eff]{}(E|m\_)\_\_T+()\^[-]{} . The first term gives the total flux from dark matter annihilation from all of the clusters used in our analysis. The second term account for the observed background.
Likelihood Analysis
===================
We performed an un-binned analysis with our likelihood given as [$\mathcal{L}$]{}(m\_, v,,,)=(e\^[-\_w]{}) \_j\^N [$\mathcal{L}$]{}\_ where $N$ is the total number of observed photons in the energy window $w$ between $E_w^-$ and $E_w^+$, $\nu_w$ is the number of expected photons in the window $w$, $E_j$ is the observed energy of a photon, $dE_j/dE$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:specTotal\]). The product is over all photons in $w$ for a given DM mass $m_\chi$. The first term on the RHS (a Poisson distribution) gives the probability of observing N photons with an expectation of $\nu_w$ photons. The second term accounts for the probability of observing any one of the $N$ photons. The last term (${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{\mathcal{JX}}$) is the likelihood function for the exposed integrated J-factor given in Eq. (\[eq:J0\]), which we now derive below.
J-Factor Likelihood Function
-----------------------------
We take a Gaussian probability distribution for the Exposed Integrated J-factor likelihood function [$\mathcal{L}$]{}\_=-()\^2 . where $\sigma_T$ incorporates the individual errors on the exposed integrated J-factor for each cluster and any other systematic errors. $T$ refers to total as in total error for $\sigma_T$. $(\mathcal{JX})$ is the free variable and $(\mathcal{JX})_T$ is the expected integrated J-factor given in Eq.(\[eq:J0\]).
Formally the relative error for the exposed integrated J-factor for a cluster will go like = where $\delta$ refers to the error for a given quantity. We have ignored the errors associated with the galaxy’s exposure $\mathcal{X}_k$. We note that the J-factor for a given cluster goes like \[J(M)\] J\~\~ which is derivable from Eq. (\[J\_NFW\]) by simply rewriting $r_s$ and $\rho_s$ in terms of the mass of the halo ($M$). $D$ is the distance to the halo. The second step follows from the Hubble law, where $V$ is the velocity of the galaxy and H$_0$ is the Hubble constant. In deriving the above expression, we have neglected two effects: one- the dependence of the denominator of $\rho_s$ on $M$ and two- the mass dependence of the boost factor on $M$. We have two arguments to justify our simplification. First, the boost factor is a very slowly varying function of $M$. Also the denominator is very weakly dependent upon mass (a very small fractional power). Secondly, error due to velocity and error due to the Hubble constant are larger.
We first provide an expression of errors for galaxy k with \[galaxyError\] \_k\^2=()\_k\^2()\^2= ()\_k\^2. We add the relative errors in mass $\delta M/M$ and in velocity $\delta V/V$ in quadrature since they are independent. We note that for most of the clusters $(\delta M/M)_k\sim0.20$ and $(\delta V/V)_k\sim0.10$, which we will justify below. Including the uncertainty in the Hubble constant, we find the total error, \[TotalError\] \_T\^2=\^N\_k \^2\_k+(2()\_T)\^2 where we sum over all $N$ of the clusters in our analysis. For smaller (larger) values of H$_0$, we can see from Eq. (\[J(M)\]) that the J-factors of the clusters increase (or decrease), so that they appear brighter (dimmer). Again, we add the error in H$_0$ in quadrature. The errors in velocity and halo mass are independent of the Hubble constant.
In our code we numerically calculate Eq. (\[TotalError\]). We find that the errors associated with $H_0$ dominate in $\sigma_T$ over those related to the properties of the cluster i.e. $\delta V/V$ and $\delta M/M$. We now provide a heuristic argument that provides some intuition as to why the systematic error in $H_0$ leads to the largest contribution to $\sigma_T$. As a starting point, we write the first term of Eq. (\[TotalError\]) as $\sum^N_k \sigma^2_k=N\langle\mathcal{JX}\rangle^2\langle\delta \mathcal{J}/\mathcal{J}\rangle^2$. Here we use the notation $\langle ... \rangle$ to indicate quantities averaged over all the clusters, e.g. the average integrated exposed J-factor is $\langle\mathcal{JX}\rangle = (\mathcal{JX})_T/N$. With appropriate substitutions, we can now write \_T\^2=()\_T\^2.
For $N\gg1$, the second term dominates. In our case, we have hundreds to tens of thousands of clusters (depending on the selection cuts), so that this criterion is easily satisfied. Errors on the Hubble constant are on the few percent level. With Eq. (\[galaxyError\]), we can estimate $\langle\delta J/J\rangle$ which depends upon $\delta V/V$ and $\delta M/M$. $\delta M/M$ is on the order of twenty percent for the mass method of the Tully 2MASS Catalog. In the case of the velocity, $\delta V/V$ is on the order of 10 percent[^4]
Putting Pieces Together
-----------------------
Now that we have explained the various elements which contribute to our overall likelihood function. We can now turn to constraining the properties of dark matter. Using a delta-log-likelihood approach we can use Fermi-LAT data to constrain ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$ for a given ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi}}}$ by treating $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\mathcal{(JX)}$ as nuisance parameters, which we profile out. The delta-log-likelihood $\Delta{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}$ is given by $$\label{eqn:deltaloglike}
\Delta\ln{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}(m_\chi, \langle\sigma v\rangle)
\equiv
\ln{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}(m_\chi, \langle\sigma v\rangle,{\ensuremath{\widehat{\vphantom{\rule{-1ex}{2.1ex}}\smash{\widehat{\mathbf{\beta}}}}}},{\ensuremath{\widehat{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{1.5ex}}\smash{\widehat{\mathbf{\gamma}}}}}},{\ensuremath{\widehat{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}}\smash{\widehat{(\mathcal{JX})}}}}})
- \ln{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}({\ensuremath{m_{\chi}}},{\ensuremath{\widehat{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}},{\ensuremath{\widehat{\mathbf{\beta}}}},{\ensuremath{\widehat{\mathbf{\gamma}}}},{\ensuremath{\widehat{(\mathcal{JX})}}}\, ,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\widehat{(\mathcal{JX})}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\mathbf{\beta}}}}$, & ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\mathbf{\gamma}}}}$ are the values of ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$, $\mathcal{(JX)}$, $\beta$, & $\gamma$ that jointly maximize the likelihood at a given ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi}}}$. ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{2.3ex}}\smash{\widehat{(\mathcal{JX})}}}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\vphantom{\rule{-1ex}{2.1ex}}\smash{\widehat{\mathbf{\beta}}}}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\widehat{\vphantom{\rule{0pt}{1.5ex}}\smash{\widehat{\mathbf{\gamma}}}}}}$ are the value of $\mathcal{(JX)}$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ that jointly maximize the likelihood for a given ${\ensuremath{m_{\chi}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$. We should note that the maximum likelihood values for $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are consistent with what we would expect from galactic foreground model of the $\gamma$-rays from cosmic-rays [@Ackermann:2014usa; @Acero:2016qlg].
The 1D confidence intervals in ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$ at the $n\sigma$ confidence level are determined by identifying the range of ${\ensuremath{\langle\sigma v\rangle}}$ such that
$$\label{eqn:nsigma}
\Delta\ln{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}(m_\chi, \langle\sigma v\rangle) \le n^2/2 \, .$$
In the next section we will present the upper limit of the 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals (95.4% confidence level) for our 3 different selection cuts in the number of clusters. In our analysis, we did not find any significant deviations from background. We found a few regions with 2 $\sigma$ fluctuations (i.e. consistent with purely background).
{width="\textwidth"}
Results
=======
Figure 10 illustrates out main results. We plot 95% confidence upper limits on dark matter cross section as a function of particle mass for $\chi\chi \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$. The lowest three curves illustrate the results of our likelihood analysis for our 3 cases: on all the clusters, the 2500 brightest clusters, and the 600 brightest clusters. For comparison, we also show the Anderson [*et al.*]{} upper limits [@Anderson:2015dpc] (prior to our work, the strongest bounds from clusters). Finally, the figure also includes upper confidence limits on the same clusters as Anderson [*et al.*]{} using our stacking method. Our results are stronger than previous cluster based results, using [@Anderson:2015dpc] as a recent comparison point, but not as strong as previous galactic center based dark matter constraint results . As expected from Eq.(\[eqn:dphidE\]), the bounds on the cross section get weaker for higher WIMP mass.
We note the two most significant upward fluctuations are at around 90 GeV and a bump at 350 GeV, both with a significance of roughly 2 $\sigma$. The fluctuation is slightly more pronounced in the case where all the clusters are included, compared to the sub-sample constraints from the 2500 and 600 cluster sets. Just as a matter of total speculation, we remind the reader that 350 GeV is around half the energy of the anomalous bump found at LHC.
A few notes on the relative merits of the different cuts on the clusters. For most values of DM mass, the constraints are stronger when including more galaxy clusters. However, at some masses, the constraints are better for smaller subsets of galaxy clusters. We attribute this to statistical fluctuation. For instance at $m_\chi \sim 200$ GeV, the 600 halo case has stronger constraints than the all halo case. For the all halo case at this energy, there are $\sim$70 photons (which we assume are background). Given this number, for the 600 halo case, we would expect around 12 photons, but there are only 4 photons. For this case we find that the signal-to-noise ratio is 1.4 times larger for the 600 halo case and thus the bound is stronger.
The top two curves of Figure 10 contrast our stack method with the prior analysis of Anderson etal [@Anderson:2015dpc], which studied only 16 clusters. The top two curves in the figure illustrate bounds on the same 16 clusters using our technique (green curve) and the Anderson etal technique (blue curve). Their bounds are expected to be stronger because they obtain a separate likelihood for each of the clusters individually whereas we stack the clusters. In particular, an individual likelihood for each cluster can incorporate spatial information to reduce the background from point sources and other backgrounds, whereas in our stacking method we must instead throw out clusters coincident with the 150 brightest Fermi-LAT $\gamma$-ray point sources. Most of the point source photon energies are below 100 GeV, and one can see that the biggest difference between the two approaches (green and blue curves) is at these lower energies. Indeed our results are weaker by up to an order of magnitude, yet do roughly follow the same shape as a function of WIMP mass. In principle the method of [@Anderson:2015dpc] does provide stronger bounds, and in the future we plan to use that approach in studying a few hundred clusters from the Tully catalog.
Our final results (the bottom three curves in the figure) provide far stronger bounds than the previous work of [@Anderson:2015dpc] due to the simple fact that we are studying 26,000 clusters (rather than the 16 of [@Anderson:2015dpc]).
Summary
=======
In this paper we used $\gamma$-ray observations of some 26,000 galaxy clusters in Pass-7 Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) data to place some of the strongest bounds to date on the cross section of dark matter particles for annihilation to a gamma-ray line, $\chi\chi \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$. The clusters were selected from the Tully 2MASS Groups catalog. For each cluster, we defined a region of interest containing 95% of the expected DM annihilation luminosity. We slid a bin of energy range $\sim$ twice the energy resolution of Fermi-LAT across our full spectrum of interest. We then added up all the observed photons for all the clusters for each energy window, and compared our observed photon count to the expected count. We searched for a bump in the observed photon count above an expected power law background, i.e. a line (or internal bremsstrahlung [@Bergstrom:1989jr; @Bringmann:2012vr]) signal at an energy equal to the WIMP mass due to DM annihilation. Since no excess above background was found, we used the null signal to place bounds on the DM annihilation cross section as a function of WIMP mass for $m_\chi$ between 20 and 500 GeV. We found $2 \sigma$ upward fluctuations most prominently at $\sim$350 GeV, but these are clearly not significant enough to claim detection.
We have improved on the previous best limits provided from galaxy clusters by a factor of 5 to 10 (depending on the DM mass). Our cluster based constraints are not yet as strong as bounds placed using the Galactic Center, although a less conservative “boost factor” from cluster substructure than the one we have chosen could strengthen our bounds considerably. Our analysis, given this choice of possible boost, is not yet sensitive enough to fully rule out typical realistic DM candidates, especially if the gamma-ray line is not a dominant annihilation mode.
In the analysis in this paper we stacked the clusters. In the future, a stronger bound may be obtained by performing a different analysis, namely determining an individual likelihood function for each of several hundred clusters (this approach was previously used by [@Anderson:2015dpc] for 16 clusters). The latter technique can incorporate spatial information to reduce the background.
Additional work for the future would be to repeat our analysis with Fermi-LAT Pass 8 data instead of Pass 7 data, which may yield stronger constraints (the Pass 8 data were not available when we started this work). One could also perform a joint likelihood analysis of both the nearby clusters in conjunction with the Galactic Center.
Our improvement on the previous limits provided from galaxy clusters by a factor of 5 to 10 shows promising future use of galaxy clusters as a viable source for placing further bounds on the particle physics of dark matter. On general merits, by looking at clusters of galaxies which have been characterized comprehensively by Tully, we now have the strongest constraints on dark matter annihilation to a line in clusters of galaxies. In future work, we also plan a similar study on other DM annihilation channels, which will produce a broader range of photon energies.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are grateful for financial support from the Swedish Research Council (VR) through grant number 2012-2250, and through the Oskar Klein Centre. We gratefully thank David Spergel, Dragan Huterer, Dan Hooper, and Stephan Zimmer for discussion.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. [**267**]{}, 195 (1996) \[hep-ph/9506380\]. L. Bergstrom, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**63**]{}, 793 (2000) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/63/5/2r3 \[hep-ph/0002126\]. G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. [**405**]{}, 279 (2005) \[hep-ph/0404175\]. Aartsen, M. G., Abraham, K., Ackermann, M., et al. 2016, , 4, 022 The Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Choi, K., et al. 2015, arXiv:1503.04858 Spolyar, D., Buckley, M., Freese, K., Hooper, D., & Murayama, H. 2009, arXiv:0905.4764 IceCube collaboration, Aartsen, M. G., Abraham, K., et al. 2016, arXiv:1606.00209 Aartsen, M. G., Abbasi, R., Abdou, Y., et al. 2013, , 88, 122001
J. R. Ellis, R. A. Flores, K. Freese, S. Ritz, D. Seckel and J. Silk, Phys. Lett. B [**214**]{}, 403 (1988). M. S. Turner and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 1001 (1990). M. Kamionkowski and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 1774 (1991). J. Silk and M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 624 (1984).
bergstrom L. Bergstrom, P.Ullio and J. H. Buckley, Astropart. Phys. [**9**]{}, 137 (1998) \[astro-ph/9712318\].
L. Bergstrom and H. Snellman, Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{} (1988) 3737. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.3737 N. W. Evans, F. Ferrer and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 123501 (2004) \[astro-ph/0311145\].GCDMBounds L. Bergstrom and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 063510 (2006) \[hep-ph/0512317\]. S. Colafrancesco, S. Profumo and P. Ullio, Astron. Astrophys. [**455**]{} (2006) 21 doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053887 \[astro-ph/0507575\].
A. Pinzke, C. Pfrommer and L. Bergstrom, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 181302 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.1948 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. A. Pinzke, C. Pfrommer and L. Bergstrom, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 123509 (2011) \[arXiv:1105.3240 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. L. Bergstrom, J. Edsjo, P. Gondolo and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 043506 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043506 \[astro-ph/9806072\]. G. Bertone, A. R. Zentner and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 103517 (2005) \[astro-ph/0509565\].
P. Sandick, J. Diemand, K. Freese and D. Spolyar, JCAP [**1101**]{}, 018 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.3552 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. P. Sandick, J. Diemand, K. Freese and D. Spolyar, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 083519 (2012) \[arXiv:1108.3820 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J. Lavalle and P. Salati, Comptes Rendus Physique [**13**]{}, 740 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.1004 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. Fermi-LAT Collaboration, arXiv:0905.0025 \[astro-ph.HE\]. E. A. Baltz [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**0807**]{} (2008) 013 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2008/07/013 \[arXiv:0806.2911 \[astro-ph\]\].
(), .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
, , (), .
, ****, (), .
, ****, (), .
(), .
(), .
, , , ****, ().
(), .
().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , (), .
, , (), .
(), .
, , , (), .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
S. K. Lee, M. Lisanti, B. R. Safdi, T. R. Slatyer and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, no. 5, 051103 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.051103 \[arXiv:1506.05124 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, no. 23, 231301 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.231301 \[arXiv:1503.02641 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. E. Aliu [*et al.*]{} \[VERITAS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 062001 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.2144 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
A. Lopez, C. Savage, D. Spolyar and D. Q. Adams, JCAP [**1603**]{}, no. 03, 033 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/033 \[arXiv:1501.01618 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
L. Accardo [*et al.*]{} \[AMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, no. 12, 121101 (2014). S. W. Barwick [*et al.*]{} \[HEAT Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**482**]{}, L191 (1997) doi:10.1086/310706 \[astro-ph/9703192\]. O. Adriani [*et al.*]{} \[PAMELA Collaboration\], Nature [**458**]{}, 607 (2009) doi:10.1038/nature07942 \[arXiv:0810.4995 \[astro-ph\]\].
J. Aleksić, S. Ansoldi, L. A. Antonelli, P. Antoranz, A. Babic, P. Bangale, U. B. de Almeida and J. A. Barrio [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**1402**]{}, 008 (2014) \[arXiv:1312.1535 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Abramowski [*et al.*]{} \[HESS Collaboration\], arXiv:1410.2589 \[astro-ph.HE\]. J. Aleksic [*et al.*]{} \[MAGIC Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**710**]{}, 634 (2010) \[arXiv:0909.3267 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{}, JCAP [**1005**]{}, 025 (2010) \[arXiv:1002.2239 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. X. Huang, G. Vertongen and C. Weniger, JCAP [**1201**]{}, 042 (2012) \[arXiv:1110.1529 \[hep-ph\]\]. J. Han, C. S. Frenk, V. R. Eke, L. Gao, S. D. M. White, A. Boyarsky, D. Malyshev and O. Ruchayskiy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**427**]{} (2012) 1651 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22080.x \[arXiv:1207.6749 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
A. Cuoco, J. Q. Xia, M. Regis, E. Branchini, N. Fornengo and M. Viel, arXiv:1506.01030 \[astro-ph.HE\]. S. i. Ando, A. Benoit-Lévy and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 2, 023514 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.023514 \[arXiv:1312.4403 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. B. Anderson, S. Zimmer, J. Conrad, M. Gustafsson, M. Sánchez-Conde and R. Caputo, JCAP [**1602**]{} (2016) no.02, 026 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/026 \[arXiv:1511.00014 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. A. Hektor, M. Raidal and E. Tempel, Astrophys. J. [**762**]{}, L22 (2013) doi:10.1088/2041-8205/762/2/L22 \[arXiv:1207.4466 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. T. Bringmann, X. Huang, A. Ibarra, S. Vogl and C. Weniger, JCAP [**1207**]{} (2012) 054 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/054 \[arXiv:1203.1312 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. Weniger, JCAP [**1208**]{}, 007 (2012) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/08/007 \[arXiv:1204.2797 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 12, 122002 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.122002 \[arXiv:1506.00013 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. R. B. Tully, Astron. J. [**149**]{}, 171 (2015) doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/171 \[arXiv:1503.03134 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J. P. Huchra [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**199**]{}, 26 (2012) doi:10.1088/0067-0049/199/2/26 \[arXiv:1108.0669 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
S. Ando, JCAP [**1410**]{}, no. 10, 061 (2014) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/061 \[arXiv:1407.8502 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. L. Bergstrom, Phys. Lett. B [**225**]{} (1989) 372. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)90585-6 D. A. Prokhorov and E. M. Churazov, Astron. Astrophys. [**567**]{}, A93 (2014) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322454 \[arXiv:1309.0197 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. A. Rassat, K. Land, O. Lahav and F. B. Abdalla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**377**]{}, 1085 (2007) doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11538.x \[astro-ph/0610911\]. J. Q. Xia, A. Cuoco, E. Branchini, M. Fornasa and M. Viel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**416**]{}, 2247 (2011) doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19200.x \[arXiv:1103.4861 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J. [**490**]{}, 493 (1997) \[astro-ph/9611107\]. Á. Moliné, M. A. Sánchez-Conde, S. Palomares-Ruiz and F. Prada, arXiv:1603.04057 \[astro-ph.CO\]. A. R. Duffy, J. Schaye, S. T. Kay and C. Dalla Vecchia, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**390**]{}, L64 (2008) Erratum: \[Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**415**]{}, L85 (2011)\] doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00537.x \[arXiv:0804.2486 \[astro-ph\]\].
J. Han, C. S. Frenk, V. R. Eke, L. Gao and S. D. M. White, arXiv:1201.1003 \[astro-ph.HE\]. B. Anderson, M. Kuhlen, J. Diemand, R. P. Johnson and P. Madau, Astrophys. J. [**718**]{}, 899 (2010) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/718/2/899 \[arXiv:1006.1628 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. X. J. Bi, J. Zhang, Q. Yuan, J. L. Zhang and H. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B [**668**]{}, 87 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.08.041 \[astro-ph/0611783\]. W. B. Atwood [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**697**]{}, 1071 (2009) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/697/2/1071 \[arXiv:0902.1089 \[astro-ph.IM\]\]. M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**203**]{}, 4 (2012) doi:10.1088/0067-0049/203/1/4 \[arXiv:1206.1896 \[astro-ph.IM\]\].
M. A. Strauss and J. A. Willick, Phys. Rept. [**261**]{}, 271 (1995) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(95)00013-7 \[astro-ph/9502079\]. L. Hui and P. B. Greene, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 123526 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.123526 \[astro-ph/0512159\]. Conley, A., Guy, J., Sullivan, M., et al. 2011, , 192, 1
Betoule, M., Kessler, R., Guy, J., et al. 2014, , 568, A22
M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**799**]{}, 86 (2015) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/86 \[arXiv:1410.3696 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. F. Acero [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. Suppl. [**223**]{}, no. 2, 26 (2016) doi:10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/26 \[arXiv:1602.07246 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 082002 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.082002 \[arXiv:1305.5597 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. M. Ackermann [*et al.*]{} \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 12, 122002 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.122002 \[arXiv:1506.00013 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
[^1]: See dark matter model section (next section) for more comprehensive detail on how $J_{sub}$ is calculated and what it means.
[^2]: See <http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis>
[^3]: See <http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data>
[^4]: The typical velocity of a galaxy in our study is 5000 km/sec. The correct value of $\delta V$ is uncertain, so we conservatively take it to be 600 km/sec as this high value produces the least stringent bounds; we note that $\delta V/V$ is the second most important error after that of the Hubble constant. The Local Group moves at 622 km/s relative to the CMB. Frequently the dispersion is assumed to be $\sim$300 km/s, e.g. in cosmological studies using SNe Ia. There are some old studies of redshift space distortions that find such values, as referenced in a review article by Strauss & Willick (1995) [@Strauss:1995fz], p. 325: “The Fisher [*et al.*]{} (1994b) analysis also measures the distortions on nonlinear scales to derive the pair-wise velocity dispersion at 100 km/s, $\sigma = 317(+40-49)$ km/s. This is to be compared with the Davis and Peebles (1983b) value of $340(\pm40)$ km/s from the CfA survey, also measured by looking at redshift space distortions." But in general, one can derive the dispersion from the velocity/matter power spectra, see e.g. Hui & Greene (2006) [@Hui:2005nm]. Sometimes even less is assumed for the dispersion (e.g. 150 km/s in Conley [*et al.*]{} 2011 [@2011ApJS..192....1C] and Betoule [*et al.*]{} 2014 ). As a conservative estimate, we take $\delta V=600$ km/sec. For most of our clusters, $V$ is on average on the order of 5000 km/sec.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider network routing under random link failures with a desired final distribution. We provide a mathematical formulation of a relaxed transport problem where the final distribution only needs to be close to the desired one. The problem is a maximum entropy problem for path distributions with an extra terminal cost. We show that the unique solution may be obtained solving a [*generalized Schrödinger system*]{}. An iterative algorithm to compute the solution is provided. It contracts the Hilbert metric with contraction ratio less than $1/2$ leading to extremely fast convergence.'
author:
- 'Yongxin Chen$^{1}$, Tryphon Georgiou$^{2}$, Michele Pavon$^{3}$ and Allen Tannenbaum$^{4}$[^1][^2][^3][^4][^5]'
title: '**Relaxed Schrödinger bridges and robust network routing \***'
---
\[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Conjecture]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Proof]{} \[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Definition]{}
Introduction
============
Containing the 2017-18 Southern California wild fires has been a major challenge for CAL FIRE involving dispatching hundreds of fire engines and thousands of fire fighters including some provided by ten other states. Efficiently dispatching the fire engines over a long period of time (the Thomas fire, for instance, burned for more than one month) is a difficult task. The problem can be roughly described as follows: At the initial time $t=0$ we have a certain distribution of fire engines in certain locations (nodes). Within at most $N$ time units, so as to provide the crew shift, the engines must reach through the available road network the various fire locations (other nodes). The distribution must guarantee the minimum force necessary to fight each specific fire. Considering the difficulties and hazards involved in reaching their destination, it seems reasonable to require that the final distribution of the fire engines be [*close*]{} (rather than equal) to a desired one. Another spec of the routing plan is robustness with respect to link failures. This could be accomplished by dispatching engines on different routes even when they have the same target.
In this paper, building on our previous work [@CGPT1; @CGPT2], which deal with the case of a fixed terminal distribution, we provide a precise mathematical formulation of the above relaxed problem. It is a maximum entropy problem for probability distributions on the feasible paths with a terminal cost. We study a relaxed version of the usual Schrödinger bridge problem without a hard constraint on the terminal marginal but with an extra terminal cost. The solution is obtained by solving iteratively a [*generalized Schrödinger system*]{}. Convergence of the algorithm in the natural projective metric is established. In [@HW], which is a sort of relaxation of [@CGP1], the problem of optimally steering a linear stochastic system with a Wasserstein distance terminal cost was studied. In [@CPSV] (see also [@JohRin17]), a regularized transport problem with very general boundary costs is considered and solved through iterative [*Schrödinger-Fortet-Demin-Stephan-Sinkhorn-like*]{} algorithms [@S1; @S2; @For; @DS1940; @Sin64]. Although our dynamic problem can be reduced to a static one of the form considered in [@CPSV] (see Section \[relaxedbridges\]), employing a general prior measure [*on the trajectories*]{} has some advantages. Indeed, the static formulation solution does not yield immediate by-product information on the new transition probabilities and on what paths the optimal mass flow occurs and is therefore less suited for many network routing applications. Moreover, we want to allow for general prior measures not necessarily of the Boltzmann’s type considered in the previous work. Finally, we prove convergence of the iterative algorithm in the Hilbert rather than Thompson metric as it usually provides the best contraction ratio [@bushell1973hilbert Theorem 3.4], [@KP]. We model the network through a directed graph and seek to design the routing policy so that the distribution of the commodity at some prescribed time horizon is close to a desired one. The optimal feedback control suitably modifies a prior transition mechanism. We also attempt to implicitly obtain other desirable properties of the optimal policy by suitably choosing a prior measure in a maximum entropy problem for distributions on paths. Robustness with respect to network failures, namely spreading of the mass as much as the topology of the graph and the final distribution allow, is accomplished by employing as prior transition the [*adjacency matrix*]{} of the graph. Our intuitive notion of robustness of the routing policy should not be confused with other notions of robustness concerning networks which have been put forward and studied, see e.g. [@Albertetal2000; @bara2014robustness; @olver2010robust; @arnoldetal1994; @demetrius2005; @savla2014robust]. In particular, in [@arnoldetal1994; @demetrius2005], robustness has been defined through a fluctuation-dissipation relation involving the entropy rate. This latter notion captures relaxation of a process back to equilibrium after a perturbation and has been used to study both financial and biological networks [@Sandhu; @Sandhu1]. This paper is addressed to transportation and data networks problems and does not concern equilibrium or near equilibrium cases.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we define the relaxed transport problem. In Section \[main\], we state and prove the main result reducing the problem to solving a generalized Schrödinger system. In Section \[Hilbert\], we review some fundamental concepts and results concerning Hilbert’s projective metric. In Section \[genSch\], we establish existence and uniqueness for the generalized Schrödinger system through a contraction mapping principle. Finally, in Section \[algo\], we outline an iterative algorithm to compute the solution and some extensions of the results.
Relaxed Schrödinger bridges {#relaxedbridges}
===========================
Consider a directed, strongly connected aperiodic graph ${\bf G}=(\mathcal X,\mathcal E)$ with vertex set $\mathcal X=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ and edge set $\mathcal E\subseteq \mathcal X\times\mathcal X$. We let time vary in ${\mathcal T}=\{0,1,\ldots,N\}$, and let ${\mathcal {FP}}_0^N\subseteq\mathcal X^{N+1}$ denote the family of length $N$, feasible paths $x=(x_0,\ldots,x_N)$, namely paths such that $(x_i,x_{i+1})\in\mathcal E$ for $i=0,1,\ldots,N-1$.
We seek a probability distribution ${{{\mathfrak P}}}$ on ${\mathcal {FP}}_0^N$ with prescribed initial probability distribution $\nu_0(\cdot)$ and terminal distribution close to $\nu_N(\cdot)$, such that the resulting random evolution is closest to a “prior” measure ${{\mathfrak M}}$ on ${\mathcal {FP}}_0^N$ in a suitable sense. The prior law ${{\mathfrak M}}$ is induced by the Markovian evolution $$\label{FP}
\mu_{t+1}(x_{t+1})=\sum_{x_t\in\mathcal X} \mu_t(x_t) m_{x_{t}x_{t+1}}(t)$$ with nonnegative distributions $\mu_t(\cdot)$ over $\mathcal X$, $t\in{\mathcal T}$, and weights $m_{ij}(t)\geq 0$ for all indices $i,j\in{\mathcal X}$ and all times. Moreover, to respect the topology of the graph, $m_{ij}(t)=0$ for all $t$ whenever $(i,j)\not\in\mathcal E$. Often, but not always, the matrix $$\label{eq:matrixM}
M(t)=\left[ m_{ij}(t)\right]_{i,j=1}^n$$ does not depend on $t$. The rows of the transition matrix $M(t)$ do not necessarily sum up to one, so that the “total transported mass” is not necessarily preserved. This occurs, for instance, when $M(t)$ simply encodes the topological structure of the network with $m_{ij}(t)$ being zero or one, depending on whether a certain link exists at each time $t$. It is also possible to take into account the length of the paths leading to solutions which compromise between speading the mass and transporting on shorter paths, see [@CGPT1; @CGPT2]. The evolution together with the measure $\mu_0(\cdot)$, which we assume positive on $\mathcal X$, i.e., $$\label{eq:mupositive}
\mu_0(x)>0\mbox{ for all }x\in\mathcal X,$$ induces a measure ${{\mathfrak M}}$ on ${\mathcal {FP}}_0^N$ as follows. It assigns to a path $x=(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_N)\in{\mathcal {FP}}_0^N$ the value $$\label{prior}{{\mathfrak M}}(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_N)=\mu_0(x_0)m_{x_0x_1}(0)\cdots m_{x_{N-1}x_N}(N-1),$$ and gives rise to a flow of [*one-time marginals*]{} $$\mu_t(x_t) = \sum_{x_{\ell\neq t}}{{\mathfrak M}}(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_N), \quad t\in\mathcal T.$$
We seek a distribution which is closest to the prior ${{\mathfrak M}}$ in [*relative entropy*]{} where, for $P$ and $Q$ measures on $\mathcal X^{N+1}$, the relative entropy (divergence, Kullback-Leibler index) ${{\mathbb D}}(P\|Q)$ is $${{\mathbb D}}(P\|Q)\hspace*{-2pt}:=\hspace*{-2pt}\left\{\begin{array}{ll} \hspace*{-5pt}\sum_{x\in\mathcal X^{N+1}}P(x)\log\frac{P(x)}{Q(x)}, & \hspace*{-5pt}{{\it Supp}}(P)\subseteq {{\it Supp}}(Q),\\
\hspace*{-5pt}+\infty , & \hspace*{-5pt}{{\it Supp}}(P)\not\subseteq {{\it Supp}}(Q),\end{array}\right.$$ Here, by definition, $0\cdot\log 0=0$. Naturally, while the value of ${{\mathbb D}}(P\|Q)$ may turn out negative due to miss-match of scaling (in case $Q={{\mathfrak M}}$ is not a probability measure), the relative entropy is always jointly convex. Moreover, $${{\mathbb D}}(P\|Q)- \sum_{x\in\mathcal X^{N+1}}P(x)+ \sum_{x\in\mathcal X^{N+1}}Q(x)\ge 0.$$ Since for probability distributions we have $$\sum_{x\in\mathcal X^{N+1}}P(x)=1,$$ minimizing the nonnegative quantity ${{\mathbb D}}(P\|Q)- \sum_{x}P(x)+ \sum_{x}Q(x)$ over a family of probability distributions $P$, even when the prior $Q$ has a different total mass, is equivalent to minimizing over the same set ${{\mathbb D}}(P\|Q)$. We are now ready to formalize the problem. Let $\nu_0$ and $\nu_N$ be two probability distributions on $\mathcal X$ and let $\mathcal P(\nu_0)$ be the family of all Markovian probability distributions on $\mathcal X^{N+1}$ of the form (\[prior\]) with initial marginal $\nu_0$. Rather than imposing the desired final marginal $\nu_N$ as in the standard Schrödinger bridge problem, we consider the following “relaxed problem":
\[relbridge\]
\[eq:general\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm minimize}\;J(P):={{\mathbb D}}(P\|{{\mathfrak M}})+{{\mathbb D}}(p_N\|\nu_N)\\ {\rm over} \; \{P\in {\mathcal P}(\nu_0)\}.\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, we can restrict the minimization to distributions in ${\mathcal P}_S(\nu_0)$, namely distributions in ${\mathcal P}(\nu_0)$ such that $$\label{support}{{\it Supp}}(p_N)\subseteq {{\it Supp}}(\nu_N) .$$ The connection between the dynamic Problem \[relbridge\] and a static problem such as those considered in [@CPSV], can be obtained as follows. Let $P$ and $Q$ be two probability distributions on $\mathcal X^{N+1}$. For $x=(x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_N)\in\mathcal X^{N+1}$, consider the multiplicative decomposition $$P(x)=P_{x_0,x_N}(x)p_{0N}(x_0,x_N),$$ where $$P_{\bar{x}_0,\bar{x}_N}(x)=P(x|x_0=\bar{x}_0,x_n=\bar{x}_N)$$ and we have assumed that $p_{0N}$ is everywhere positive on $\mathcal X\times \mathcal X$, and a similar one for $Q$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{{\mathbb D}}(P\|Q)=\sum_{x_0x_N}p_{0N}(x_0,x_N)\log \frac{p_{0N}(x_0,x_N)}{q_{0N}(x_0,x_N)}\\+\sum_{x\in{\cal X}^{N+1}}P_{x_0,x_N}(x)\log \frac{P_{x_0,x_N}(x)}{Q_{x_0,x_N}(x)} p_{0N}(x_0,x_N).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is the sum of two nonnegative quantities. The second becomes zero if and only if $P_{x_0,x_N}(x)=Q_{x_0,x_N}(x)$ for all $x\in{\cal X}^{N+1}$. Thus, $P^*_{x_0,x_N}(x)=Q_{x_0,x_N}(x)$. Thus, Problem \[relbridge\] can be reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm minimize}\;J(P):={{\mathbb D}}(p_{0N}\|m_{0N})+{{\mathbb D}}(p_N\|\nu_N)\\ {\rm over} \; \{p_{0N}: \sum_{x_N}p_{0N}(\cdot,x_N)=\nu_0(\cdot)\}.\end{aligned}$$ This argument extends to the situation where the prior measure mass is not one. We prefer to discuss the original formulation (\[eq:general\]) for the reasons described in the Introduction.
Main result {#main}
===========
We have the following characterization of the solution.
\[mainthm\]Assume that the matrix $$\label{transition0N}G:=M(N-1) M(N-2)\cdots M(1) M(0)=\left(g_{ij}\right)$$ has all positive elements $g_{ij}$. Suppose there exist two functions $\varphi$ and $\hat{\varphi}$ mapping $\{0,1,\ldots,N\}\times\mathcal X$ into the nonnegative reals and satisfying the [*generalized Schrödinger system*]{}
\[eq:generalizedbridge\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:generalizedbridgeA}
&\varphi(t,i)=\sum_{j}m_{ij}(t)\varphi(t+1,j), \; 0\le t\le N-1,\\
&\hat\varphi(t+1,j)=\sum_{i}m_{ij}(t)\hat\varphi(t,i),\; 0\le t\le N-1,\label{eq:generalizedbridgeB}\\
\label{eq:generalizedbridgeC}
&\varphi(0,i)\hat\varphi(0,i)=\nu_0(i),\\\label{eq:generalizedbridgeD}
&\varphi(N,j)^2\hat\varphi(N,j)=\nu_N(j).\end{aligned}$$
For $0\le t\le N-1$ and $(i,j)\in\mathcal X\times\mathcal X$, we define $$\label{Opttransition1}\pi^*_{ij}(t):=m_{ij}(t)\frac{\varphi(t+1,j)}{\varphi(t,i)}.$$ which constitute a family of [*bona fide*]{} transition probabilities. Then, the solution ${{{\mathfrak P}}}^*$ to Problem \[relbridge\] is unique and given by the Markovian distribution $$\label{optmeasure}
{{{\mathfrak P}}}^*(x_0,\ldots,x_N)=\nu_0(x_0)\pi^*_{x_0x_{1}}(0)\cdots \pi^*_{x_{N-1}x_{N}}(N-1).$$
Let $\varphi(\cdot,\cdot)$ be [*space-time harmonic*]{} for the prior transition mechanism, namely satisfy on $0\le t\le N-1$ recursion (\[eq:generalizedbridgeA\]). Observe that since $G$ has all positive elements, $\hat{\varphi}(N,i)$ and $\varphi(0,i)$ are positive for all $i\in\mathcal X$. In particular, it then follows from (\[eq:generalizedbridgeD\]) that $\varphi(N,i)=0$ if and only if $\nu_N(i)=0$. Minimizing $J(P)$ over ${\mathcal P}_S(\nu_0)$ is then equivalent to minimizing over ${\mathcal P}(\nu_0)$ the new index $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &J'(P):=J(P) + \sum_{x_0}\log\varphi (0,x_0)\nu_0(x_0)\\&\hspace{-.3cm}-\sum_{x_N}\log\varphi(N,x_N)p_N(x_N)+\sum_{x_N}\log\varphi(N,x_N)p_N(x_N),\label{modifiedindex}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_N$ denotes the marginal of $P$ at time $N$ and we have used the convention $0\cdot\log 0=0$. Let $\pi_{ij}(t)$ be the transition probabilities of the measure $P\in {\mathcal P}_S(\nu_0)$. Then, using the multiplicative decomposition (\[prior\]) for both measures we get the representation $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{{\mathbb D}}({P}\|{{\mathfrak M}})&={{\mathbb D}}(\nu_0\|\mu_0)\\&+\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\sum_{x_k}{{\mathbb D}}(\pi_{x_kx_{k+1}}(k)\|m_{x_kx_{k+1}}(k))p_k(x_k).\label{relentrdec2}\end{aligned}$$ Since ${{\mathbb D}}(\nu_0\|\mu_0)$ is constant over ${\mathcal P}_S(\nu_0)$ and by the same calculation as in [@PT pp. 7-8], we now get that Problem \[relbridge\] is equivalent to minimizing over ${\mathcal P}_S(\nu_0)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \hspace*{-5pt}J''(P)&:=&\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\sum_{x_k}{{\mathbb D}}\left(\pi_{x_{k}x_{k+1}}(k)\|m_{x_{k}x_{k+1}}(k)\phantom{\frac{\varphi}{\varphi}}\right.\\\nonumber
&&\left. \times \frac{\varphi(k+1,x_{k+1})}{\varphi(k,x_k)}\right)p_{k}(x_{k}) \\&&+\sum_{x_N}\log\left[\frac{p_N(x_N)\varphi(N,x_N)}{\nu_N(x_N)}\right]p_N(x_N).\label{secondmodifiedindex}\end{aligned}$$ We next prove that $$\label{opttransition1}\pi^*_{ij}(t):=m_{ij}(t)\frac{\varphi(t+1,j)}{\varphi(t,i)}$$ constitute a family of transition probabilities. Indeed, $\pi^*_{ij}(t)\ge 0$ and, by (\[eq:generalizedbridgeA\]), $$\sum_j \pi^*_{ij}(t)=\sum_jm_{ij}(t)\frac{\varphi(t+1,j)}{\varphi(t,i)}=\frac{\varphi(t,i)}{\varphi(t,i)}=1.$$ Thus, the first term in the right-hand side of (\[secondmodifiedindex\]) is nonnegative and we can make it equal to zero by choosing as new transition probabilities precisely (\[opttransition1\]). Consider now the probabilities $p^*(t,\cdot)$ defined by the recursion $$\label{FPopt}p^*(t+1,j)=\sum_i\pi^*_{ij}(t)p^*(t,i),\quad p^*(0,i)=\nu_0(i).$$ Observe that the second term in the right-hand side of (\[secondmodifiedindex\]) becomes zero if $$\label{bndcond}
\varphi(N,x_N)=\frac{\nu_N(x_N)}{p_N^*(x_N)}$$ which is admissible as a boundary condition for (\[eq:generalizedbridgeA\]) since it is nonnegative and we are only considering distributions in ${\mathcal P}(\nu_0)$ which satisfy (\[support\]). With this choice of $\varphi(N,x_N)$, $\pi^*_{ij}(t)$ minimize $J''(P)$ over ${\mathcal P}_S(\nu_0)$.
Define $$\label{defhat}\hat{\varphi}(t,i):=\frac{p^*(t,i)}{\varphi(t,i)}.$$ Using (\[FPopt\]), (\[opttransition1\]) and (\[defhat\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\hat{\varphi}(t+1,j)&=&\frac{p^*(t+1,j)}{\varphi(t+1,j)}=\frac{\sum_im_{ij}(t)\frac{\varphi(t+1,j)}{\varphi(t,i)}p^*(t,i)}{\varphi(t+1,j)}\\&=&\sum_im_{ij}(t)\frac{p^*(t,i)}{\varphi(t,i)}=\sum_i\pi^*_{ij}(t)\hat{\varphi}(t,i),\end{aligned}$$ namely $\hat{\varphi}(t,i)$ is [*space-time co-harmonic*]{} satisfying (\[eq:generalizedbridgeB\]). While (\[defhat\]) alone implies (\[eq:generalizedbridgeC\]), (\[bndcond\]) and (\[defhat\]) imply that (\[eq:generalizedbridgeD\]) is verified.
In view of (\[defhat\]), at each time $t=0,1,\ldots,N$ the marginal $p_t^*$ of the solution factorizes as $$\label{fact}
p^*(t,i)=\varphi(t,i)\hat{\varphi}(t,i).$$
The final condition (\[eq:generalizedbridgeD\]) for the Schrödinger system is different from the standard one, see e.g. [@CGPT2]. We get from (\[eq:generalizedbridgeD\]) $$\label{bndconditions2' }\varphi(N,x_N)=\sqrt{\frac{\nu_N(x_N)}{\hat{\varphi}(N,x_N)}}.$$ Let $\varphi(t)$ and $\hat{\varphi}(t)$ denote the column vectors with entries $\varphi(t,i)$ and $\hat{\varphi}(t,i)$, respectively, with $i\in\mathcal X$. In matrix form, (\[eq:generalizedbridgeA\]), (\[eq:generalizedbridgeB\]) and (\[opttransition1\]) read
\[eq:notations\] $$\varphi(t)=M(t)\varphi(t+1),\; ~~\hat{\varphi}(t+1)=M(t)^T\hat{\varphi}(t),$$ and $$\label{matrixtransition}
\Pi(t)=[\pi_{ij}(t)]={\operatorname{diag}}(\varphi(t))^{-1}M(t){\operatorname{diag}}(\varphi(t+1)).$$
Notice that the condition (\[bndcond\]) involves $p_N^*$ which is defined through (\[FPopt\]). The latter, in turn, depends on the transition probabilities (\[opttransition1\]) which require the knowledge of $\varphi(t)$ for $t=0,1,\ldots,N-1$. Thus, it is not clear if the whole procedure is well-posed. This will be established in Section \[genSch\] by proving that indeed system (\[eq:generalizedbridge\]) has a (unique) solution.
Background: Hilbert’s projective metric {#Hilbert}
=======================================
This metric dates back to 1895 [@hilbert1895gerade]. A crucial contractivity result that permits to establish existence of solutions of equations on cones (such as the Perron-Frobenius theorem) was proven by Garrett Birkhoff in 1957 [@birkhoff1957extensions]. Important extensions of Birkhoff’s result to nonlinear maps were provided by Bushell [@bushell1973projective; @bushell1973hilbert]. Various other applications of the Birkhoff-Bushell result have been developed such as to positive integral operators and to positive definite matrices [@bushell1973hilbert; @lemmens2013birkhoff]. More recently, this geometry has proven useful in various problems concerning communication and computations over networks (see [@tsitsiklis1986distributed] and the work of Sepulchre and collaborators [@sepulchre2010consensus; @sepulchre2011contraction; @BFS] on consensus in non-commutative spaces and metrics for spectral densities) and in statistical quantum theory [@reeb2011hilbert]. A recent survey on the applications in analysis is [@lemmens2013birkhoff]. The use of the Hilbert metric is crucial in the nonlinear Frobenius-Perron theory [@lemmens2012nonlinear]. A considerable further extension of the Perron-Frobenius theory beyond linear positive systems and monotone systems has been recently proposed in [@FS].
Taking advantage of the Birkhoff-Bushell results on contractivity of linear and nonliner maps on cones, we showed in [@GP] that the Schrödinger bridge for Markov chains and quantum channels can be efficiently obtained from the fixed-point of a map which is contractive in the [*Hilbert metric*]{}. This result extended [@FL] which deals with scaling of nonnegative matrices. In [@CGP], it was shown that a similar approach can be taken in the context of diffusion processes leading to i) a new proof of a classical result on SBP and ii) providing an efficient computational scheme for both, SBP and OMT. This new computational approach can be effectively employed, for instance, in image interpolation.
Following [@bushell1973hilbert], we recall some basic concepts and results of this theory.
Let ${{\mathcal S}}$ be a real Banach space and let ${{\mathcal K}}$ be a closed solid cone in ${{\mathcal S}}$, i.e., ${{\mathcal K}}$ is closed with nonempty interior ${\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$and is such that ${{\mathcal K}}+{{\mathcal K}}\subseteq {{\mathcal K}}$, ${{\mathcal K}}\cap -{{\mathcal K}}=\{0\}$ as well as $\lambda {{\mathcal K}}\subseteq {{\mathcal K}}$ for all $\lambda\geq 0$. Define the partial order $$x\preceq y \Leftrightarrow y-x\in{{\mathcal K}},\quad x< y \Leftrightarrow y-x\in{\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$$ and for $x,y\in{{\mathcal K}}_0:={{\mathcal K}}\backslash \{0\}$, define $$\begin{aligned}
M(x,y)&:=&\inf\, \{\lambda\,\mid x\preceq \lambda y\}\\
m(x,y)&:=&\sup \{\lambda \mid \lambda y\preceq x \}.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the Hilbert metric is defined on ${{\mathcal K}}_0$ by $$d_H(x,y):=\log\left(\frac{M(x,y)}{m(x,y)}\right).$$ Strictly speaking, it is a [*projective*]{} metric since it is invariant under scaling by positive constants, i.e., $d_H(x,y)=d_H(\lambda x,\mu y)=d_H(x,y)$ for any $\lambda>0, \mu>0$ and $x,y\in{\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$. Thus, it is actually a distance between rays. If $U$ denotes the unit sphere in ${{\mathcal S}}$, $\left({\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}\cap U,d_H\right)$ is a metric space.
\[ex1\] Let ${{\mathcal K}}={{\mathbb R}}^n_+=\{x\in{{\mathbb R}}^n: x_i\ge 0\}$ be the positive orthant of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Then, for $x,y\in{\rm int}{{\mathbb R}}^n_+$, namely with all positive components, $$M(x,y)=\max_i\{x_i/y_i\}, \quad m(x,y)=\min_i\{x_i/y_i\},$$ and $$d_H(x,y)=\log\max\{x_iy_j/y_ix_j\}.$$
Another very important example for applications in many diverse areas of statistics, information theory, control,etc. is the cone of Hermitian, positive semidefinite matrices.
\[ex2\] Let ${{\mathcal S}}=\{X=X^\dagger\in{{\mathbb C}}^{n\times n}\}$, where $\dagger$ denotes here transposition plus conjugation and, more generally, adjoint. Let ${{\mathcal K}}=\{X\in{{\mathcal S}}: X\ge 0\}$ be the positive semidefinite matrices. Then, for $X,Y\in{\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$, namely positive definite, we have $$d_H(X,Y)=\log\frac{\lambda_{\max}\left(XY^{-1}\right)}{\lambda_{\min}\left(XY^{-1}\right)}=\log\frac{\lambda_{\max}\left(Y^{-1/2}XY^{-1/2}\right)}{\lambda_{\min}\left(Y^{-1/2}XY^{-1/2}\right)}.$$ It is closely connected to the Riemannian (Fisher-information) metric $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber d_R(X,Y)&=&\|\log\left(Y^{-1/2}XY^{-1/2}\right)\|_{F}\\&=&
\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^n[\log\lambda_i\left(Y^{-1/2}XY^{-1/2}\right)]^2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
A map ${{\mathcal E}}:{{\mathcal K}}\rightarrow{{\mathcal K}}$ is called [*non-negative*]{}. It is called [*positive*]{} if ${{\mathcal E}}:{\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}\rightarrow{\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$. If ${{\mathcal E}}$ is positive and ${{\mathcal E}}(\lambda x)=\lambda^p{{\mathcal E}}(x)$ for all $x\in{\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$ and positive $\lambda$, ${{\mathcal E}}$ is called [*positively homogeneous of degree $p$*]{} in ${\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$. For a positive map ${{\mathcal E}}$, the [*projective diameter*]{} is befined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta({{\mathcal E}}):=\sup\{d_H({{\mathcal E}}(x),{{\mathcal E}}(y))\mid x,y\in {\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}\}\end{aligned}$$ and the [*contraction ratio*]{} by $$\begin{aligned}
k({{\mathcal E}}):=\inf\{\lambda: \mid d_H({{\mathcal E}}(x),{{\mathcal E}}(y))\leq \lambda d_H(x,y),\forall x,y\in{\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, a map ${{\mathcal E}}:{{{\mathcal S}}}\rightarrow{{\mathcal S}}$ is called [*monotone increasing*]{} if $x\le y$ implies ${{\mathcal E}}(x)\le{{\mathcal E}}(y)$.
\[poshom\]Let ${{\mathcal E}}$ be a monotone increasing positive mapping which is positive homogeneous of degree $p$ in ${\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$. Then the contraction $k({{\mathcal E}})$ does not exceed $p$. In particular, if ${{\mathcal E}}$ is a positive linear mapping, $k({{\mathcal E}})\le1$.
\[BBcontraction\] Let ${{\mathcal E}}$ be a positive linear map. Then $$\label{condiam}
k({{\mathcal E}})=\tanh(\frac{1}{4}\Delta({{\mathcal E}})).$$
\[BBcontraction2\] Let ${{\mathcal E}}$ be either
a.
: a monotone increasing positive mapping which is positive homogeneous of degree $p (0<p<1)$ in ${\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$, or
b.
: a positive linear mapping with finite projective diameter.
Suppose the metric space $Y=\left({\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}\cap U,d_H\right)$ is complete. Then, in case $(a)$ there exists a unique $x\in{\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}$ such that ${{\mathcal E}}(x)=x$, in case $(b)$ there exists a unique positive eigenvector of ${{\mathcal E}}$ in $Y$.
This result provides a far-reaching generalization of the celebrated Perron-Frobenius theorem [@birkhoff1962Perron-Frobenius]. Notice that in both Examples \[ex1\] and \[ex2\], the space $Y=\left({\rm int}{{\mathcal K}}\cap U,d_H\right)$ is indeed complete [@bushell1973hilbert].
There are other metrics which are contracted by positive monotone maps. For instance, the closely related [*Thompson metric*]{} [@Tho] $$d_T(x,y)=\log\max\{M(x,y),m^{-1}(x,y)\}.$$ The Thompson metric is a [*bona fide*]{} metric on ${{\mathcal K}}$. It has been, for instance, employed in [@LW; @CPSV; @BFS].
Solution to the generalized Schrödinger system {#genSch}
==============================================
Let $G=M(N-1) M(N-2)\cdots M(1) M(0)$ and assume that all its elements $g_{ij}$ are positive. Let us introduce the following maps on ${{\mathbb R}}^n_+$: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal E}}\;:\; &x\mapsto y&=\sum_jg_{ij}x_j,\\
{{\mathcal E}}^\dagger \;:\; &x\mapsto y&=\sum_ig_{ij}x_i,\\
{{\mathcal D}}_0\;:\;&x\mapsto y&= \frac{\nu_0}{x}\\
{{\mathcal D}}_N\;:\;&x\mapsto y&= \frac{\nu_N}{x}\end{aligned}$$ where division of vectors is componentwise[^6].
\[linear\] Consider the maps ${{\mathcal E}}$ and ${{\mathcal E}}^\dagger$. We have the following bounds on their contraction ratios: $$\label{strictcon}
k({{\mathcal E}})=k({{\mathcal E}}^\dagger)=\tanh(\frac{1}{4}\Delta({{\mathcal E}}))<1.$$
Observe that ${{\mathcal E}}$ is a positive [*linear*]{} map and its projective diameter is $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta({{\mathcal E}})&=&\sup\{d_H({{\mathcal E}}(x),{{\mathcal E}}(y)) \mid x_i>0,\,y_i>0\}\\
&=&\sup\{\log\left(\frac{g_{ij}g_{k\ell}}{g_{i\ell}g_{kj}}\right)\mid1\leq i,j,k,\ell\leq n\}.\end{aligned}$$ It is finite since all entries $g_{ij}$’s are positive. It now follows from Theorem \[BBcontraction\] that its contraction ratio satisfies (\[strictcon\]). Similarly for the adjoint map ${{\mathcal E}}^\dagger$.
\[inversion\] $$k({{\mathcal D}}_0)\le1,\quad k({{\mathcal D}}_N)\le1$$
See [@GP p.033301-10].
\[sqrt\] Let $\mathcal R:{{\mathbb R}}^n_+\rightarrow{{\mathbb R}}^n_+$ be the map which associates to the vector $x$ with components $x_i$ to the vector with components $\sqrt{x_i}$. Then $$\label{CRSR}
k(\mathcal R)=1/2.$$
Let $x,y\in{\rm int}{{\mathbb R}}^n_+$. In view of Example\[ex1\] and using the properties of the square root, $$d_H(\mathcal R(x),\mathcal R(y))\hspace*{-2pt}=\hspace*{-2pt}\log\max\{\sqrt{(x_iy_j/y_ix_j)}\}\hspace*{-2pt}=\hspace*{-2pt}(1/2)d_H(x,y).$$
\[compothm\] The composition $$\label{composition}{{\mathcal C}}:={{\mathcal E}}^\dagger\circ{{\mathcal D}}_0\circ {{\mathcal E}}\circ \mathcal R\circ{{\mathcal D}}_N$$ contracts the Hilbert metric with contraction ratio $k({{\mathcal C}})<(1/2)$, namely $$d_H({{\mathcal C}}(x),{{\mathcal C}}(y))<(1/2)d_H(x,y), \quad \forall x,y\in{\rm int}{{\mathbb R}}^n_+.$$
The result follows at once from Lemmas \[linear\], \[inversion\], \[sqrt\].
We have the following result.
\[fundtheorem\] Assume that the matrix $G=M(N-1) M(N-2)\cdots M(1) M(0)$ all positive elements $g_{ij}$. Let $\nu_0$ and $\nu_N$ be any two probability distributions on $\mathcal X$. Then, there exist a unique choice of the vectors $\varphi(0),\,\hat\varphi(N)$ with positive entries such that
\[eq:iteration\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:iterationa}
&\varphi(t,i)=\sum_{j}m_{ij}(t)\varphi(t+1,j), \; 0\le t\le N-1\\
&\hat\varphi(t+1,j)=\sum_{i}m_{ij}(t)\hat\varphi(t,i), \; 0\le t\le N-1\label{eq:iterationb}\\
\label{eq:iterationc}
&\varphi(0,x_0)\hat\varphi(0,x_0)=\nu_0(x_0),\\\label{eq:iterationd}
&\varphi(N,x_N)^2\hat\varphi(N,x_N)=\nu_N(x_N).\end{aligned}$$
Consider the iteration $$\label{iteration}
(\hat\varphi(N,\cdot))_{\rm next}={{\mathcal C}}(\hat\varphi(N,\cdot))$$ Notice that the componentwise divisions of ${{\mathcal D}}_0$ and ${{\mathcal D}}_N$ are well defined. Indeed, even when $\hat\varphi(0)$ ($\varphi(N)$) has zero entries, $\hat\varphi(N)$ ($\varphi(0)$) has all positive entries since the elements of $G$ are all positive. Since ${{\mathcal C}}$ is strictly contractive in the Hilbert metric, the iteration would converge to a ray that is invariant under ${{\mathcal C}}$. Let $\phi$ be any positive vector on this ray, then $${{\mathcal C}}(\phi)= \lambda \phi$$ for some positive number $\lambda$. Now let $\hat\varphi(N) =\lambda^2\phi$. Then it is straightforward to verify $${{\mathcal C}}(\hat\varphi(N)) = \lambda{{\mathcal C}}(\phi) = \lambda^2\phi =\hat\varphi(N).$$ Moreover, this is the unique vector that satisfies the above condition. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(N) &=& \sqrt{\frac{\nu_N}{\hat\varphi(N)}}
\\
\varphi(0) &=& {{\mathcal E}}(\varphi(N))
\\
\hat\varphi(0) &=& \frac{\nu_0}{\varphi(0)}
\end{aligned}$$ and $\varphi(t), \hat\varphi(t)$ according to -, then clearly these vectors are consistent with the Schrödinger system (\[eq:iterationa\])-(\[eq:iterationb\])-(\[eq:iterationc\])-(\[eq:iterationd\]).
An algorithm contracting Hilbert’s metric and some extensions {#algo}
=============================================================
Let $\mathbf{1}^\dagger=(1,1,\ldots,1)$. The iteration in (\[iteration\]) suggests the following algorithm:
a.
: Set $x=x(0)=\mathbf{1}$;
b.
: Set $x_{\rm next}={{\mathcal C}}(x)$;
c.
: Iterate until you reach a fixed point $\bar{x}={{\mathcal C}}(\bar{x})$ ([*stopping criterion: $|\bar x-{{\mathcal C}}\bar x|<10^{-4}$*]{});
d.
: Set $\hat\varphi(N)=\bar{x}$;
e.
: Use $$\label{eq:stepe}
\varphi(N,x_N)=\sqrt{\frac{\nu_N(x_N)}{\hat{\varphi}(N,x_N)}}$$ to compute $\varphi(N)$ and then (\[eq:iterationa\]) to compute $\varphi(t)$ for $t=N-1,N-2,\ldots, 1,0$;
f.
: Compute the optimal transition probabilities $\pi^*_{ij}(t)$ according to (\[opttransition1\]);
g.
: The solution to Problem \[relbridge\] is the time inhomogeneous Markovian distribution (\[optmeasure\]) with initial marginal $\nu_0$ and transition probabilities $\pi^*_{ij}(t)$.
The assumption that the elements $g_{ij}$ of the matrix $G=M(N-1) M(N-2)\cdots M(1) M(0)$ be all positive can be relaxed. For instance, if both $\nu_0$ and $\nu_N$ are everywhere positive on $\mathcal X$, it suffices that $M$ has at least one positive element in each row and column to guarantee that the componentwise divisions of ${{\mathcal D}}_0$ and ${{\mathcal D}}_N$ are well defined. In that case, Theorems \[mainthm\] and \[compothm\] hold true and the algorithm of this section applies.
Our analysis and algorithm can be generalized to the cost function $$\label{eq:weightedD}
{{\mathbb D}}(P\|{{\mathfrak M}})+\eta{{\mathbb D}}(p_N\|\nu_N)$$ for any $\eta\ge 0$. In this case, we only need change in the Schrödinger system to $$\varphi(N,j)^{\frac{\eta+1}{\eta}}\hat\varphi(N,j)=\nu_N(j)$$ and to $$\varphi(N,x_N)=\left(\frac{\nu_N(x_N)}{\hat{\varphi}(N,x_N)}\right)^{\frac{\eta}{\eta+1}}$$ in the algorithm. The convergence rate is strictly upper bounded by $\frac{\eta}{\eta+1}$. The parameter $\eta$ measures the significance of the penalty term ${{\mathbb D}}(p_N\|\nu_N)$. When $\eta$ goes to infinity, we recover the traditional Schrödinger bridge. The upper bound is $1$ in this case. On the other hand, when $\eta=0$, the solution is trivial in view of (\[relentrdec2\]). It is the Markov process with kernel $M(t)$ (assuming that all $M(t)$ are stochastic matrices) and initial distribution $\nu_0$. Indeed, $\frac{\eta}{\eta+1}=0$ implies $\varphi(N,\cdot)=1$ on $\mathcal X$. In view of (\[eq:iterationa\]), we get $\varphi(t,i)\equiv 1$. This is intuitive and we do not need to run the algorithm to solve the problem when $\eta=0$.
Consider the graph in Figure \[fig:graph\]. We seek to transport masses from initial distribution $\nu_1=\delta_1$ to target distribution $\nu_N=1/2\delta_6+1/2\delta_9$. The step $N$ is set to be $3$ or $4$.
![transport graph[]{data-label="fig:graph"}](graphtopology){width="35.00000%"}
When $N=3$, the evolution of mass distribution by solving Problem \[relbridge\] is given by $$\tiny
\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0.5865 & 0.2067 & 0.2067 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.3798 & 0 & 0.2067 & 0.4135 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.3798 & 0 & 0 & 0.6202
\end{matrix}
\right],$$ where the four rows of the matrix show the mass distribution at time step $t=0, 1, 2 ,3$ respectively. The prior law $M$ is taken to be the Rulle Bowen random walk [@CGPT1]. The mass spreads out before reaching nodes $6$ and $9$. Due to the soft terminal constraint, the terminal distribution is not equal to $\nu_N$. When we allow for more steps $N=4$, the mass spreads even more before reassembling at nodes $6, 9$, as shown below, $$\tiny
\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0.6941 & 0.2040 & 0.1020 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0.1020 & 0.1020 & 0.4901 & 0 & 0.1020 & 0.2040 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.3881 & 0.1020 & 0.2040 & 0.3059\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.2862 & 0 & 0 & 0.7138
\end{matrix}
\right].$$ The terminal distribution is again not equal to $\nu_N$. However, if we increase the penalty on ${{\mathbb D}}(p_N\|\nu_N)$, then the difference between $p_N$ and $\nu_N$ becomes smaller, as can be seen below, which is the distribution evolution when $\eta=10$ in $$\tiny
\left[
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0.7679 & 0.1547 & 0.0774 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0.0774 & 0.0774 & 0.6132 & 0 & 0.0774 & 0.1547 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.5359 & 0.0774 & 0.1547 & 0.2321\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.4585 & 0 & 0 & 0.5415
\end{matrix}
\right].$$
Final comments
==============
Since the work of Mikami, Thieullen, Leonard, Cuturi [@Mik; @mt; @MT; @leo2; @leo; @Cuturi], a large number of papers have appeared where Schrödinger bridge problems are viewed as regularization of the important Optimal Mass Transport (OMT) problem, see e.g., [@BCCNP; @CGP4; @CGP; @CGP5; @LYO; @Alt; @CPSV]. This is, of course, interesting and extremely effective as OMT is computationally challenging [@AHT; @BB]. Nevertheless, one should not forget that Schrödinger bridge problems have at least two other important motivations: The first is Schrödinger’s original “hot gas experiment” model, namely [*large deviations of the empirical distribution on paths*]{} [@F2]. The second is a [*maximum entropy principle in statistical inference*]{}, namely choosing the a posterior distribution so as to make the fewest number of assumptions about what is beyond the available information. This inference method has been noticeably developed over the years by Jaynes, Burg, Dempster and Csiszár [@Jaynes57; @Jaynes82; @BURG1; @BLW; @Dem; @csiszar0; @csiszar1; @csiszar2]. It is this last concept which largely inspired the original approach taken in this paper and in [@CGPT1; @CGPT2] although connections to OMT were made there. The prior mass distribution on paths may namely simply encode the topological information of the network or that plus the length of each link and is not necessarily a probability distribution. In this paper, in particular, we have considered a relaxed version of the problem where the final distribution only need to be close to a desired one. This has been formalized by adding to the criterion the Kullback-Leibler distance between the final distribution and the desired one. We have shown that the solution can be otained solving a Schrödinger system with different terminal condition. An iterative algorithm contracting the Hilbert metric with contraction ratio less than $1/2$ to compute the solution has been provided as well.
[99]{}
R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabási, Error and attack tolerance of complex networks, [*Nature*]{}, [**406**]{}, pp. 378–382, 2000.
J. Altschuler, J. Weed and P. Rigollet, Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via Sinkhorn iteration. ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.09634, 2017.
S. Angenent, S. Haker and A. Tannenbaum, Minimizing flows for the Monge–Kantorovich problem, [*SIAM J. Math. Anal.*]{}, [**35**]{} (1), 61-97 (2003).
L. Arnold, V. M. Gundlach and L. Demetrius, Evolutionary formalism for products of positive random matrices, [*The Annals of Applied Probability*]{}, [**4**]{}, 3, pp. 859–901, 1994.
G. Baggio, A. Ferrante, R. Sepulchre, Finslerian metrics in the cone of spectral densities, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1708.02818.
A.-L. Barabàsi, *Network [S]{}cience*, 2014.
J. Benamou and Y. Brenier, A computational fluid mechanics solution to the Monge–Kantorovich mass transfer problem, [*Numerische Mathematik*]{}, [**84**]{} (3), 375-393, (2000).
J. Benamou, G. Carlier, M. Cuturi, L. Nenna and G. Peyré, Iterative Bregman projections for regularized transportation problems, [*SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing*]{}, [**37**]{} (2), (2015), A1111-A1138.
G Birkhoff, Extensions of Jentzch’s theorem, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**85**]{}, 219-227, 1957.
G Birkhoff, Uniformly semi-primitive multiplicative processes, [*Transactions of the American Mathematical Society*]{}, [**104**]{} (1962), pp. 37-51.
S. Bonnabel, A. Astolfi, and R. Sepulchre, Contraction and observer design on cones, in [*Proc. Decision and Control and European Control Conference*]{}, (CDC-ECC), IEEE, 2011, pp. 12-15.
J. P. Burg, Maximum entropy spectral analysis, in [*Proc.37th Meet.Society of Exploration Geophysicists,*]{} 1967. Reprinted in Modern Spectrum Analysis, D. G. Childers, Ed. New York: IEEE Press, 1978. pp. 34-41.
J. Burg, D. Luenberger, and D. Wenger, Estimation of Structured Covariance Matrices, [*Proceedings of the IEEE*]{}, [**70**]{}, pp. 963–974, 1982.
P. Bushell, On the projective contraction ratio for positive linear mappings, [*Journal of the London Mathematical Society*]{}, [**2**]{}, pp. 256–258, 1973.
P. Bushell, Hilbert’s metric and positive contraction mappings in a Banach space, [*Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis*]{}, [**52**]{}, 330-338, 1973.
Y. Chen, T.T. Georgiou and M. Pavon, Optimal steering of a linear stochastic system to a final probability distribution, Part I, [*IEEE Trans. Aut. Control*]{}, [**61**]{}, Issue 5, 1158-1169, 2016.
Y. Chen, T.T. Georgiou and M. Pavon, “On the relation between optimal transport and Schrödinger bridges: A stochastic control viewpoint”, [*J. Optim. Theory and Applic.*]{}, [**169**]{} (2), 671-691, 2016.
Y. Chen, T.T. Georgiou and M. Pavon, Entropic and displacement interpolation: a computational approach using the Hilbert metric, [*SIAM J. on Applied Mathematics*]{}, [**76**]{} (6), 2375-2396, 2016.
Y. Chen, T.T. Georgiou and M. Pavon, “Optimal transport over a linear dynamical system", [*IEEE Trans. Aut. Control*]{}, [**62**]{}, n. 5, 2137-2152, 2017.
Y. Chen, T.T. Georgiou, M. Pavon and A. Tannenbaum, Robust transport over networks, [*IEEE Trans. Aut. Control*]{}, [**62**]{}, n.9, 4675-4682, 2017.
Y. Chen, T.T. Georgiou, M. Pavon and A. Tannenbaum, Efficient-robust routing for single commodity network flows, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv: 1701.07625v2, [*IEEE Trans. Aut. Control*]{}, to appear.
L. Chizat, G. Peyré, B. Schmitzer and F.-X. Vialard, Scaling algorithms for unbalanced optimal transport problems, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1607.05816v2, [*Mathematics of Computation*]{}, in press.
I. Csiszár, I-divergence geometry of probability distributions and mimimization problems, [*Annals of Probability*]{}, [**3**]{}, pp. 146-158, 1975.
I. Csiszár, Sanov property, generalized I-projections, and a conditional limit theorem, [*Annals of Probability*]{}, [**12**]{}, pp. 768-793, 1984.
I. Csiszár, “Why least squares and maximum entropy? An axiomatic approach to inference for linear inverse problems,” [*The Annals of Statistics*]{}, [**19(4)**]{}: 2032-2066, 1991.
M.Cuturi, “Sinkhorn distances: lightspeed computation of pptimal transport,” [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*]{}, 2292-2300, 2013.
L. Demetrius and T. Manke, Robustness and network evolution: an entropic principle, [*Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications*]{}, [**346**]{}, 3, pp. 682–696, 2005.
W. E. Deming and F. F. Stephan, On a least squares adjustment of a sampled frequency table when the expected marginal totals are known, [*Ann. Math. Statist.*]{}, [**11**]{}, pp. 427-444, 1940.
A. P. Dempster, Covariance selection, [*Biometrics*]{}, [**28**]{},157-175, 1972.
H. Föllmer, Random fields and diffusion processes, in: [*Ècole d’Ètè de Probabilitès de Saint-Flour XV-XVII*]{}, edited by P. L. Hennequin, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988, vol.1362,102-203.
F. Forni and R. Sepulchre, Differentially Positive Systems, [*IEEE Trans. Aut. Control*]{}, [**61**]{}, Issue: 2, 346 - 359, 2016.
R. Fortet, Résolution d’un système d’equations de M. Schrödinger, [*J. Math. Pure Appl.*]{} IX (1940), 83-105.
J. Franklin and J. Lorenz, On the scaling of multidimensional matrices, [*Linear Algebra and its applications*]{}, [**114**]{}, 717-735, 1989.
T. T. Georgiou and M. Pavon, Positive contraction mappings for classical and quantum Schrödinger systems, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**56**]{}, 033301 (2015).
A. Halder, and E.D.B. Wendel, Finite Horizon Linear Quadratic Gaussian Density Regulator with Wasserstein Terminal Cost, [*Proc. of the 2016 American Control Conference*]{}, 7249-7254, 2016.
D. Hilbert, [Ü]{}ber die gerade linie als k[ü]{}rzeste verbindung zweier punkte, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{}, [**46**]{}, 91-96, 1895.
E. T. Jaynes, Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics, [*Physical Review Series II*]{}, [**106**]{} (4): 620Ð630, 1957. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.106.620. MR87305, and Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics II, [*Physical Review Series II*]{}, [**108**]{} (2): 171Ð190, 1957. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.108.171. MR96414.
E. T. Jaynes. On the rationale of maximum-entropy methods. , 70(9):939–952, Sept. 1982.
Johan Karlsson, and Axel Ringh, Generalized Sinkhorn iterations for regularizing inverse problems using optimal mass transport, [*SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences*]{} 10(4) : 1935-1962, 2017
E. Kohlberg and J. W. Pratt, The contraction mapping approach to the Perron-Frobenius theory: Why Hilbert?s metric?, [*Mathematics of Operations Research*]{}, [**7**]{}, no. 2, 198-210, 1982.
B. Lemmens and R. Nussbaum, [*Nonlinear Perron-Frobenius Theory*]{}, no. 189, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
B. Lemmens and R. Nussbaum,, Birkhoff’s version of [H]{}ilbert’s metric and its applications in analysis, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1304.7921v1, (2013), [*Handbook of Hilbert geometry*]{}, Chapter 10, G. Besson, A. Papadopoulos and M. Troyanov Eds., European Mathematical Society Publishing House, Zürich, 275-306,2014.
C. Léonard, From the Schrödinger problem to the Monge-Kantorovich problem, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{}, 2012, [**262**]{}, 1879-1920.
C. Léonard, A survey of the Schroedinger problem and some of its connections with optimal transport, [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. A*]{}, 2014, [**34**]{} (4): 1533-1574.
W. Li, P. Yin and S Osher, Computations of optimal transport distance with Fisher information regularization, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1704.04605.
C. Liverani and M. P. Wojtkowski, Generalization of the Hilbert metric to the space of positive definite matrices, [*Pacific J. Math.*]{}, [**166**]{}, no. 2, 339-355, 1994.
T. Mikami, Monge’s problem with a quadratic cost by the zero-noise limit of h-path processes, [*Probab. Theory Relat. Fields*]{}, [**129**]{}, (2004), 245-260.
T. Mikami and M. Thieullen, Duality theorem for the stochastic optimal control problem., [*Stoch. Proc. Appl.*]{}, 116, 1815?1835 (2006).
T. Mikami and M. Thieullen, Optimal Transportation Problem by Stochastic Optimal Control, [*SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization*]{}, [**47**]{}, N. 3, 1127-1139 (2008).
N. K. Olver, *Robust [N]{}etwork [D]{}esign*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emPh.D. [D]{}issertation, [D]{}epartment of Mathematics and Statistics, [M]{}c[G]{}ill [U]{}niversity, 2010.
M. Pavon and F. Ticozzi, Discrete-time classical and quantum Markovian evolutions: Maximum entropy problems on path space, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**51**]{}, 042104-042125 (2010).
D. Reeb, M. J. Kastoryano, and M. M. Wolf, Hilbert’s projective metric in quantum information theory, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**52**]{} (2011), p. 082201.
R.Sandhu, T. Georgiou, E. Reznik, L. Zhu, I. Kolesov, Y. Senbabaoglu, and A. Tannenbaum1, “Graph curvature for differentiating cancer networks,” *Scientific Reports (Nature)*, vol. 5, 12323; doi: 10.1038/srep12323 (2015).
R. Sandhu, T. Georgiou, and A. Tannenbaum, “Ricci curvature: An economic indicator for market fragility and systemic risk,” [*Science Advances*]{}, vol. 2, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1501495, 2016.
K. Savla, G. Como, and M. A. Dahleh, “Robust network routing under cascading failures,” *IEEE Trans. on Network Science and Engineering*, vol. 1, no. 1, 53-66, 2014.
E. Schrödinger, Über die Umkehrung der Naturgesetze, [*Sitzungsberichte der Preuss Akad. Wissen. Berlin, Phys. Math. Klasse*]{} (1931), 144-153.
E. Schrödinger, Sur la théorie relativiste de l’électron et l’interpretation de la mécanique quantique, [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré*]{} [**2**]{}, 269, 1932.
R. Sepulchre, A. Sarlette, and P. Rouchon, Consensus in non-commutative spaces, in [*Proc. 49th IEEE-CDC*]{}, pp. 6596-6601, 2010.
R. Sinkhorn, A relationship between arbitrary positive matrices and doubly stochastic matrices, [*Ann. Math. Statist.*]{}, [**35**]{} (1964), 876-879.
A. Thompson, On certain contraction mappings in a partially ordered vector space, [*Proc. of the American Mathematical Society*]{}, [**14**]{}, no. 3, 438-443, 1963.
J. Tsitsiklis, D. Bertsekas, and M. Athans, [*Distributed asynchronous deterministic and stochastic gradient optimization algorithms*]{}, [*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,*]{} [**31**]{}, pp. 803–812, 1986.
[^1]: \*This project was supported by AFOSR grants (FA9550-15-1-0045 and FA9550-17-1-0435), ARO grant (W911NF-17-1-049), grants from the National Center for Research Resources (P41-RR-013218) and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (P41-EB-015902), NCI grant (1U24CA18092401A1), NIA grant (R01 AG053991), a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and by the University of Padova Research Project CPDA 140897.
[^2]: $^{1}$Yongxin Chen is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Iowa State University, IA 50011, Ames, Iowa, USA [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: $^{2}$ Tryphon Georgiou is with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: $^{3}$ Michele Pavon is with the Dipartimento di Matematica “Tullio Levi-Civita", Università di Padova, 35121 Padova, Italy [[email protected]]{}
[^5]: $^{4}$ Allen Tannenbaum is with the Departments of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics & Statistics, Stony Brook University, NY 11794, USA [[email protected]]{}
[^6]: Our use of the adjoint for the map ${{\mathcal E}}$ is consistent with the standard notation in diffusion processes where the Fokker-Planck (forward) equation involves the adjoint of the [*generator*]{} appearing in the backward Kolmogorov equation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Yang P. Liu[^1]'
- 'Sushant Sachdeva[^2]'
- 'Zejun Yu[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Short Cycles via Low-Diameter Decompositions '
---
[^1]: Stanford University. `[email protected]`. Research supported by the U.S. Department of Defense via an NDSEG fellowship.
[^2]: University of Toronto. `[email protected]`. Research supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and a Connaught New Researcher award.
[^3]: University of Waterloo. `[email protected]`. This work was done when this author was an undergrad student at the University of Toronto.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a novel cell-centered direct Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) finite volume scheme on unstructured triangular meshes that is high order accurate in space and time and that also allows for *time-accurate local time stepping* (LTS). It extends our previous investigations on high order Lagrangian finite volume schemes with LTS carried out in [@ALELTS1D] in one space dimension. The new scheme uses the following basic ingredients: a high order WENO reconstruction in space on unstructured meshes, an element-local high-order accurate space-time Galerkin predictor that performs the time evolution of the reconstructed polynomials within each element, the computation of numerical ALE fluxes at the moving element interfaces through approximate Riemann solvers, and a one-step finite volume scheme for the time update which is directly based on the integral form of the conservation equations in space-time. The inclusion of the LTS algorithm requires a number of crucial extensions, such as a proper scheduling criterion for the time update of each element and for each node; a virtual projection of the elements contained in the reconstruction stencils of the element that has to perform the WENO reconstruction; and the proper computation of the fluxes through the space-time boundary surfaces that will inevitably contain hanging nodes in time due to the LTS algorithm. We have validated our new unstructured Lagrangian LTS approach over a wide sample of test cases solving the Euler equations of compressible gasdynamics in two space dimensions, including shock tube problems, cylindrical explosion problems, as well as specific tests typically adopted in Lagrangian calculations, such as the Kidder and the Saltzman problem. When compared to the traditional global time stepping (GTS) method, the newly proposed LTS algorithm allows to reduce the number of element updates in a given simulation by a factor that may depend on the complexity of the dynamics, but which can be as large as $\sim 4.7$.'
address: |
Laboratory of Applied Mathematics, Department of Civil, Environmental and Mechanical Engineering\
University of Trento, Via Mesiano 77, I-38123 Trento, Italy
author:
- Walter Boscheri
- 'Michael Dumbser$^{*}$'
- Olindo Zanotti
bibliography:
- 'Lagrange2D\_LTS.bib'
title: 'High Order Cell-Centered Lagrangian-Type Finite Volume Schemes with Time-Accurate Local Time Stepping on Unstructured Triangular Meshes'
---
Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) ,high order Lagrangian ADER-WENO schemes ,moving unstructured meshes , time-accurate local time stepping (LTS) ,hyperbolic conservation laws ,Euler equations of compressible gas dynamics
Introduction {#sec.introduction}
============
In the last few years there has been a renewed interest in the development of novel accurate and robust cell-centered Lagrangian finite volume schemes for hydrodynamics. Since in a Lagrangian method the computational mesh moves with the local fluid velocity, such schemes are regarded as the first choice in all problems presenting moving material interfaces appearing in compressible multi-phase and multi-material flows, for instance, the numerical simulation of inertial confinement fusion (ICF). The vast majority of modern Lagrangian schemes adopts a *cell-centered* finite-volume approach, see for example [@Despres2009; @Depres2012; @ShashkovCellCentered; @MaireCyl1; @Maire2007; @Maire2008; @Maire2009b; @Maire2010], where all flow variables are defined as cell-averaged quantities inside a control volume. However, also *staggered* Lagrangian schemes are possible, see e.g. [@StagLag], where the velocity is defined at the cell interfaces, while the other flow variables are still defined at the cell centers.
In [@munz94; @Despres2009] Godunov-type finite volume schemes have been presented for Lagrangian hydrodynamics, while in [@DepresMazeran2003; @Despres2005] the governing equations have been coupled with the equations for the evolution of the geometry and the resulting weakly hyperbolic system has been solved using a node-based finite volume solver. Unstructured multidimensional meshes have been considered by Maire in [@Maire2009; @Maire2010; @Maire2011], who developed up to second order accurate cell-centered Lagrangian schemes where the time derivatives of the fluxes have been computed with a node-centered solver. This approach may be regarded as a multi-dimensional Lagrangian extension of the Generalized Riemann problem methodology used for example in the ADER approach of Titarev and Toro [@titarevtoro; @Toro:2006a] in the Eulerian context. Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) methods based on remeshing and remapping have also been investigated very recently for single and multi-material flows in [@ShashkovMultiMat1; @ShashkovMultiMat2; @ShashkovMultiMat3; @ShashkovMultiMat4].
In [@chengshu1; @chengshu2] Cheng and Shu presented the first better than second order accurate Lagrangian schemes for hydrodynamics on structured meshes, where the use of a high order Essentially Non-Oscillatory (ENO) reconstruction operator yielded high order of accuracy in space, while high order of accuracy in time was guaranteed using either a Runge-Kutta or a Lax-Wendroff-type time stepping. Arbitrary high order accurate cell-centered Lagrangian-type finite volume schemes for conservative and non-conservative hyperbolic PDE on moving unstructured triangular and tetrahedral meshes have been considered for the first time by Boscheri et al. in a very recent series of papers [@Lagrange2D; @LagrangeNC; @LagrangeMHD; @LagrangeMDRS; @Lagrange3D]. A new class of *meshless* Lagrangian particle methods based on a high order accurate moving least-squares WENO reconstruction has been forwarded in [@WENOSPH].
High order accurate Lagrangian algorithms using the classical continuous finite element method (FEM) can be found, for example, in the work of Scovazzi et al. [@scovazzi1; @scovazzi2] and Dobrev et al. [@Dobrev1; @Dobrev2; @Dobrev3], while Lagrangian discontinuous Galerkin finite elements have been recently proposed by Vilar et al. and Yu et al. in [@Vilar1; @Vilar2; @Vilar3; @Yuetal]. Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian DG schemes have been developed and applied, for example, in [@Feistauer4; @Feistauer3].
Almost all of the above mentioned algorithms use an explicit *global* time stepping scheme in which the timestep is computed under a classical *global* CFL stability condition, so that the timestep is essentially determined by the smallest control volume appearing in the mesh. In Lagrangian hydrodynamics, where the mesh follows as closely as possible the local fluid motion, very severe deformations and distortions may occur in the computational cells, especially at shocks and shear waves. As a consequence, the computational efficiency of the algorithm drastically decreases, because the smallest timestep imposed by the most deformed control volumes dictates the timestep for the entire computational grid, including those elements which are much bigger or which lie in a zone where the fluid is moving uniformly. In the Eulerian framework such a problem can be partially avoided controlling the mesh quality *a priori* and designing a high quality mesh once in a pre-processing step, since the grid will not change anymore during the simulation. Of course, the CFL condition can be circumvented by using implicit or semi-implicit schemes, see for example [@Casulli1999; @CasulliStelling2011; @CasulliVOF; @Dolejsi1; @Dolejsi2; @Dolejsi3], but this approach does not yet seem to be very popular in the context of cell-centered Lagrangian-type finite volume methods. An alternative to overcome the global CFL condition consists in the development of numerical schemes that allow for time-accurate *local* time stepping (LTS), where each element has to obey only a less restrictive *local* CFL stability condition, hence using its own optimal local timestep. Therefore, many efforts have been devoted to the construction of high order accurate Eulerian schemes with time-accurate LTS, developing either discontinuous Galerkin finite element methods [@FlahertyLTS; @dumbserkaeser06d; @TaubeMaxwell; @stedg1; @stedg2; @KrivodonovaLTS; @FerrariLevelSet] or high order accurate finite volume schemes with LTS [@Berger-Oliger1984; @Berger-Colella1989; @DomainDecomp; @CastroLTS; @MuletAMR1; @MuletAMR2; @Burger2012; @FerrariLevelSet; @Dumbser2012b; @Dumbser2014]. The finite volume schemes with LTS adopt mainly classical adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) techniques in space and time or block-clustered local time stepping algorithms. In [@GroteLTS1; @GroteLTS2] also high order accurate Runge-Kutta time integrators with local time stepping (so-called multi-rate integrators) can be found. To the knowledge of the authors, the first high order accurate *Lagrangian* algorithm with *time accurate local time stepping* on moving grids has been proposed very recently in [@ALELTS1D], where the equations of hydrodynamics and of classical magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) have been solved in one spatial dimension. In the present paper we extend the algorithm presented in [@ALELTS1D] to *moving unstructured triangular meshes*.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: in Section \[sec.numethod\] the numerical scheme is described, including the details of the local time stepping algorithm on moving unstructured meshes, while numerical convergence studies as well as some classical numerical test problems for hydrodynamics are presented in Section \[sec.validation\]. We conclude the paper giving an outlook to future research and developments in Section \[sec.concl\].
Numerical method {#sec.numethod}
================
Formulation of the equations and basic set-up
---------------------------------------------
In this article we consider nonlinear hyperbolic conservation laws, cast in the form $$\label{PDE}
\frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot {\mathbf{F}}({\mathbf{Q}}) = {\mathbf{S}}({\mathbf{Q}}), \qquad {\mathbf{x}}= (x,y) \in \Omega(t) \subset \mathbb{R}^2, \quad t \in \mathbb{R}_0^+, \quad {\mathbf{Q}}\in \Omega_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \subset \mathbb{R}^\nu,$$ where ${\mathbf{Q}}=(q_1,q_2,...,q_\nu)$ is the vector of conserved variables defined in the space of the admissible states $\Omega_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \subset \mathbb{R}^\nu$, ${\mathbf{F}}({\mathbf{Q}})=\left( {\mathbf{f}}({\mathbf{Q}}),{\mathbf{g}}({\mathbf{Q}}) \right)$ denotes the nonlinear flux tensor and ${\mathbf{S}}({\mathbf{Q}})$ represents a nonlinear algebraic source term which is not allowed to be stiff. The system of equations is defined in two space dimensions, hence addressing the space coordinate vector and the time with $\mathbf{x}=(x,y)$ and $t$, respectively. The two-dimensional computational domain $\Omega(t)$ is time-dependent since in the Lagrangian framework the mesh is moving, hence changing its configuration at each time step. The domain is discretized using a total number of $N_E$ conforming triangles $T^n_i$, therefore at a general time $t^n$ the *current triangulation* $\mathcal{T}^n_{\Omega}$ of the domain $\Omega(t^n)=\Omega^n$ is given by the union of all elements, i.e. $$\mathcal{T}^n_{\Omega} = \bigcup \limits_{i=1}^{N_E}{T^n_i}.
\label{trian}$$ Within the Lagrangian LTS algorithm that is going to be presented in this paper each element moves in time independently from the others and following its own local timestep, hence the triangulation $\mathcal{T}^n_{\Omega}$ will in general *never* be assembled at a common time level. In the LTS framework hanging nodes in time are naturally produced and one is in general not able to define the configuration of the computational mesh at a certain time level $t^n$, unless we force the computation to reach the same time $\overline{t}$, which could be typically the case either at the final time or at an intermediate output time. For this reason in the rest of the paper each time level $t^n$ will be addressed also with the element number it refers to, i.e. $t^n_i$, with the subscript $i$ denoting the number of the physical triangle $T_i$.
As suggested in [@Lagrange2D], we adopt a spatial reference system $\xi-\eta$ defined by the coordinate vector $\boldsymbol{\xi}=(\xi,\eta)$ where the unit reference triangle $T_e$ is composed of the nodes $\boldsymbol{\xi}^e_{1}=(\xi^e_{1},\eta^e_{1})=(0,0)$, $\boldsymbol{\xi}^e_{2}=(\xi^e_{2},\eta^e_{2})=(1,0)$ and $\boldsymbol{\xi}^e_{3}=(\xi^e_{3},\eta^e_{3})=(0,1)$. The physical element $T^n_i$ defined in the physical system $x-y$ is mapped to the reference element $T_e$ using the transformation $${\mathbf{x}}= {\mathbf{x}}({\boldsymbol{\xi}},t^n) = {\mathbf{X}}^n_{1,i} + \left( {\mathbf{X}}^n_{2,i} - {\mathbf{X}}^n_{1,i} \right) \xi + \left( {\mathbf{X}}^n_{3,i} - {\mathbf{X}}^n_{1,i} \right) \eta,
\label{xietaTransf}$$ where $\mathbf{X}^n_{k,i} = (X^n_{k,i},Y^n_{k,i})$ represents the vector of physical coordinates of the $k$-th vertex of triangle $T^n_i$ at time $t^n_i$. In the Lagrangian framework the use of the reference system, which does not change in time, is much more convenient rather than carrying on the computation in the physical system, where elements are moving and deforming in time.
As usual for cell-centered finite volume schemes, data are represented and evolved in time within each control volume as piecewise constant cell averages $${\mathbf{Q}}_i^n = \frac{1}{|T_i^n|} \int_{T^n_i} {\mathbf{Q}}({\mathbf{x}},t^n_i) dV,
\label{eqn.cellaverage}$$ where the volume of element $T_i^n$ is denoted by $|T_i^n|$ at the current element time $t^n_i$. In the time-accurate LTS algorithm a cell $T_i^n$ is allowed to evolve the solution in time only if the so-called *update criterion* [@DumbserKaeser07; @stedg1; @ALELTS1D] is satisfied, namely if $$\max \limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}_i} \left(t_j^n\right) \leq \left(t_i^n + \Delta t_i^n \right) \leq \min \limits_{j \in \mathcal{N}_i} \left(t_j^n + \Delta t_j^n \right),
\label{eqn.updateFV}$$ where $\mathcal{N}_i$ denotes the *Neumann neighborhood* of element $T_i$, i.e. the three direct side neighbors $T_j$ of the cell, while $t_i^n$ and $\Delta t_i^n$ represent the current local time and the local timestep of triangle $T_i$, respectively. Hence, $\left(t_i^n + \Delta t_i^n \right)$ is the future time of element $T_i$ and to make notation easier it will be addressed with $t_i^{n+1}$.
There are two important issues that need to be clarified:
1. In order to develop a numerical scheme that evolves the cell averages with high order of accuracy in space and in time in one single step, two strategies are followed. For the accuracy in space we implement a suitable Weighted Essentially Non-Oscillatory (WENO) reconstruction technique that is able to deal with LTS and which is presented in detail in the next Section \[sec.weno\], while for the accuracy in time we use an element-local space-time Galerkin predictor approach, as illustrated in Section \[sec.lst\].
2. In a time-accurate LTS finite volume scheme, each element $T^n_i$ evolves the solution ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^n$ in time with a local timestep $\Delta t_i^n$ that is computed according to a local CFL stability condition. As a result, the WENO reconstruction will be carried out *locally*, i.e. considering only the element $T^n_i$ which is currently updating the solution to its new time level $t^{n+1}_i$, as well as an appropriate neighborhood of $T_i^n$ that is necessary to carry out the reconstruction, the so-called reconstruction stencil $\mathcal{S}_i^W$. Since the neighbor elements of $T_i$ in general have a different local time, the reconstruction needs to get time-accurate *virtual* cell averages from the neighbor cells as input. These virtual cell averages are readily available from the local space-time Galerkin predictor solution inside the neighbors.
High order WENO reconstruction for local time stepping {#sec.weno}
------------------------------------------------------
In order to obtain high order of accuracy in space a nonlinear WENO reconstruction algorithm is used. As done in [@Lagrange2D; @LagrangeNC; @LagrangeMHD; @LagrangeMDRS; @Lagrange3D] we adopt the *polynomial* formulation presented in [@DumbserKaeser07; @DumbserKaeser06b; @MixedWENO2D; @MixedWENO3D], instead of the original *pointwise* approach proposed by Shu et al. in [@shu_efficient_weno; @balsarashu; @HuShuVortex1999; @ZhangShu3D]. Other high order accurate reconstruction algorithms on unstructured meshes can be found, e.g. in [@AboiyarIske; @MOODorg; @MOODhighorder; @ADERMOOD]. While all the details of high order WENO reconstruction are contained in the above-mentioned references, we present here only a brief summary of the main features of the scheme, highlighting the modifications that are necessary to handle a time accurate local time stepping formulation.
The reconstructed solution $\mathbf{w}_h({\mathbf{x}},t_i^n)$ is given in terms of piecewise polynomials of degree $M$ and is computed *locally* for each control volume $T_i^n$. First, one has to construct a set of reconstruction stencils $S_i^s$ relative to the element $T_i$, namely $$\mathcal{S}_i^s = \bigcup \limits_{j=1}^{n_e} T_{m(j)},
\label{stencil}$$ where $1\leq j \leq n_e$ denotes a local index which counts the elements belonging to the stencil, while $m(j)$ maps the local counter $j$ to the global element number used in the triangulation . As explained in [@StencilRec1990; @Olliver2002; @KaeserIske2005; @DumbserKaeser06b], in two space dimensions on unstructured meshes one has to take a total number of elements $n_e$ for each stencil that is bigger than the smallest number $\mathcal{M} = (M+1)(M+2)/2$ needed to reach the formal order of accuracy $M+1$, hence we typically set $n_e = 2 \mathcal{M}$. Furthermore, according to [@KaeserIske2005; @DumbserKaeser06b], we need a total number of stencils $s=7$ in order to perform the polynomial WENO reconstruction, namely one central stencil $s=1$, three primary sector stencils $s \in \{2,3,4\}$ and three reverse sector stencils $s \in \{5,6,7\}$. As a consequence, the update criterion must be extended to the [*total*]{} WENO stencil $\mathcal{S}_i^W$ given by $$\mathcal{S}_i^W= \bigcup \limits_{s=1}^{7} \mathcal{S}_i^s,
\label{eqn.WENOstencil}$$ hence obtaining $$\max \left(t_j^n\right) \leq t_i^{n+1} \leq \min \left(t_j^{n+1} \right), \qquad \forall T_j \in \mathcal{S}_i^W.
\label{eqn.WENOupdate}$$ In order to guarantee that at least one element in the entire mesh satisfies condition , the total stencils $\mathcal{S}_i^W$ need to be constructed in such a way that they are *symmetric*, i.e. each element $T_j \in \mathcal{S}_i^W$ inside the stencil of $T_i$ *must* contain in its own WENO stencil $\mathcal{S}_j^W$ the element $T_i$. In other words, if $T_j \in \mathcal{S}_i^W$ then $T_i \in \mathcal{S}_j^W$. It is always possible to construct such symmetric stencils by adding elements to the stencils until the condition of symmetry is satisfied for all elements.
For the sake of clarity we give a simple example of what could happen if we take *non-symmetric* stencils. Let element $T_j$ be *not* contained in the stencil of $T_i$ and let $T_i$ belong to the stencil $\mathcal{S}_j^W$ of element $T_j$. Let furthermore the current time level of $T_i$ and $T_j$ be $t_i^n$ and $t_j^n$, respectively, with the corresponding future times $t_i^{n+1}$ and $t_j^{n+1}$. Without loss of generality we assume $t_i^n=t_j^n$, while the future time levels are chosen such that $t_i^{n+1}>t_j^{n+1}$. If the update criterion on the *non-symmetric* stencil $\mathcal{S}_i^W$ is supposed to be satisfied, then element $T_i$ is allowed to update the numerical solution to its future time, which will subsequently become the *current* time of $T_i$, i.e. $t_i^n \rightarrow t_i^{n+1}$. The resulting situation will lead to a *dead lock* in the algorithm, where element $T_j$ will never obey condition since $t_j^{n+1}<t_i^n$. A simple solution is to always build a *symmetric* stencil. In this case element $T_j$ performs the update *first* and does not prevent element $T_i$ from updating its solution. The drawback of this approach is that slightly larger stencils are required.
Due to , the current time $t_j^n$ of the neighbor elements belonging to the WENO stencil $\mathcal{S}_i^W$ must be lower than the current time level $t_i^n$ of the triangle $T_i$ for which the reconstruction has to be performed. Moreover, in Lagrangian algorithms the mesh is moving in time, therefore the local WENO reconstruction is carried out on a *virtual geometry* with *virtual cell averages*, as suggested in [@ALELTS1D]. These virtual cell averages, which are needed for the reconstruction, are obtained from the local space-time predictor solution ${\mathbf{q}}_h({\mathbf{x}},t_i^n)$ inside the neighbor elements $T_j$ using a simple integral *projection* (averaging). The way how this predictor solution is computed will be described in the next Section \[sec.lst\]. A similar projection is used also for the virtual geometry of the elements inside the total WENO stencil, where all elements $T_j^n \in \mathcal{S}_i^W$ are moved *virtually* until time $t_i^n$ is reached. We emphasize that the projection of the stencil geometry and of the cell averages is done only virtually, just for the purpose of reconstruction, because the real mesh motion and the real conservative update of the cell averages will be performed individually by each element at its scheduled time according to the update criterion . The geometry of each stencil element $T_j^n$, i.e. the vertex coordinates, are projected and also all the other geometric quantities used for the computation, e.g. normal vectors, volumes, side lengths, *etc.*. For the sake of clarity, the projected quantities will be denoted by a tilde symbol in the following, hence $$\mathbf{\tilde{X}}^{n+1}_{k,j} = \mathbf{X}^{n}_{k,j} + \left( t_i^n - t_j^n\right) \, \overline{\mathbf{V}}_{k,j}^n, \qquad \forall T_j^n \in \mathcal{S}_i^W, \quad k=1,2,3
\label{eqn.virtGeom}$$ and $$\tilde{{\mathbf{Q}}}_j^n = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
{\mathbf{Q}}_i^n, & \textnormal{ if } & j = i, \\
\frac{1}{|\tilde{T}_j^n|} \int_{\tilde{T}^n_j} {\mathbf{q}}_h({\mathbf{x}},t^n_i) dV, & \textnormal{ if } & j \neq i,
\end{array} \right. \qquad \forall T_j \in \mathcal{S}_i^W.
\label{eqn.virtCellaverage}$$ In the time-averaged node velocity $\overline{\mathbf{V}}_{k,j}^n$ is computed according to the node solver algorithm, see also [@Lagrange2D; @Lagrange3D; @LagrangeMHD; @LagrangeMDRS], which will be briefly described in Section \[sec.meshMot\], while in the virtual cell averages $\tilde{{\mathbf{Q}}}_j^n$ of the neighbor elements are given as the spatial integral of the predicted solution at time $t_i^n$ over the virtual control volumes $\tilde{T}^n_j$.
Once the virtual geometry and the virtual cell averages have been computed for the entire stencil $\mathcal{S}_i^W$, we are in the position to carry out the *local* high order WENO reconstruction procedure. To obtain the reconstruction polynomial $\mathbf{w}_h({\mathbf{x}},t_i^n)$, integral conservation of the projected cell averages $\tilde{{\mathbf{Q}}}^n_j$ in each reconstruction stencil $\mathcal{S}_i^s$ is required, i.e. $$\label{intConsRec}
\frac{1}{|\tilde{T}^n_j|} \int \limits_{\tilde{T}^n_j} \mathbf{w}^s_h({\mathbf{x}},t_i^n) dV =
\frac{1}{|\tilde{T}^n_j|} \int \limits_{\tilde{T}^n_j} \psi_l(\xi,\eta) \hat {\mathbf{w}}^{n,s}_{l,i} =
\tilde{{\mathbf{Q}}}^n_j, \qquad \forall T^n_j \in \mathcal{S}_i^s,$$ where the integrals are evaluated using Gaussian quadrature formulae of suitable order (see [@stroud] for details). For simplicity, in the above equation, as well as in the rest of the paper, we have adopted the Einstein summation convention over repeated indices. The reconstruction polynomial on each stencil is expressed in terms of a set of orthogonal spatial basis functions $\psi_l(\xi,\eta)$ on the reference element, see [@Dubiner; @orth-basis; @CBS-book], and $\mathcal{M}$ unknown degrees of freedom $\hat {\mathbf{w}}^{n,s}_{l,i}$. Since each stencil contains a total number of elements $n_e > \mathcal{M}$, system results in an overdetermined linear algebraic system that is solved by a constrained least-squares technique [@DumbserKaeser06b]. In the Lagrangian framework the geometry evolves in time. Hence, the reconstruction matrix, which is given by the multidimensional integrals in , continuously changes in time. As a consequence, the system must be solved whenever element $T_i$ performs its WENO reconstruction. To maintain the scheme as simple as possible and reasonably cost efficient, the stencil topology is fixed once and forall in a preprocessing stage and is not dynamically recomputed.
In order to avoid spurious oscillations at discontinuities, the reconstruction operator must be nonlinear. Therefore the polynomials defined on each stencil are combined with each other and weighted in a nonlinear way, where the non-linearity is introduced in the WENO weights $\omega_s$ $$\tilde{\omega}_s = \frac{\lambda_s}{\left(\sigma_s + \epsilon \right)^r}, \qquad
\omega_s = \frac{\tilde{\omega}_s}{\sum_q \tilde{\omega}_q},$$ through the oscillation indicators $\sigma_s$, which are computed according to [@shu_efficient_weno; @DumbserKaeser07; @DumbserKaeser06b] as $$\sigma_s = \Sigma_{lm} \hat w^{n,s}_{l,i} \hat w^{n,s}_{m,i},$$ with $$\Sigma_{lm} = \sum \limits_{ \alpha + \beta \leq M} \, \, \int \limits_{T_e} \frac{\partial^{\alpha+\beta} \psi_l(\xi,\eta)}{\partial \xi^\alpha \partial \eta^\beta} \cdot
\frac{\partial^{\alpha+\beta} \psi_m(\xi,\eta)}{\partial \xi^\alpha \partial \eta^\beta} d\xi d\eta.$$
As done in [@DumbserKaeser06b; @DumbserKaeser07], we set $\epsilon=10^{-14}$, $r=8$, $\lambda_s=1$ for the one-sided stencils ($s>1$) and $\lambda_1=10^5$ for the central stencil. The final nonlinear WENO reconstruction polynomial and its coefficients are then given by $$\label{eqn.weno}
{\mathbf{w}}_h(x,y,t_i^n) = \psi_l(\xi,\eta) \hat {\mathbf{w}}^{n}_{l,i}, \qquad \textnormal{ with } \qquad
\hat {\mathbf{w}}^{n}_{l,i} = \sum \limits_{s=1}^{7} \omega_s \hat {\mathbf{w}}^{n,s}_{l,i}.$$
Local space-time Galerkin predictor on moving triangles {#sec.lst}
-------------------------------------------------------
In order to achieve high order of accuracy in time we use the local space-time continuous Galerkin method, where the reconstructed polynomial ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ obtained at the current element time $t_i^n$ are *evolved* locally within element $T_i(t)$ until the future time $t_i^{n+1}$. This method was first introduced for the Eulerian framework in [@Dumbser20088209] and then extended to moving meshes in [@Lagrange1D; @Lagrange2D; @LagrangeNC; @Lagrange3D]. In all the above-mentioned references the space-time continuous Galerkin procedure has been proposed *locally*, i.e. the high order evolution of the reconstructed polynomial has always been carried out within each control volume and considering separately all the elements of the entire mesh. As a consequence, such a procedure automatically fits the construction of a time-accurate local time stepping algorithm.
As previously done for the WENO reconstruction, we use again the spatial reference system $\xi-\eta$, where now the relative time $\tau$ is also considered. Therefore the physical element can be mapped to the reference space-time element $T_E \times [0,1]$ using the local space transformation and the following mapping in time: $$t = t_i^n + \tau \, \Delta t_i^n, \qquad \tau = \frac{t - t_i^n}{\Delta t_i^n}.
\label{timeTransf}$$ The spatial coordinate vector in physical and reference coordinates are given by $\mathbf{x}=(x,y)$ and $\boldsymbol{\xi}=(\xi,\eta)$, respectively, while $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}=(x,y,t)$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}=(\xi,\eta,\tau)$ are the corresponding space-time coordinate vectors. According to [@Dumbser20088209], we adopt a *weak integral formulation* of the governing PDE , which is rewritten in the space-time reference system using the relations -: $$\frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \tau}\tau_t + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_t + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_t + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}{\partial \tau}\tau_x + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_x + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_x + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{g}}}{\partial \tau}\tau_y + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{g}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_y + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{g}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_y = \mathbf{S}({\mathbf{Q}}).
\label{PDEweak}$$ The Jacobian of the spatial and temporal transformation and its inverse read $$J_{st} = \frac{\partial \mathbf{\tilde{x}}}{\partial \boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} x_{\xi} & x_{\eta} & x_{\tau} \\ y_{\xi} & y_{\eta} & y_{\tau} \\ 0 & 0 & \Delta_t \\ \end{array} \right), \quad J_{st}^{-1} = \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}}{\partial \mathbf{\tilde{x}}} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \xi_{x} & \xi_{y} & \xi_{t} \\ \eta_{x} & \eta_{y} & \eta_{t} \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\Delta t} \\ \end{array} \right),
\label{Jac}$$ where we used the properties $\tau_x = \tau_y = 0$ and $\tau_t = \frac{1}{\Delta t}$, according to the definition . We rely on the inverse of the Jacobian matrix for reducing Eqn. to $$\frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \tau} + \Delta t \left( \frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_t + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_t + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_x + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_x + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{g}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_y + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{g}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_y \right) = \Delta t \mathbf{S}({\mathbf{Q}}),
\label{PDECG}$$ which can be simply reformulated as $${\mathbf{Q}}_\tau = \Delta t {\mathbf{P}},
\label{PCG}$$ with the aid of the term ${\mathbf{P}}$ defined as $${\mathbf{P}}:= {\mathbf{S}}({\mathbf{Q}}) - \left( \frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_t + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_t + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_x + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_x + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{g}}}{\partial \xi}\xi_y + \frac{\partial {\mathbf{g}}}{\partial \eta}\eta_y \right).
\label{eqn.pdef}$$
As done in [@Dumbser20088209], the solution vector ${\mathbf{Q}}$, the flux tensor ${\mathbf{F}}$, the source term ${\mathbf{S}}$ as well as the term ${\mathbf{P}}$ are discretized using a nodal finite element approach. The discrete solutions are denoted by ${\mathbf{q}}_h$, ${\mathbf{F}}_h$, ${\mathbf{S}}_h$ and ${\mathbf{P}}_h$, respectively, and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{q}}_h={\mathbf{q}}_h(\xi,\eta,\tau) = \theta_{l}(\xi,\eta,\tau) \widehat{{\mathbf{q}}}_{l,i}, \qquad & {\mathbf{S}}_h={\mathbf{S}}_h(\xi,\eta,\tau) = \theta_{l}(\xi,\eta,\tau) \widehat{{\mathbf{S}}}_{l,i}, \nonumber\\
{\mathbf{F}}_h={\mathbf{F}}_h(\xi,\eta,\tau) = \theta_{l}(\xi,\eta,\tau) \widehat{{\mathbf{F}}}_{l,i}, \qquad & {\mathbf{P}}_h={\mathbf{P}}_h(\xi,\eta,\tau) = \theta_{l}(\xi,\eta,\tau) \widehat{{\mathbf{P}}}_{l,i}.
\label{thetaSol}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\theta_l=\theta_l(\boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}})=\theta_l(\xi,\eta,\tau)$ are a set of space-time nodal basis functions defined by the Lagrange interpolation polynomials passing through a set of space-time nodes $\boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}_m=(\xi_m,\eta_m,\tau_m)$, see [@Dumbser20088209] for details. The same approximation also applies to the mapping from the physical space-time coordinate vector $\mathbf{\tilde{x}}$ to the reference space-time coordinate vector $\boldsymbol{\tilde{\xi}}$, hence $${\mathbf{x}}(\xi,\eta,\tau) = \theta_l(\xi,\eta,\tau) \widehat{{\mathbf{x}}}_{l,i}, \qquad t(\xi,\eta,\tau) = \theta_l(\xi,\eta,\tau) \widehat{t}_l,
\label{eqn.isoparametric}$$ where the use of the *same* basis functions $\theta_l$ is allowed by the adoption of an *isoparametric* approach. $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_{l,i} = (\widehat{x}_{l,i},\widehat{y}_{l,i})$ are the degrees of freedom of the vector of physical coordinates in space, that are partially unknown, while $\widehat{t}_l$ denote the *known* degrees of freedom of the physical time at each space-time node $\tilde{{\mathbf{x}}}_{l,i} = (\widehat{x}_{l,i}, \widehat{y}_{l,i}, \widehat{t}_l)$ according to .
In order to obtain the weak formulation of the governing PDE , we first multiply with a test function which is given by the same space-time basis functions $\theta_k(\xi,\eta,\tau)$ and then we integrate it over the unit reference space-time element $T_e \times [0,1]$, i.e. $$\left\langle \theta_k,\frac{\partial \theta_l}{\partial \tau} \right\rangle \widehat{{\mathbf{q}}}_{l,i} = \Delta t
\left\langle \theta_k,\theta_l \right\rangle \widehat{{\mathbf{P}}}_{l,i},
\label{LagrSTPDECG}$$ where the approximations given by have been used as well as the following integral operator $$\left\langle f,g \right\rangle = \int \limits_{0}^{1} \int \limits_{T_e} f(\xi,\eta,\tau)g(\xi,\eta,\tau) d\xi d\eta d\tau,
\label{intOperators}$$ which denotes the scalar product of two functions $f$ and $g$ over the space-time reference element $T_e\times \left[0,1\right]$. Moreover the universal matrices $${\mathbf{K}}_{\tau} = \left\langle \theta_k,\frac{\partial \theta_l}{\partial \tau} \right\rangle \qquad \textnormal{and} \qquad {\mathbf{M}}= \left\langle \theta_k,\theta_l \right\rangle
\label{Ktau}$$ proposed in [@Lagrange2D; @LagrangeNC] are used to write expression in a more compact matrix notation, namely $${\mathbf{K}}_{\tau}\widehat{{\mathbf{q}}}_{l,i} = \Delta t {\mathbf{M}}\widehat{{\mathbf{P}}}_{l,i}.
\label{LagrSTPDECGmatrix}$$ Let $\widehat{{\mathbf{q}}}_{l,i}^{0}$ be the part of the degrees of freedom of vector $\widehat{{\mathbf{q}}}_{l,i}$ that are known from the initial condition ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ by setting the corresponding degrees of freedom to the known values (see [@Dumbser20088209] for details) and let $\widehat{{\mathbf{q}}}_{l,i}^{1}$ represent the unknown degrees of freedom for $\tau>0$. Since $\widehat{{\mathbf{q}}}_{l,i}^{0}$ are known, they can be moved onto the right-hand side of , hence obtaining the following nonlinear algebraic equation system , which can be solved by an iterative procedure, i.e. $${\mathbf{K}}_{\tau} \widehat{{\mathbf{q}}}_{l,i}^{r+1} = \Delta t {\mathbf{M}}\widehat{{\mathbf{P}}}_{l,i}^r,
\label{CGfinal}$$ with the superscript $r$ denoting the iteration number. The initial guess ($r=0$) can be simply given by the reconstruction polynomial ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ at the initial time level, otherwise a more efficient initial condition based on a second order MUSCL-type scheme can be used (see [@HidalgoDumbser]).
Due to the Lagrangian formulation, which implies mesh motion, we have also to consider the evolution of the vertex coordinates of the local space-time element. The motion is governed by the following ODE system $$\frac{d \mathbf{x}}{dt} = \mathbf{V}(x,y,t),
\label{ODEmesh}$$ with the local mesh velocity $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{V}(x,y,t)=(U,V)$ approximated again with a nodal approach as $$\mathbf{V}_h=\mathbf{V}_h(\xi,\eta,\tau) = \theta_{l}(\xi,\eta,\tau) \widehat{\mathbf{V}}_{l,i}, \quad \widehat{\mathbf{V}}_{l,i} = \mathbf{V}(\mathbf{\tilde{x}}_{l,i}).
\label{Vdof}$$ Our algorithm belongs to the family of the so-called Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) schemes, hence we allow the mesh velocity to be potentially different from the local fluid velocity. In this way Eulerian algorithms are reproduced by setting the mesh velocity to zero, while almost pure Lagrangian methods can be obtained when the mesh velocity coincides with the local fluid velocity. As suggested in [@Lagrange1D; @Lagrange2D] the system can be conveniently solved for the unknown coordinate vector $\widehat{\mathbf{x}}_{l,i}$ using the same local space-time Galerkin method: $$\left\langle \theta_k,\frac{\partial \theta_l}{\partial \tau} \right\rangle \widehat{\mathbf{x}}_{l,i} = \Delta t \left\langle \theta_k,\theta_l \right\rangle \widehat{\mathbf{V}}_{l,i},
\label{VCG}$$ which yields the iteration scheme $${\mathbf{K}}_{\tau} \widehat{\mathbf{x}}^{r+1}_{l,i} = \Delta t {\mathbf{M}}\widehat{\mathbf{V}}^r_{l,i}.
\label{newVertPos}$$ Since the physical triangle $T_i^n$ at time $t_i^n$ is known, the initial condition of the ODE system is simply given by the nodal degrees of freedom $\widehat{{\mathbf{x}}}_l$ at relative time $\tau=0$.
In practice, the ODE system is solved at each iteration of the PDE solver and the procedure is repeated until convergence is reached. At the end of the local space-time Galerkin procedure we obtain an *element-local predictor* for the numerical solution ${\mathbf{q}}_h$, for the fluxes $\mathbf{F}_h=({\mathbf{f}}_h,{\mathbf{g}}_h)$, for the source term ${\mathbf{S}}_h$ and also for the mesh velocity $\mathbf{V}_h$.
In a Lagrangian scheme with LTS we are dealing with hanging nodes in time and we generally do not have a matching in time of the geometry, as already explained before, but discontinuities in the geometry configuration are not admitted. In cell-centered Lagrangian schemes a unique node velocity is obtained by a so-called no-solver algorithm that takes as input all vertex-extrapolated states from the triangles in the Voronoi neighborhood surrounding the vertex. In the Lagrangian ADER-WENO schemes with global time stepping presented in [@Lagrange2D; @LagrangeNC] we used a suitable node solver algorithm to update the mesh *globally*, since the future time was the same for all the elements. Here, in the context of LTS, we adopt again the node solver algorithm with the aim to fix a *unique* node velocity, but the vertex will be *physically* (and not virtually) moved only when an element of the Voronoi neighborhood of the vertex fulfills the update criterion . To handle this situation in practice, each node $k$ is also equipped with a local node time $t_k^n$.
Mesh motion with local time stepping {#sec.meshMot}
------------------------------------
As explained at the end of Section \[sec.lst\], each node $k$ of the computational mesh needs to be assigned a *uniquely* defined velocity vector. The Voronoi neighborhood $\mathcal{V}_k$ of node $k$ is composed by all those elements $T_j$ which share the node $k$. The node $k$ will be moved each time the update criterion is satisfied by one element $T_i\in \mathcal{V}_k$. Therefore the future time to which node $k$ moves will coincide with the future time $t_i^{n+1}$ of that element $T_i$.
In [@LagrangeMHD] three different node solver algorithms have been presented and here we consider the node solver denoted as $\mathcal{NS}_{cs}$, which adopts the idea of Cheng and Shu [@chengshu1; @chengshu2]. However, rather than taking a simple arithmetic average of the velocity, the node velocity $\overline{\mathbf{V}}_k$ is computed as a *mass weighted* average velocity among the neighborhood $\mathcal{V}_k$ of node $k$, i.e. $$\overline{\mathbf{V}}_k = \frac{1}{\mu_k}\sum \limits_{T_j \in \mathcal{V}_k}{\mu_{k,j}\overline{\mathbf{V}}_{k,j}},
\label{eqnNScs}$$ with $$\mu_k = \sum \limits_{T_j \in \mathcal{V}_k}{\mu_{k,j}}, \qquad \mu_{k,j}=\rho^{n}_j |T_j^{n}|.
\label{eqn.NScs.weights}$$ The local weights $\mu_{k,j}$ are the masses of the elements $T_j$, obtained by multiplying the cell averages of the density $\rho_j$ with the cell area $|T_j|$ at the current neighbor time level $t_j^n$.
The mesh motion plays an important role in Lagrangian schemes, because it allows interfaces and shear waves to be precisely identified. For this reason an accurate computation of the node velocity represents a crucial step, and in our approach the local velocity contributions $\overline{\mathbf{V}}_{k,j}$ are taken to be the time integrals of the high order vertex-extrapolated velocities at node $k$. We can use the space-time reference system $\xi-\eta-\tau$ and the velocity approximation given by to evaluate the time integral. Since each node $k$ can be moved by any of the Voronoi neighbors $T_j$, the vertex time level of node $k$ is not known *a priori* when an element $T_i$ satisfies and is ready to update the geometry. Therefore, it is much more convenient to define a *node time* variable $t_k^n$, that is independent of the time evolution of the elements and advances in time whenever the node is moved by any of its Voronoi neighbors $T_j$. As a result, the high order velocity integration for each element $T_j \in \mathcal{V}_k$ must be done within the time interval $\Delta t_{k} = [t_k^n,t_k^{n+1}]$, that has to be *rescaled* to the corresponding reference time interval $\Delta \tau_k=[\tau_{k,j}^0,\tau_{k,j}^1]$ as $$\tau_{k,j}^0 = \frac{t_k^n-t_j^n}{\Delta t_j^n} \qquad \tau_{k,j}^1 = \frac{t_k^{n+1}-t_j^n}{\Delta t_j^n}, \qquad \forall T_j \in \mathcal{V}_k,
\label{eqn.dtau}$$ where $\Delta t_j^n$ is the local timestep of element $T_j$. Recall that $t_k^{n+1}=t_i^{n+1}$, if the node is moved by element $T_i$ which is supposed to satisfy the update criterion. Finally the local velocity contributions $\overline{\mathbf{V}}_{k,j}$ are given by $$\overline{\mathbf{V}}_{k,j} = \left( \int \limits_{\tau_{k,j}^0}^{\tau_{k,j}^1} \theta_l(\xi^e_{m(k)}, \eta^e_{m(k)}, \tau) d \tau \right) \widehat{\mathbf{V}}_{l,j},
\label{NodesVel}$$ where $m(k)$ is a mapping from the global node number $k$ to the local node number in element $T_j$, while $\xi^e_{m}$ and $\eta^e_{m}$ represent the coordinates of the vertices of the reference triangle in space. $\widehat{\mathbf{V}}_{l,j}$ are the space-time degrees of freedom which are *known* from the local space-time predictor solution ${\mathbf{q}}_{h,j}$. Each node $k$ belonging to element $T_i$ is finally moved to the new position $\mathbf{X}^{n+1}_k$ with $$\mathbf{X}^{n+1}_{k} = \mathbf{X}^{n}_{k} + \Delta t_k \, \overline{\mathbf{V}}_k.
\label{eqn.newVertex}$$
Finite volume scheme {#sec.SolAlg}
--------------------
The vector of conserved variables ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^n$ is evolved to the next time level $t_i^{n+1}$ only when element $T_i$ obeys the update criterion . As proposed in [@Lagrange2D; @Lagrange3D] the governing PDE can be rewritten in a more compact space-time divergence form, which reads $$\tilde \nabla \cdot \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}} = \mathbf{S}({\mathbf{Q}}),
\label{PDEdiv3D}$$ with the space-time nabla operator and the tensor $\tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}$ defined as $$\tilde \nabla = \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x}, \, \frac{\partial}{\partial y}, \, \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right)^T, \qquad
\tilde{{\mathbf{F}}} = \left( \mathbf{F}, \, {\mathbf{Q}}\right) = \left( \mathbf{f}, \, \mathbf{g}, \, {\mathbf{Q}}\right).$$ The conservation law is then integrated in space and time over the space-time control volume $C^n_i = T_i(t) \times \left[t_i^{n}; t_i^{n+1}\right]$ generated by the time evolution of element $T_i$ and depicted in Figure \[fig.FVscheme\], hence yielding $$\int\limits_{t_i^{n}}^{t_i^{n+1}} \int \limits_{T_i(t)} \tilde \nabla \cdot \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}} \, d\mathbf{x}\, dt = \int\limits_{t_i^{n}}^{t_i^{n+1}} \int \limits_{T_i(t)} {\mathbf{S}}\, d\mathbf{x}\, dt,
\label{STPDE}$$ which, after application of Gauss’ theorem, reads $$\int \limits_{\partial C^n_i} \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}} \cdot \ \mathbf{\tilde n} \, \, dS =
\int\limits_{t_i^{n}}^{t_i^{n+1}} \int \limits_{T_i(t)} {\mathbf{S}}\, d\mathbf{x}\, dt,
\label{I1}$$ The vector $\mathbf{\tilde n} = (\tilde n_x,\tilde n_y,\tilde n_t)$ is the outward pointing space-time unit normal vector defined on the space-time surface $\partial C^n_i$, which is composed of five space-time sub-surfaces, as shown in Figure \[fig.FVscheme\]: the first one $\partial C_{bot}^n$ is given by the element configuration $T_i^{n}$ at the current time level, while $\partial C_{top}^n$ represents the control volume $T_i^{n+1}$ evolved to the future time level. The remaining three lateral space-time sub-surfaces $\partial C_{ij}^n$ are usually shared with the so-called *Neumann neighbors* $\mathcal{N}_i$ of $T_i$, i.e. with the direct side neighbors. As explained in [@Lagrange2D; @LagrangeNC; @LagrangeMHD] a set of bilinear basis functions are used to parametrize the lateral sub-surfaces, which are mapped onto a side-aligned local reference system $(\chi,\tau)$. The unit normal vector $\mathbf{\tilde n}$ can be computed from the parametrization of the lateral sub-surfaces, while for $\partial C_{bot}^n$ and $\partial C_{top}^n$ it simply reads $\mathbf{\tilde n}=(0,0,-1)$ and $\mathbf{\tilde n}=(0,0,1)$, respectively.
![Space-time evolution of element $T_i$ from time $t_i^n$ (black triangle) to time $t_i^{n+1}$ (red triangle). The triangular sub-surfaces $\Omega_{1,2}$ and $\Omega_{2,3}$ (already computed in the past by some Voronoi neighbors of the vertices of $T_i$) are highlighted in green, while the trapezoidal space-time sub-surfaces $\partial C_{ij}^n$ computed with the current element update are highlighted in blue.[]{data-label="fig.FVscheme"}](./FVscheme.eps){width="80.00000%"}
In the time-accurate local time stepping (LTS) algorithm, when the element $T_i$ is ready to update its numerical solution ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^{n}$, it might well be the case that the vertices of $T_i$ have already been moved by another element $T_j$ sharing one or more nodes with $T_i$. This situation generates hanging nodes in time, as shown in Figure \[fig.FVscheme\], where vertex $1$ has changed its position to $1^\prime$. In order to design a suitable finite volume scheme on moving meshes with LTS, some parts of the flux integral appearing in will be computed using a *memory variable* ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^M$, according to [@ALELTS1D]. The memory variable contains all fluxes through the element space-time sub-surfaces $\partial C_{ij}^n$ in the *past*, e.g. the fluxes through the space-time triangular surfaces $\Omega_{1,2}$ and $\Omega_{1,3}$ depicted in Figure \[fig.FVscheme\]. Therefore, from the following high order ALE one-step finite volume scheme with LTS is obtained: $$|T_i^{n+1}| \, {\mathbf{Q}}_i^{n+1} = |T_i^n| \, {\mathbf{Q}}_i^n - \sum \limits_{T_j \in \mathcal{N}_i} \,\, {\int \limits_0^1
\int \limits_{0}^{1} | \partial C_{ij}^n| \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{ij} \, d \tau d\chi}
+ \int\limits_{t_i^{n}}^{t_i^{n+1}} \int \limits_{T_i(t)} {\mathbf{S}}(\mathbf{q}_h) \, d\mathbf{x} dt
+ {\mathbf{Q}}_i^M\,,
\label{PDEfinal}$$ with $|T_i^{n}|$ and $|T_i^{n+1}|$ representing the surface of triangle $T_i$ at the current and at the future time level, i.e. $t_i^n$ and $t_i^{n+1}$, and $|\partial C_{ij}^n|$ denoting the determinant of the coordinate transformation of each lateral sub-surface $\partial C^n_{ij}$. Furthermore $\tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{ij}$ is the numerical flux used to resolve the discontinuity of the predictor solution $\mathbf{q}_h$ at the space-time sub-face $\partial C_{ij}^n$. In the finite volume scheme the flux integral across the quadrilateral sub-surface $\partial C_{ij}^n$ is computed in an edge-based unit reference system $(\chi,\tau) \in [0,1]^2$ that is linked to the physical coordinates of the four space-time nodes that define $\partial C_{ij}^n$. Note that in the edge-aligned system the relative time coordinate $\tau$ is in general *different* from the ones in the adjacent left and right elements $T_i$ and $T_j$, respectively, since the two nodes that define the edge may have already been moved before the update of element $T_i$. Let us denote the common edge between element $T_i$ and $T_j \in \mathcal{N}_i$ with $\lambda_{ij}$ and the global number of the first node on $\lambda_{ij}$ with $L$ and the one of the second node on the same edge with $R$, then the space-time coordiantes of the four space-time nodes defining the sub-surface $\partial C_{ij}^n$ in are given by $$\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{ij}^1 = \left( \mathbf{X}^n_{L}, t_{L}^n \right), \qquad
\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{ij}^2 = \left( \mathbf{X}^n_{R}, t_{R}^n \right), \qquad
\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{ij}^3 = \left( \mathbf{X}^{n+1}_{R}, t_{R}^{n+1} \right), \qquad
\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{ij}^4 = \left( \mathbf{X}^{n+1}_{L}, t_{L}^{n+1} \right).
\label{eqn.spacetimenodes}$$ Note that $L=L(i,j)$ and $R=R(i,j)$ are functions of the numbers of element $T_i$ and the neighbor $T_j$, respectively, but to ease notation this explicit dependency is dropped. The associated space-time integral of the numerical flux over $\partial C_{ij}^n$ is also called *edge flux* and denoted by $\mathbf{G}_{ij}^n$ in the following. The physical times of the four space-time nodes have then to be rescaled to each individual reference space-time coordinate system associated with element $T_i$ and its neighbor $T_j$, respectively, using the time transformation .
In order to obtain a conservative scheme, the task of the memory variable ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^M$ in is to accumulate (sum) all past fluxes through the lateral space-time sub-surfaces, from the current element time $t_i^n$ to the current local node times $t_{L}^n$ and $t_R^n$, respectively, see [@ALELTS1D]. The edge flux $\mathbf{G}_{ij}^n$ through the sub-surface $\partial C_{ij}^n$ is given by $$\mathbf{G}_{ij}^n = \int \limits_{\partial C_{ij}^n} \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{ij} \, d{S}
= {\int \limits_0^1 \int \limits_{0}^{1} | \partial C_{ij}^n| \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{ij} \, d \tau d\chi}.$$ Then, if element $T_i$ is updated according to , the memory variable of the element itself is reset to zero and the memory variables of the *neighbor* elements $T_j \in \mathcal{N}_i$ are updated by summing (accumulating) the contribution of the edge-flux $\mathbf{G}_{ij}^n$ to ${\mathbf{Q}}_j^M$. Note that for element $T_i$ the contribution $\mathbf{G}_{ij}^n$ has negative sign. Like in the 1D case presented in [@ALELTS1D] we therefore have after each update of element $T_i$: $${\mathbf{Q}}_i^M:=0, \qquad {\mathbf{Q}}_j^M:={\mathbf{Q}}_j^M + \mathbf{G}_{ij}^n, \qquad \forall T_j \in \mathcal{N}_i.
\label{eqn.Qm2}$$ The implementation of the finite volume scheme requires that a numerical flux is specified through an approximate Riemann solver. A possible simple formulation for the numerical flux is given by the Rusanov-type ALE flux, which, according to [@Lagrange2D], reads $$\tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{ij} =
\frac{1}{2} \left( \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}({\mathbf{q}}_h^+) + \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}({\mathbf{q}}_h^-) \right) \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{ij} -
\frac{1}{2} s_{\max} \left( {\mathbf{q}}_h^+ - {\mathbf{q}}_h^- \right),
\label{eqn.rusanov}$$ where $s_{\max}$ is the maximum eigenvalue of the ALE Jacobian matrix w.r.t. the normal direction in space, which is $$\mathbf{A}^{\!\! \mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{n}}({\mathbf{Q}})=\left(\sqrt{\tilde n_x^2 + \tilde n_y^2}\right)\left[\frac{\partial \mathbf{F}}{\partial {\mathbf{Q}}} \cdot \mathbf{n} -
(\mathbf{V} \cdot \mathbf{n}) \, \mathbf{I}\right], \qquad
\mathbf{n} = \frac{(\tilde n_x, \tilde n_y)^T}{\sqrt{\tilde n_x^2 + \tilde n_y^2}},$$ with $\mathbf{I}$ representing the identity matrix and $\mathbf{V} \cdot \mathbf{n}$ denoting the local normal mesh velocity.
A more sophisticated alternative is given by the Osher-type numerical flux, which guarantees a less dissipative numerical scheme if compared with the Rusanov flux. It has been presented in [@OsherUniversal] for the Eulerian case and then extended to moving meshes in multiple space dimensions in [@Lagrange1D; @Lagrange2D; @Lagrange3D]. The corresponding numerical flux is given by $$\tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}_{ij} \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{ij} =
\frac{1}{2} \left( \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}({\mathbf{q}}_h^+) + \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}({\mathbf{q}}_h^-) \right) \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{ij} -
\frac{1}{2} \left( \int \limits_0^1 \left| \mathbf{A}^{\!\! \mathbf{V}}_{\mathbf{n}}(\boldsymbol{\Psi}(s)) \right| ds \right) \left( {\mathbf{q}}_h^+ - {\mathbf{q}}_h^- \right),
\label{eqn.osher}$$ where a simple straight-line segment path is used to connect the left and the right state across the discontinuity, i.e. $$\boldsymbol{\Psi}(s) = {\mathbf{q}}_h^- + s \left( {\mathbf{q}}_h^+ - {\mathbf{q}}_h^- \right), \qquad 0 \leq s \leq 1.
\label{eqn.path}$$ According to [@OsherUniversal] the integral in is evaluated numerically using Gaussian quadrature. The absolute value of the dissipation matrix in is evaluated as usual as $$|\mathbf{A}| = \mathbf{R} |\boldsymbol{\Lambda}| \mathbf{R}^{-1}, \qquad |\boldsymbol{\Lambda}| = \textnormal{diag}\left( |\lambda_1|, |\lambda_2|, ..., |\lambda_\nu| \right),$$ where $\mathbf{R}$ and $\mathbf{R}^{-1}$ denote the right eigenvector matrix and its inverse, respectively.
When element $T_i$ performs its local time update, the geometry of cell $T_i$ is also updated, because all three vertices of $T_i$ are moved according to . Using the memory variable ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^M$ we ensure conservation of the edge-fluxes, since the numerical fluxes computed over the space-time sub-surfaces $\partial C_{ij}$ are immediately saved (with opposite sign) in the memory variables of the neighbor elements $T_j \in \mathcal{N}_i$. While the consideration of edge fluxes is sufficient for the Lagrangian LTS algorithm presented in [@ALELTS1D], its extension to moving unstructured triangular meshes requires an important modification due to the increased topological complexity of a two-dimensional mesh. As shown in Figure \[fig.STint\], each vertex $k$ of element $T_i$ is shared among the Voronoi neighbors $T_j \in \mathcal{V}_k$. Hence, we must also compute a numerical flux $\mathbf{G}_{k,m}$ across each edge defined by the vertices $k$ and $m$ which does *not* belong to element $T_i$, i.e. $$\mathbf{G}_{k,m} = {\int \limits_{\partial \Omega_{k,m}} \tilde{{\mathbf{F}}}_{{l},{r}} \cdot \mathbf{\tilde n}_{{l},{r}} \, d\tilde{{\mathbf{x}}}}.
\label{eqn.STint}$$ This *vertex flux* will also be stored (with the proper sign) in the corresponding memory variables ${\mathbf{Q}}_{{l}}^M$ and ${\mathbf{Q}}_{{r}}^M$ of elements $T_{{l}}$ and $T_{{r}}$, where ${{l}}$ denotes the left element and ${{l}}$ denotes the right element on the corresponding edge composed of vertices $k-m$, respectively. As shown in Figure \[fig.STint\], the numerical flux is integrated over the *triangular* space-time surfaces $\Omega_{j,j+1}$, defined by vertices $\left( \tilde{{\mathbf{x}}}(k),\tilde{{\mathbf{x}}}(k'),\tilde{{\mathbf{x}}}(m) \right)$, that represent the space-time coordinates of vertex $k$ at the old and at the new time level, and the space-time location of vertex $k_{i,j}$, respectively.
![Space-time evolution of element $T_i$ from time $t_i^n$ (black triangle) to time $t_i^{n+1}$ (blue triangle). The triangular sub-surfaces $\Omega_{1,2}$ and $\Omega_{2,3}$ are highlighted in red.[]{data-label="fig.STint"}](./STint.eps){width="70.00000%"}
In our finite volume formulation we are carrying out an integration over the closed space-time control volume $C_{i}^n$, which automatically guarantees the compliance with the geometric conservation law (GCL), see the appendix of [@Lagrange3D] for more details. From the Gauss theorem one has indeed $$\int_{\partial \mathcal{C}_i^n} \mathbf{\tilde n} \, dS = 0.
\label{eqn.gcl}$$ In order to verify whether the GCL is also satisfied in the practical implementation of our Lagrangian LTS algorithm, we need to compute the integral above whenever element $T_i$ performs an update. For this purpose, we also compute a variable $H_i^M$ that behaves like the memory variable ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^M$, but for the GCL. All past contributions to the integral relative to the cell $T_i$ are recorded in the *geometrical memory variable* $H_i^M$, which is reset to zero when the local timestep procedure has been completed by element $T_i$. Strictly speaking this this is not needed, since Eqn. is always satisfied at the end of a local time step because the final space-time control volume is always closed! In all test problems reported in Section \[sec.validation\], property has always been explicitly verified for each element and for each local time step up to machine precision.
Description of the high order Lagrangian LTS algorithm in multiple space dimensions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of this Section is to give an overall overview of the entire LTS algorithm that has been previously described in all its parts. By placing each portion of the algorithm in a context, this presentation should clarify how the numerical scheme can be practically implemented. Due to the LTS approach, where elements are updated in the order given by the update criterion , we can no longer speak of *timesteps* but we have to consider *cycles*, as done in [@ALELTS1D]. In each cycle the scheme runs over all elements and only those which obey condition are allowed to update the numerical solution, while the others are simply skipped to the next cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Update of element $T_i$ and $T_2$ according to the high order Lagrangian LTS algorithm presented in this paper. At the beginning we assume the *same* current time for each element, i.e. $t_i^n=t_1^n=t_2^n=t$. $\mathbf{(a)}$ At the current time level $t$ each element is given its own reconstruction and predictor solution ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ and ${\mathbf{q}}_h$, respectively. $\mathbf{(b)}$ Update of element $T_i$ to the new time level $t_i^{n+1}$. Computation of the necessary edge fluxes with the direct neighbors *and* computation of the associated vertex fluxes $\Omega_{1,4},\Omega_{3,4},\Omega_{3,5},\Omega_{2,5}$. $\mathbf{(c)}$ Update of element $T_2$, where the edge fluxes are evaluated only over the space-time surfaces that exceeds the vertex fluxes previously calculated and stored in the memory variable ${\mathbf{Q}}_2^M$. $\mathbf{(d)}$ Computation of the vertex fluxes related to the update of element $T_2$.[]{data-label="fig.LTSalgorithm"}](./LTSupdate1.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Update of element $T_i$ and $T_2$ according to the high order Lagrangian LTS algorithm presented in this paper. At the beginning we assume the *same* current time for each element, i.e. $t_i^n=t_1^n=t_2^n=t$. $\mathbf{(a)}$ At the current time level $t$ each element is given its own reconstruction and predictor solution ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ and ${\mathbf{q}}_h$, respectively. $\mathbf{(b)}$ Update of element $T_i$ to the new time level $t_i^{n+1}$. Computation of the necessary edge fluxes with the direct neighbors *and* computation of the associated vertex fluxes $\Omega_{1,4},\Omega_{3,4},\Omega_{3,5},\Omega_{2,5}$. $\mathbf{(c)}$ Update of element $T_2$, where the edge fluxes are evaluated only over the space-time surfaces that exceeds the vertex fluxes previously calculated and stored in the memory variable ${\mathbf{Q}}_2^M$. $\mathbf{(d)}$ Computation of the vertex fluxes related to the update of element $T_2$.[]{data-label="fig.LTSalgorithm"}](./LTSupdate2.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![Update of element $T_i$ and $T_2$ according to the high order Lagrangian LTS algorithm presented in this paper. At the beginning we assume the *same* current time for each element, i.e. $t_i^n=t_1^n=t_2^n=t$. $\mathbf{(a)}$ At the current time level $t$ each element is given its own reconstruction and predictor solution ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ and ${\mathbf{q}}_h$, respectively. $\mathbf{(b)}$ Update of element $T_i$ to the new time level $t_i^{n+1}$. Computation of the necessary edge fluxes with the direct neighbors *and* computation of the associated vertex fluxes $\Omega_{1,4},\Omega_{3,4},\Omega_{3,5},\Omega_{2,5}$. $\mathbf{(c)}$ Update of element $T_2$, where the edge fluxes are evaluated only over the space-time surfaces that exceeds the vertex fluxes previously calculated and stored in the memory variable ${\mathbf{Q}}_2^M$. $\mathbf{(d)}$ Computation of the vertex fluxes related to the update of element $T_2$.[]{data-label="fig.LTSalgorithm"}](./LTSupdate3.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Update of element $T_i$ and $T_2$ according to the high order Lagrangian LTS algorithm presented in this paper. At the beginning we assume the *same* current time for each element, i.e. $t_i^n=t_1^n=t_2^n=t$. $\mathbf{(a)}$ At the current time level $t$ each element is given its own reconstruction and predictor solution ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ and ${\mathbf{q}}_h$, respectively. $\mathbf{(b)}$ Update of element $T_i$ to the new time level $t_i^{n+1}$. Computation of the necessary edge fluxes with the direct neighbors *and* computation of the associated vertex fluxes $\Omega_{1,4},\Omega_{3,4},\Omega_{3,5},\Omega_{2,5}$. $\mathbf{(c)}$ Update of element $T_2$, where the edge fluxes are evaluated only over the space-time surfaces that exceeds the vertex fluxes previously calculated and stored in the memory variable ${\mathbf{Q}}_2^M$. $\mathbf{(d)}$ Computation of the vertex fluxes related to the update of element $T_2$.[]{data-label="fig.LTSalgorithm"}](./LTSupdate4.eps "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the *pre-processing phase* all elements of the mesh are assigned with the initial condition of the problem at the common time level $t=0$, i.e. the cell averages ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^n$ are defined according to from the known initial condition. For each element the *first* WENO reconstruction procedure presented in Section \[sec.weno\] is carried out. Since all elements are at the same time $t=0$, for this first reconstruction no virtual geometry or virtual cell averages $\tilde{{\mathbf{Q}}}$ are needed. As a result, we obtain the high order spatial polynomial ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ for each element. Then, the *element-local timestep* $\Delta t_i^n$ is computed for each cell $T_i$ according to a classical CFL stability condition, considering only cell number $i$ and its Neumann neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_i$, i.e. $$\Delta t_i^n = \min \left( \textnormal{CFL} \,\frac{\tilde{d}_i}{|\tilde{\lambda}_{\max,i}|},\textnormal{CFL} \,\frac{\tilde{d}_j}{|\tilde{\lambda}_{\max,j}|} \right), \qquad \forall T_j \in \mathcal{N}_i,
\label{eqn.timestep}$$ with $\tilde{d}_j=d_j^0$ denoting the incircle diameter of element $T_j$ and $|\tilde{\lambda}_{\max,j}|=|\lambda_{\max,j}|^0$ representing the maximum absolute value of the eigenvalues computed from the initial condition $\tilde{{\mathbf{Q}}}_j={\mathbf{Q}}_j^0$ in $T_j$. $\textnormal{CFL}$ is the Courant-Friedrichs-Levy number that must satisfy the inequality $\textnormal{CFL} \leq 0.5$ in the two-dimensional case, as stated in [@ToroBook]. In the last part of the pre-processing stage, since the local element timestep $\Delta t^n_i$ as well as the local reconstruction polynomial ${\mathbf{w}}_h$ have already been computed, we are able to carry out the local space-time Galerkin predictor procedure described in Section \[sec.lst\], which gives the high order local space-time predictor solution ${\mathbf{q}}_h$. All cells are now at the same current time level $t=0$ and for each element $T_i$ the local predictor solution ${\mathbf{q}}_{h}$, the local reconstruction polynomial ${\mathbf{w}}_{h}$ and the cell average ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^n$ are given (Figure \[fig.LTSalgorithm\] (a)). We underline that also each node $k$ of the entire computational mesh is assigned the initial time level $t_k^0=0$.
The algorithm proceeds with the *computational phase*, during which each element $T_i$ will reach the imposed final time of the simulation $t=t_f$ in a certain number of necessary cycles, according to its own optimal timestep. The first cycle starts by looping over all elements to check in which elements the update criterion is satisfied. If an element $T_i$ obeys condition , then it performs the local timestep until its future time $t_i^{n+1} = t_i^n+\Delta t _i^n$ (Figure \[fig.LTSalgorithm\] (b)) through the following sub-steps:
- *mesh motion*: each vertex $k$ of element $T_i$ is moved to the new position at time $t_k^{n+1}=t_i^{n+1}$ using the node solver algorithm illustrated in Section \[sec.meshMot\] and all other geometric quantities of element $T_i$ are also updated;
- *edge flux computation*: we compute the numerical fluxes $\mathbf{G}_{ij}^n$ through the quadrilateral space-time sub-surfaces and using the high order Lagrangian finite volume scheme we obtain the numerical solution ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^{n+1}$. Subsequently, we reset the memory variable of element $T_i$ to zero, i.e. ${\mathbf{Q}}_i^M:=0$ and accumulate the edge-fluxes into the memory variables of the neighbor elements to maintain conservation (${\mathbf{Q}}_j^M:={\mathbf{Q}}_j^M+\mathbf{G}_{ij}^n$). Also the geometry variable $H_i^M$ is reset to zero, after assuring that condition is satisfied;
- *vertex flux computation*: as explained in Section \[sec.SolAlg\], for each vertex $k$ of the element $T_i$ we also need to evaluate for each edge $k-k_{i,j}$ the additional fluxes $\mathbf{G}_{k,j}$ using (Figure \[fig.LTSalgorithm\] (b)). The numerical fluxes evaluated over the space-time triangular sub-surface $\Omega_{j,j+1}$ (see Figure \[fig.STint\]) are immediately stored into the memory variable of the adjacent elements $T_j,T_{j+1}$, while the part of the geometry integral is stored into $H_j^M$ and $H_{j+1}^M$. In this way we ensure that the numerical scheme is fully conservative;
- *virtual projection*: all the elements $T_j$ belonging to the entire reconstruction stencil ${\mathbf{S}}_i^W$ of element $T_i$ are now moved *virtually* to the future time level of cell $i$, i.e. $t_i^{n+1}$, and also the virtual cell averages $\tilde{{\mathbf{Q}}}_j$ are *estimated* from the local predictor solution ${\mathbf{q}}_{h}$ in the neighbors $T_j$;
- *local WENO reconstruction*: once the *virtual* geometry and cell averages have been projected to the future time $t_i^{n+1}$, the local WENO reconstruction technique described in Section \[sec.weno\] can be carried out for element $T_i$, hence obtaining the new reconstruction polynomial ${\mathbf{w}}_{h}$ at time $t_i^{n+1}$;
- *local timestep computation*: using the virtual geometry and the virtual solution of the Neumann neighbors, the next local timestep $\Delta t_i^{n+1}$ is evaluated according to ;
- *local space-time predictor*: finally we compute the high order space-time predictor solution ${\mathbf{q}}_{h}$ valid within the next timestep of element $T_i$.
This procedure is repeated for all elements, until all of them reach the final time of the simulation $t_f$. As soon as an element $T_i$ has finished its own computation because it has reached the final time $t_f$, it is automatically skipped at the beginning of each cycle, waiting for the remaining elements to reach the final time, too.
This brief description summarizes how our high order Lagrangian LTS algorithm is organized. During the simulation hanging nodes in time appear because each node is moved *physically* only by the updating element $T_i$ which the vertex belongs to. As a consequence, the resulting space-time mesh is computed *dynamically*, producing a *non-conforming* space-time mesh. Due to our high order approach, the edge and vertex fluxes have to be evaluated using higher order Gaussian quadrature rules, hence increasing the computational cost. In practical applications, for which first or second order accurate finite volume schemes are considered adequate, one could rely on the fast and simple mid-point rule that would significantly improve the computational efficiency of our LTS algorithm.
Test problems {#sec.validation}
=============
In the following we solve some numerical test problems in order to validate the high order Lagrangian ADER-WENO algorithm with time accurate local time stepping (LTS) presented so far. We consider the two-dimensional Euler equations of compressible gas dynamics, which can be cast into form with $$\label{eulerTerms}
{\mathbf{Q}}= \left( \begin{array}{c} \rho \\ \rho u \\ \rho v \\ \rho E \end{array} \right), \quad {\mathbf{f}}= \left( \begin{array}{c} \rho u \\ \rho u^2 + p \\ \rho uv \\ u(\rho E + p) \end{array} \right), \quad {\mathbf{g}}= \left( \begin{array}{c} \rho v \\ \rho uv \\ \rho v^2 + p \\ v(\rho E + p) \end{array} \right),$$ where the vector of conserved variables is denoted by ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and the flux tensor is addressed with ${\mathbf{F}}=({\mathbf{f}},{\mathbf{g}})$. Furthermore let $\rho$ and $\rho E$ denote the mass density and the total energy density, respectively, while $\mathbf{v}=(u,v)$ represents the velocity vector and $p$ is the fluid pressure. The source term ${\mathbf{S}}({\mathbf{Q}})$ is zero for the homogeneous Euler equations. The system is closed using the equation of state (EOS) for an ideal gas, namely $$\label{eqn.eos}
p = (\gamma-1)\left(\rho E - \frac{1}{2} \rho (u^2+v^2) \right),$$ where $\gamma$ is the ratio of specific heats.
In the next sections the governing PDE , with the definitions provided by , will be assigned with different initial conditions, that may be given either in terms of the vector of conserved variables ${\mathbf{Q}}=(\rho,\rho u, \rho v, \rho E)$ or of the primitive variables ${\mathcal{U}}=(\rho,u,v,p)$. The system will be solved applying the Lagrangian ADER-WENO finite volume schemes illustrated in Section \[sec.SolAlg\], choosing among the Rusanov-type and the Osher-type numerical fluxes. In all the proposed test problems the local mesh velocity is chosen to be equal to the local fluid velocity ($\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{v}$), hence a formulation of our ALE algorithm has been chosen that comes as close as possible to a truly Lagrangian scheme.
Numerical convergence studies {#sec.conv}
-----------------------------
In order to carry out the numerical convergence studies for the high order LTS Lagrangian schemes we consider the classical smooth convected isentropic vortex proposed on triangular grids by Hu and Shu [@HuShuVortex1999]. The initial computational domain is the square $\Omega(0)=[0;10]\times[0;10]$ defined on the ${\mathbf{x}}=(x,y)$ plane with periodic boundary conditions imposed on each side. The initial condition is given in terms of primitive variables as a linear superposition of a homogeneous background field and a perturbation: $$\label{ShuVortIC}
{\mathcal{U}}= (\rho, u, v, p) = (1+\delta \rho, 1+\delta u, 1+\delta v, 1+\delta p).$$ The flow is assumed to be isentropic, hence with no perturbation in the entropy, while the perturbations for velocity $\mathbf{v}=(u,v)$ and temperature $T$ are given by $$\label{ShuVortDelta}
\left(\begin{array}{c} \delta u \\ \delta v \end{array}\right) = \frac{\epsilon}{2\pi}e^{\frac{1-r^2}{2}} \left(\begin{array}{c} -(y-5) \\ \phantom{-}(x-5) \end{array}\right), \qquad \delta T = -\frac{(\gamma-1)\epsilon^2}{8\gamma\pi^2}e^{1-r^2},$$ where $r^2=(x-5)^2+(y-5)^2$ is the vortex radius, $\epsilon=5$ denotes the vortex strength and the ratio of specific heats is set to $\gamma=1.4$. The perturbations for density and pressure are then expressed as $$\label{rhopressDelta}
\delta \rho = (1+\delta T)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}}-1, \quad \delta p = (1+\delta T)^{\frac{\gamma}{\gamma-1}}-1.$$
The vortex is convected with velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_c=(1,1)$, so that at the final time $t_f$ of the simulation the exact solution ${\mathbf{Q}}_e({\mathbf{x}},t_f)$ is simply given by the time-shifted initial condition, e.g. ${\mathbf{Q}}_e({\mathbf{x}},t_f)={\mathbf{Q}}({\mathbf{x}}-{\mathbf{v}}_c t_f,0)$, with the averaged convection velocity of the vortex ${\mathbf{v}}_c=(1,1)$. As depicted in Figure \[fig.SVgrid\], the mesh is highly distorted and twisted by the vortex motion and no rezoning algorithm [@LagrangeMHD; @LagrangeMDRS] is adopted here because we want to validate the new LTS algorithm inside an almost fully Lagrangian approach. Therefore the final time of the simulation is chosen to be $t_f=1.0$, which allows the computational mesh to remain reasonably well-shaped. We run this test case on successive refined meshes and for each mesh the corresponding error is expressed in the continuous $L_2$ norm as $$\epsilon_{L_2} = \sqrt{ \int \limits_{\Omega(t_f)} \left( {\mathbf{Q}}_e(x,y,t_f) - {\mathbf{w}}_h(x,y,t_f) \right)^2 dxdy },
\label{eqnL2error}$$ where ${\mathbf{w}}_h(x,y,t_f)$ represents the high order reconstructed solution at the final time, while the mesh size $h(\Omega(t_f))$ is evaluated as the maximum diameter of the circumcircles of the triangles in the final computational domain $\Omega(t_f)$. We use the Rusanov-type numerical flux to obtain the convergence results listed in Table \[tab.convEul\], achieving the designed order of accuracy of the scheme very well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Mesh configuration at three different output times for the smooth isentropic vortex test problem. The mesh is highly twisted in the center of the computational domain, which is furthermore convected with velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_c=(1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig.SVgrid"}](./ShuVortex-grid-t0.eps "fig:"){width="33.00000%"} ![Mesh configuration at three different output times for the smooth isentropic vortex test problem. The mesh is highly twisted in the center of the computational domain, which is furthermore convected with velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_c=(1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig.SVgrid"}](./ShuVortex-grid-t1.eps "fig:"){width="33.00000%"} ![Mesh configuration at three different output times for the smooth isentropic vortex test problem. The mesh is highly twisted in the center of the computational domain, which is furthermore convected with velocity ${\mathbf{v}}_c=(1,1)$.[]{data-label="fig.SVgrid"}](./ShuVortex-grid-t2.eps "fig:"){width="33.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------ ------------------ -------------------- ----------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
$h(\Omega(t_f))$ $\epsilon_{L_2}$ $\mathcal{O}(L_2)$ $h(\Omega,t_f)$ $\epsilon_{L_2}$ $\mathcal{O}(L_2)$ $h(\Omega(t_f))$ $\epsilon_{L_2}$ $\mathcal{O}(L_2)$
3.58E-01 5.286E-02 - 3.32E-01 3.471E-02 - 7.00E-01 6.419E-02 -
2.48E-01 3.558E-02 1.1 2.51E-01 1.789E-02 2.4 3.28E-01 1.030E-02 2.4
1.70E-01 1.514E-02 2.3 1.68E-01 6.346E-03 2.6 2.51E-01 3.598E-03 3.9
1.28E-01 8.193E-03 2.1 1.28E-01 2.935E-03 2.8 1.68E-01 7.706E-04 3.8
------------------ ------------------ -------------------- ----------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------ ------------------ --------------------
: Numerical convergence results for the compressible Euler equations using second to fourth order Lagrangian ADER-WENO finite volume schemes with time accurate local time stepping (LTS). The error norms refer to the variable $\rho$ (density) at time $t=1.0$.
\[tab.convEul\]
Riemann problems {#sec.RP2D}
----------------
Here we solve two classical Riemann problems, namely the shock tube problems of Sod and the Lax, which are in the following addressed as RP1 and RP2, respectively, and which are widely adopted to validate numerical algorithms for the solution of the compressible Euler equations. They both include the formation of a left-propagating rarefaction wave, an intermediate contact discontinuity and a right-propagating shock wave. Though intrinsically one-dimensional, these tests become non-trivial and multidimensional when applied to unstructured meshes, where in general the element edges are not aligned with the fluid motion. Since a contact wave is present in the solution, we can also check how well it is resolved by our Lagrangian LTS scheme.
The initial computational domain is given by the box $\Omega(0)=[-0.5;0.5]\times[-0.05;0.05]$ that is discretized with a characteristic mesh size of $h=1/200$, leading to a total number of $N_E=8862$ elements, while the initial conditions are given in terms of the primitive variables ${\mathcal{U}}=(\rho,u,v,p)$. Table \[tab.iniRP2D\] reports the relevant data for the setup of the two tests, where $t_f$ represents the final time of the simulation while $x_d$ gives the position of the initial discontinuity which splits the computational domain, as well as the initial conditions, in the two left and right states ${\mathcal{U}}_L$ and ${\mathcal{U}}_R$. We set periodic boundary conditions in the $y$ direction, while transmissive boundaries are imposed along the $x$ direction. The ratio of specific heats is assumed to be $\gamma=1.4$ for both Riemann problems.
Case $\rho_L$ $u_L$ $v_L$ $p_L$ $\rho_R$ $u_R$ $v_R$ $p_R$ $t_f$ $x_d$
------ ---------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
RP1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.125 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
RP2 0.445 0.698 0.0 3.528 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.571 0.1 0.0
: Initial condition for the Sod (RP1) and the Lax (RP2) shock tube problem. $t_f$ is the final time of the simulation and $x_d$ denotes the position of the initial discontinuity.
\[tab.iniRP2D\]
The exact solution is computed with the exact Riemann solver presented in [@ToroBook]. We use the third order version of our Lagrangian ADER-WENO schemes with LTS using the Osher-type numerical flux to obtain the results depicted in Figures \[fig.RP1\]-\[fig.RP2\], where a comparison between the exact and the numerical solution is shown. We observe an excellent resolution of the contact wave with only one intermediate point for both RP1 and RP2, and a very good agreement with the analytical solution can also be noticed for density, as well as for pressure and for the horizontal velocity component. Table \[tab.RPdata\] aims at showing the computational efficiency of the LTS algorithm w.r.t. the Lagrangian ADER-WENO schemes with global time stepping (GTS) presented in [@Lagrange2D]. In order to give a fair comparison between LTS and GTS schemes, the efficiency is not measured in terms of computational time, which may depend on the machine hardware or on the algorithm implementation, but rather we count the total number of element updates needed to reach the final time of the simulation, as done in [@ALELTS1D]. Hence, looking at Table \[tab.RPdata\], we notice that the Lagrangian algorithm with global time stepping requires a total number of element updates that is a factor of 3-4 times larger than the one of our new Lagrangian scheme with LTS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparison between exact and third order accurate numerical solution for the Sod shock tube problem RP1. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.2$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.RP1"}](./RP1-LTS-rho3D.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Comparison between exact and third order accurate numerical solution for the Sod shock tube problem RP1. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.2$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.RP1"}](./RP1-LTS-rho.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
![Comparison between exact and third order accurate numerical solution for the Sod shock tube problem RP1. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.2$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.RP1"}](./RP1-LTS-u.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Comparison between exact and third order accurate numerical solution for the Sod shock tube problem RP1. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.2$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.RP1"}](./RP1-LTS-p.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparison between exact and third order accurate numerical solution for the Lax shock tube problem RP2. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.1$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.RP2"}](./RP2-LTS-rho3D.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Comparison between exact and third order accurate numerical solution for the Lax shock tube problem RP2. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.1$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.RP2"}](./RP2-LTS-rho.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
![Comparison between exact and third order accurate numerical solution for the Lax shock tube problem RP2. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.1$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.RP2"}](./RP2-LTS-u.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Comparison between exact and third order accurate numerical solution for the Lax shock tube problem RP2. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.1$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.RP2"}](./RP2-LTS-p.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ ------------------------- ------------------------ ---------
Case GTS LTS GTS/LTS
RP1 $10.120404 \cdot 10^6 $ $3.257847 \cdot 10^6 $ 3.11
RP2 $23.349964 \cdot 10^6 $ $5.020780 \cdot 10^6 $ 4.45
------ ------------------------- ------------------------ ---------
: Comparison of the computational efficiency between GTS and LTS algorithm in terms of the total number of element updates for RP1 and RP2. A third order scheme has been adopted.
\[tab.RPdata\]
Two-dimensional explosion problems {#sec.EP2D}
----------------------------------
Circular explosion problems can be regarded as the two-dimensional extension of Riemann problems. The initial domain $\Omega(0)=\left\{ \mathbf{x} : \left\| \mathbf{x} \right\| < R_o \right\} $ is given by the unit circle of radius $R_o=1$. A circle of radius $R=0.5$ separates two different states that define the initial conditions reported in Table \[tab.iniEP2D\] in terms of primitive variables ${\mathcal{U}}=(\rho,u,v,p)$. The two states are addressed here as the *inner* state ${\mathcal{U}}_i$ and the *outer* state ${\mathcal{U}}_o$, respectively. Transmissive boundary conditions have been imposed on the external boundary and we set $\gamma=1.4$. EP1 corresponds to the initial data of the classical Sod shock tube problem RP1, while EP2 is taken from [@ToroBook]. In both cases we use the same computational mesh $m_1$, with a characteristic mesh size of $h=1/100$ for $r\leq R$ and $h=1/50$ for $r>R$, hence obtaining a total number $N_E=43756$ of triangles.
Case $\rho_i$ $u_i$ $v_i$ $p_i$ $\rho_o$ $u_o$ $v_o$ $p_o$ $t_f$
------ ---------- ------- ------- -------- ---------- ------- ------- ------- -------
EP1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.125 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2
EP2 1.0 0.0 0.0 1000.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.012
: Initial conditions for the two-dimensional explosion problems EP1 and the EP2 with $t_f$ denoting the final time of the simulation.
\[tab.iniEP2D\]
As proposed in [@Lagrange2D] a suitable reference solution can be obtained simplifying the two-dimensional Euler equations to a one-dimensional system with geometric source terms [@ToroBook], which reads $$\label{inhomEuler}
{\mathbf{Q}}_t + {\mathbf{F}}({\mathbf{Q}})_r = {\mathbf{S}}({\mathbf{Q}}),$$ with $$\label{matrixInhomEuler}
{\mathbf{Q}}= \left(\begin{array}{c} \rho \\ \rho u \\ \rho E \end{array}\right), \quad {\mathbf{F}}= \left(\begin{array}{c} \rho u \\ \rho u^2 + p \\ u(\rho E+p) \end{array}\right), \quad {\mathbf{S}}= -\frac{1}{r}\left(\begin{array}{c} \rho u \\ \rho u^2 \\ u(\rho E+p) \end{array}\right)\,.$$ Here $r$ and $u$ represent the radial direction and the radial velocity, respectively. As a result, a proper reference solution is obtained after solving the inhomogeneous system of equations - on a one-dimensional mesh of 15000 points in the radial interval $r \in [0;1]$ using a classical second order TVD scheme [@ToroBook] with a Rusanov-type numerical flux. Third order accurate Lagrangian ADER-WENO schemes with time accurate local time stepping have been used together with the Osher-type numerical flux to compute the explosion problems EP1 and EP2. Figures \[fig.EP1\]-\[fig.EP3\] show a comparison between the numerical solution obtained with the Lagrangian LTS scheme and the 1D reference solution. As for the Riemann problems presented in the previous section, one can appreciate the very good resolution of the contact wave in the density distribution and a good agreement with the reference solution is achieved also for horizontal velocity and pressure. We point out that EP2 is more challenging than EP1 because it involves a strong shock wave which causes a high compression of some elements in the mesh, as clearly depicted in Figure \[fig.EP3-grid\]. By using the LTS approach we can avoid that those small triangles dictate the timestep for the entire mesh, hence allowing the other control volumes to reach the end of the simulation much faster and with a lower number of element updates, as highlighted in Table \[tab.EPdata\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparison between reference and third order accurate numerical solution for the explosion problem EP1. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.25$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.EP1"}](./EP1-LTS-rho3D.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Comparison between reference and third order accurate numerical solution for the explosion problem EP1. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.25$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.EP1"}](./EP1-LTS-rho.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
![Comparison between reference and third order accurate numerical solution for the explosion problem EP1. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.25$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.EP1"}](./EP1-LTS-u.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Comparison between reference and third order accurate numerical solution for the explosion problem EP1. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.25$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.EP1"}](./EP1-LTS-p.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Comparison between reference and third order accurate numerical solution for the explosion problem EP2. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.012$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.EP3"}](./EP3-LTS-rho3D.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Comparison between reference and third order accurate numerical solution for the explosion problem EP2. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.012$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.EP3"}](./EP3-LTS-rho.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
![Comparison between reference and third order accurate numerical solution for the explosion problem EP2. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.012$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.EP3"}](./EP3-LTS-u.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Comparison between reference and third order accurate numerical solution for the explosion problem EP2. Density (top right), velocity (bottom left) and pressure (bottom right) distribution are shown as well as a 3D view of the density solution at the final time $t_f=0.012$ (top left).[]{data-label="fig.EP3"}](./EP3-LTS-p.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Initial (left) and final (right) mesh configuration for the explosion problem EP2. The strong shock generates a high compression of those elements which follow the wave.[]{data-label="fig.EP3-grid"}](./EP3-LTS-IniGrid.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Initial (left) and final (right) mesh configuration for the explosion problem EP2. The strong shock generates a high compression of those elements which follow the wave.[]{data-label="fig.EP3-grid"}](./EP3-LTS-FinalGrid.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The numerical simulation of many important phenomena arising in science and engineering typically requires the use of non-uniform computational grids with small elements clustered in some portions of the computational domain. In such circumstances, the use of a classical global time stepping algorithm would slow down the computation severely, since the smallest element of the mesh reduces the admissible timestep for the entire grid. Within the Eulerian framework on Cartesian grids, such a problem can be conveniently circumvented by resorting to Adaptive-Mesh-Refinement (AMR) with local time stepping, see e.g. [@Berger-Oliger1984; @Berger-Colella1989; @MuletAMR1; @MuletAMR2; @Burger2012; @Dumbser2012b; @Dumbser2014; @Zanotti2013d]. There, the mesh is forced to refine only when and where this is needed, while it is recoarsened as soon as the chosen refinement criterion is no longer satisfied. An alternative option consists of preparing the computational mesh with a *local static* refinement, which will remain fixed during the evolution if an Eulerian approach is adopted, while it will respond to the dynamics of the fluid if a Lagrangian framework is adopted, like in the present paper. In both cases, a local time stepping algorithm would make a huge difference in terms of computational efficiency, avoiding large control volumes to be slowed down by very small ones. Motivated by these considerations, we have run a modified version of the explosion problem EP1, denoted as EP1$^\ast$, which uses the same initial conditions of the former, apart for the mesh $m_2$, which has been built with a local mesh refinement around the initial location of the discontinuity, i.e. at $R=0.5$. More specifically, the mesh size is $h=1/100$ in the refined zone, and it grows with a growth rate of $s=1.5$ until $h=1/10$, which is used in the rest of the domain. Figure \[fig.EP1sizing-grid\] shows the initial and the final configuration of the computational grid $m_2$ as well as a zoom onto the discontinuity. With this test problem we want to make another case for adopting the LTS approach rather than the classical GTS algorithm, and the advantages of the former can be easily deduced by looking at Table \[tab.EPdata\], where we compare the total number of element updates for each explosion problem needed to reach the final time of the simulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Initial (top) and final (bottom) configuration of the grid $m_2$ for the explosion problem EP1$^\ast$. A zoom of the mesh configuration across the contact wave is shown on the right at time $t=0.0$ (top) and $t=0.25$ (bottom).[]{data-label="fig.EP1sizing-grid"}](./EP1sizing-LTS-IniGrid.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Initial (top) and final (bottom) configuration of the grid $m_2$ for the explosion problem EP1$^\ast$. A zoom of the mesh configuration across the contact wave is shown on the right at time $t=0.0$ (top) and $t=0.25$ (bottom).[]{data-label="fig.EP1sizing-grid"}](./EP1sizing-LTS-IniGrid-zoom.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
![Initial (top) and final (bottom) configuration of the grid $m_2$ for the explosion problem EP1$^\ast$. A zoom of the mesh configuration across the contact wave is shown on the right at time $t=0.0$ (top) and $t=0.25$ (bottom).[]{data-label="fig.EP1sizing-grid"}](./EP1sizing-LTS-FinalGrid.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Initial (top) and final (bottom) configuration of the grid $m_2$ for the explosion problem EP1$^\ast$. A zoom of the mesh configuration across the contact wave is shown on the right at time $t=0.0$ (top) and $t=0.25$ (bottom).[]{data-label="fig.EP1sizing-grid"}](./EP1sizing-LTS-FinalGrid-zoom.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------- --------------------------- ------------------------- ---------
Case GTS LTS GTS/LTS
EP1 $ 30.804224 \cdot 10^6 $ $12.206887 \cdot 10^6 $ 2.52
EP2 $ 181.412376 \cdot 10^6 $ $38.274477 \cdot 10^6 $ 4.74
EP1$^*$ $ 22.171520 \cdot 10^6 $ $ 8.313123 \cdot 10^6 $ 2.67
--------- --------------------------- ------------------------- ---------
: Comparison of the computational efficiency between GTS and LTS algorithm using the total number of element updates for EP1, EP2 and EP1$^*$.
\[tab.EPdata\]
The Kidder problem {#sec.Kidder}
------------------
The Kidder problem is a classical benchmark problem for Lagrangian algorithms. It has been widely used in the literature [@Maire2009; @Despres2009] in order to assure that no spurious entropy is produced by the Lagrangian scheme. This test case was first designed by Kidder in [@Kidder1976] and it consists of an isentropic compression of a portion of a shell filled with an ideal gas. The shell $\Omega(0)$ is initially bounded by $r_i(t) \leq r \leq r_e(t)$, where $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ represents the general radial coordinate while $r_i(t),r_e(t)$ denote the time-dependent internal and external radius, respectively. The perfect gas is initially assigned with the following vector of primitive variables ${\mathcal{U}}_0$: $${\mathcal{U}}_0 = \left( \begin{array}{c} \rho_0(r) \\ u_0(r) \\ v_0(r) \\ p_0(r) \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c} \left(\frac{r_{e,0}^2-r^2}{r_{e,0}^2-r_{i,0}^2}\rho_{i,0}^{\gamma-1}+\frac{r^2-r_{i,0}^2}{r_{e,0}^2-r_{e,0}^2}\rho_{e,0}^{\gamma-1}\right)^{\frac{1}{\gamma-1}} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ s_0\rho_0(r)^\gamma \end{array} \right),
\label{eq:KidderIC}$$ where $\rho_{i,0}=1$ and $\rho_{e,0}=2$ are the initial values of density at the internal and the external frontier, respectively. According to [@Maire2009] the ratio of specific heats is $\gamma=2$ and the initial entropy distribution $s_0$ is assumed to be uniform, i.e. $s_0= \frac{p_0}{\rho_0^\gamma} = 1$.
Sliding wall boundary conditions are imposed on the horizontal and vertical edges that bound the portion of the shell, while on the internal and on the external frontier we set a space-time dependent state, which is assigned according to the exact solution $R(r,t)$ [@Kidder1976]. The analytical solution for the Kidder problem is given at the general time $t$ for a fluid particle initially located at radius $r$ as a function of the radius and of the homothety rate $h(t)$, i.e. $$R(r,t) = h(t)r, \qquad h(t) = \sqrt{1-\frac{t^2}{\tau^2}},
\label{eqKidderEx}$$ where $\tau$ is the focalisation time $$\tau = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma-1}{2}\frac{(r_{e,0}^2-r_{i,0}^2)}{c_{e,0}^2-c_{i,0}^2}}$$ with $c_{i,e}=\sqrt{\gamma\frac{p_{i,e}}{\rho_{i,e}}}$ representing the internal and external sound speeds. Following [@Despres2009; @Maire2009], the final time of the simulation is chosen to be $t_f=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\tau$, so that the compression rate is $h(t_f)=0.5$ and the exact solution is given by the shell located within the interval $0.45 \leq R \leq 0.5$. We use a fourth order accurate version of our new Lagrangian ADER-WENO scheme with LTS using the Osher-type numerical flux . The results are depicted in Figure \[fig.Kidder\], which shows the numerical solution for density at three different output times $t=0.0$, $t=0.9$ and $t=t_f$. Moreover, the evolution of the internal and external radius of the shell has been monitored during the simulation and Table \[tab.Kidder\] reports the absolute error $|err|$ of the frontier positions, which is defined as the difference between the analytical and the numerical location of the internal and external radius at the final time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Fourth order accurate density distribution for the Kidder problem at the initial time $t=0.0$ (top left), at $t=0.9$ (top right) and at the final time $t=t_f$ (bottom left). The evolution of the internal and external radius of the shell is also shown (bottom right) and compared with the analytical solution.[]{data-label="fig.Kidder"}](./Kidder2D-LTS-00.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Fourth order accurate density distribution for the Kidder problem at the initial time $t=0.0$ (top left), at $t=0.9$ (top right) and at the final time $t=t_f$ (bottom left). The evolution of the internal and external radius of the shell is also shown (bottom right) and compared with the analytical solution.[]{data-label="fig.Kidder"}](./Kidder2D-LTS-09.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
![Fourth order accurate density distribution for the Kidder problem at the initial time $t=0.0$ (top left), at $t=0.9$ (top right) and at the final time $t=t_f$ (bottom left). The evolution of the internal and external radius of the shell is also shown (bottom right) and compared with the analytical solution.[]{data-label="fig.Kidder"}](./Kidder2D-LTS-018.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Fourth order accurate density distribution for the Kidder problem at the initial time $t=0.0$ (top left), at $t=0.9$ (top right) and at the final time $t=t_f$ (bottom left). The evolution of the internal and external radius of the shell is also shown (bottom right) and compared with the analytical solution.[]{data-label="fig.Kidder"}](./Kidder2D-LTS-radius.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$R_{ex}$ $R_{num}$ $|err|$
------------------- ------------ ------------ ----------
*Internal radius* 0.45000000 0.44996063 3.94E-05
*External radius* 0.50000000 0.49930053 6.99E-04
: Absolute error for the internal and external radius location between exact $R_{ex}$ and numerical $R_{num}$ solution.
\[tab.Kidder\]
The Saltzman problem {#sec.Saltzman}
--------------------
Another classical test case for Lagrangian gas dynamics is the Saltzman problem, which was presented for the first time by Dukowicz et al. in [@SaltzmanOrg] for a two-dimensional Cartesian grid that has been skewed in such a way that no element edges are aligned with the main fluid flow. It is a very challenging test problem against which any Lagrangian scheme ought to be validated [@Maire2009; @chengshu2]. It involves a strong shock wave caused by a piston that is moving along the main direction $x$ of the initial rectangular domain $\Omega(0)=[0;1]\times[0;0.1]$, which is initially discretized by $100 \times 10$ *square* elements. According to [@Maire2009; @chengshu2], each element is then split into two *right triangles*, so that we obtain a total number of elements of $N_E=2 \cdot 100 \times 10 = 2000$, and finally the following mapping is applied in order to skew the mesh: $$x' = x + \left( 0.1 - y \right) \sin(\pi x) \qquad y' = y,$$ where $\mathbf{x}=(x,y)$ represents the coordinate vector of the uniform grid, while $\mathbf{x'}=(x',y')$ are the final skewed coordinates. As done in [@chengshu2] the fluid is initially at rest and is assigned an internal energy $e_0=10^{-4}$ and a density $\rho_0=1$, hence the initial condition in terms of conserved variables reads ${\mathbf{Q}}_{0} = \left( \rho_0, \rho u_0, \rho v_0, \rho E_0 \right) = \left( 1, 0, 0, 10^{-4} \right)$. According to [@chengshu2], the ratio of specific heats is set to $\gamma = \frac{5}{3}$ and the final time is assumed to be $t_f=0.6$, while the piston is moving with velocity $\mathbf{v}_p = (1,0)$ towards the right boundary of the domain. Moving slip wall boundary condition is imposed on the piston, whereas fixed slip wall boundaries have been set on the remaining sides of the domain. As fully explained in [@Lagrange2D; @ToroBook], the exact solution ${\mathbf{Q}}_{ex}({\mathbf{x}},t)$ is computed by solving a one-dimensional Riemann problem and at the final time $t_f$ it is given by $${\mathbf{Q}}_{ex}({\mathbf{x}},t_f) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} \left( 4, 1, 0, 2.5 \right) & \textnormal{ if } & x \leq x_f, \\
\left( 1, 0, 0, 10^{-4} \right) & \textnormal{ if } & x > x_f,
\end{array} \right.$$ where $x_f=0.8$ denotes the final shock location. The piston is moving very fast, so that the fluid next to the piston is highly compressed and elements there must typically obey a severe CFL condition. In practice, we have to start the simulation with CFL=0.1, hence using very small and *global* timesteps. After time $t=0.01$ the numerical scheme proceeds with the new time accurate *local time stepping* algorithm described in this article. We have used the third order version of our LTS Lagrangian ADER-WENO schemes and the very robust Rusanov-type numerical flux . Figure \[fig.Saltz2D\] shows a comparison between the exact and the numerical solution for density and horizontal velocity at the final time of the simulation for both the LTS and the GTS version of our algorithm, while the initial and the final mesh configurations are depicted in Figure \[fig.Saltz2Dgrid\]. An overall good agreement of the numerical solution with the exact solution can be observed and the decrease of the density which occurs near the piston is due to the well known *wall-heating problem*, see [@toro.anomalies.2002]. Furthermore we point out that the results obtained with the LTS scheme given in the left column of Figure \[fig.Saltz2D\] do not differ very much from the numerical solution obtained with global time stepping (GTS) shown in the right column of Figure \[fig.Saltz2D\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Third order accurate numerical solution for the Saltzman problem at the final time $t_f=0.6$. [*Left panels*]{}: solution obtained with LTS. [*Right panels*]{}: solution obtained with GTS. []{data-label="fig.Saltz2D"}](./Saltz2D-LTS-rho.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Third order accurate numerical solution for the Saltzman problem at the final time $t_f=0.6$. [*Left panels*]{}: solution obtained with LTS. [*Right panels*]{}: solution obtained with GTS. []{data-label="fig.Saltz2D"}](./Saltz2D-GTS-rho.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
![Third order accurate numerical solution for the Saltzman problem at the final time $t_f=0.6$. [*Left panels*]{}: solution obtained with LTS. [*Right panels*]{}: solution obtained with GTS. []{data-label="fig.Saltz2D"}](./Saltz2D-LTS-u.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Third order accurate numerical solution for the Saltzman problem at the final time $t_f=0.6$. [*Left panels*]{}: solution obtained with LTS. [*Right panels*]{}: solution obtained with GTS. []{data-label="fig.Saltz2D"}](./Saltz2D-GTS-u.eps "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![Initial and final mesh configuration for the Saltzman problem using the new LTS algorithm.[]{data-label="fig.Saltz2Dgrid"}](./Saltz2D-LTS-grid.eps "fig:"){width="94.00000%"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
Conclusions {#sec.concl}
===========
In this article we have presented a high order Lagrangian finite volume schemes with time-accurate local time stepping (LTS) on moving unstructured triangular meshes. The numerical scheme is derived from [@Lagrange2D; @LagrangeNC], where a classical global time stepping approach is adopted, and from the recently developed one-dimensional high order Lagrangian LTS numerical scheme [@ALELTS1D]. In our approach the WENO reconstruction technique is used to achieve high order of accuracy in space, while high order of accuracy in time is obtained via the local space-time Galerkin predictor. The new algorithm illustrated in this article is based on a non-conforming mesh in time, with hanging nodes that are continuously moving and in principle never match the same time level, unless either an intermediate output time or the final time of the simulation is reached. As a consequence, the reconstruction is carried out locally, i.e. within each control volume, using a virtual geometry and a virtual set of cell averages of the surrounding elements that are both computed using the high order space-time predictor solution. In order to develop a fully conservative numerical scheme, the fluxes are evaluated relying on memory variables, which allow to record all fluxes accumulated in the past within each control volume. Unlike the one-dimensional version of the algorithm presented in [@ALELTS1D], on two-dimensional unstructured meshes we need also to compute additional fluxes over triangular space-time sub-surfaces, whenever an element performs the update timestep. This additional computational and algorithmic complexity is due to the increased complexity of the topology of a 2D mesh, which consists in control volumes, edges and nodes. By construction, our scheme is conservative and automatically satisfies the geometric conservation law (GCL) due to the integration over a closed space-time control volume.
The algorithm has been applied to the Euler equations of compressible gas dynamics, solving a set of canonical test problems and benchmarks for Lagrangian schemes. Furthermore convergence rates up to fourth order of accuracy in space and in time have been shown.
Further work may contain the extension of the presented LTS algorithm to three space dimensions and non-conservative hyperbolic balance laws as well as the implementation of a proper treatment for stiff source terms, hence allowing the scheme to be applied to more complex systems of equations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The presented research has been financed by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) with the research project *STiMulUs*, ERC Grant agreement no. 278267. The authors acknowledge PRACE for awarding us access to the SuperMUC supercomputer of the Leibniz Rechenzentrum (LRZ) in Munich, Germany.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A conjecture of Kalai and Eckhoff that the face vector of an arbitrary flag complex is also the face vector of some particular balanced complex is verified.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-4350'
author:
- Andy Frohmader
date: May 8
title: Face Vectors of Flag Complexes
---
Introduction
============
We begin by introducing the main result. Precise definitions and statements of some related theorems are deferred to later sections.
The main object of our study is the class of flag complexes. A simplicial complex is a *flag complex* if all of its minimal non-faces are two element sets. Equivalently, if all of the edges of a potential face of a flag complex are in the complex, then that face must also be in the complex.
Flag complexes are closely related to graphs. Given a graph $G$, define its *clique complex* $C = C(G)$ as the simplicial complex whose vertex set is the vertex set of $G$, and whose faces are the cliques of $G$. The clique complex of any graph is itself a flag complex, as for a subset of vertices of a graph to not form a clique, two of them must not form an edge. Conversely, any flag complex is the clique complex of its 1-skeleton.
The Kruskal-Katona theorem [@kruskal; @katona] classifies the face vectors of simplicial complexes as being precisely the integer vectors whose coordinates satisfy some particular bounds. The graphs of the “rev-lex” complexes which attain these bounds invariably have a clique on all but one of the vertices of the complex, and sometimes even on all of the vertices.
Since the bounds of the Kruskal-Katona theorem hold for all simplicial complexes, they must in particular hold for flag complexes. We might expect that flag complexes which do not have a face on most of the vertices of the complex will not come that close to attaining the bounds of the Kruskal-Katona theorem.
One way to force tighter bounds on face numbers is by requiring the graph of the complex to have a chromatic number much smaller than the number of vertices. The face vectors of simplicial complexes of a given chromatic number were classified by Frankl, Füredi, and Kalai [@balanced].
Kalai (unpublished; see [@greenbook p. 100]) and Eckhoff [@mainconj] independently conjectured that if the largest face of a flag complex contains $r$ vertices, then it must satisfy the known bounds (see [@balanced]) for complexes of chromatic number $r$, even though the flag complex may have chromatic number much larger than $r$. We prove their conjecture.
For any flag complex $C$, there is a balanced complex $C'$ with the same face vector as $C$.\[maintheorem\]
Our proof is constructive. The Frankl-Füredi-Kalai [@balanced] theorem states that an integer vector is the face vector of a balanced complex if and only if it is the face vector of a colored “rev-lex” complex. This happens if and only if it satisfies certain bounds on consecutive face numbers. Given a flag complex, for each $i$, we construct a colored “rev-lex” complex with the same number of $i$-faces and $(i+1)$-faces as the flag complex, thus showing that all the bounds are satisfied.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 contains basic facts and definitions related to simplicial complexes. In Section 3, we discuss the Kruskal-Katona theorem and the Frankl-Füredi-Kalai theorem, and lay the foundation for our proof. Finally, Section 4 gives our proof of the Kalai-Eckhoff conjecture.
Preliminaries on simplicial complexes
=====================================
In this section, we discuss some basic definitions related to simplicial complexes.
Recall that a *simplicial complex* $\Delta$ on a vertex set $V$ is a collection of subsets of $V$ such that, (i) for every $v
\in V$, $\{v\} \in \Delta$ and (ii) for every $B \in \Delta$, if $A \subset B$, then $A \in \Delta$. The elements of $\Delta$ are called *faces*. The maximal faces (under inclusion) are called *facets*.
For a face $F$ of a simpicial complex $\Delta$, the *dimension* of $F$ is defined as dim $F = |F|-1$. The dimension of $\Delta$, dim $\Delta$, is defined as the maximum dimension of the faces of $\Delta$. A complex $\Delta$ is *pure* if all of its facets are of the same dimension.
The $i$-skeleton of a simplicial complex $\Delta$ is the collection of all faces of $\Delta$ of dimension $\leq i$. In particular, the 1-skeleton of $\Delta$ is its underlying graph.
It is sometimes useful in inductive proofs to consider certain subcomplexes of a given simplicial complex, such as its links.
$${\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{\Delta}({F})}} := \{G \in \Delta \ |\ F \cap G = \emptyset, F \cup G \in \Delta\}.$$
The link of a face of a simplicial complex is itself a simplicial complex. It will be convenient to define the notion of a link of a vertex of a graph.
The link of a vertex $v$ in a graph $G$, denoted [$\textrm{lk}_{G}({v})$]{}, is the induced subgraph of $G$ on all vertices adjacent to $v$.
Note that [$\textrm{lk}_{G}({v})$]{} coincides with the 1-skeleton of the link of $v$ in the clique complex of $G$.
Next we discuss a special class of simplical complexes known as flag complexes.
In the following, we refer to the chromatic number of a simplicial complex as the chromatic number of its 1-skeleton in the usual graph theoretic sense.
We also need the notion of a balanced complex, as introduced and studied in [@gencolor].
Note that the chromatic number of a simpicial complex of dimension $d-1$ must be at least $d$, as it has some face with $d$ vertices, all of which are adjacent, so coloring that face takes $d$ colors. A balanced complex is then one whose chromatic number is no larger than it has to be.
Not all simplicial complexes are balanced complexes. For example, a pentagon (five vertices, five edges, and one empty face) is not a balanced complex, because it has chromatic number three but dimension only one.
In this paper, we study the face numbers of flag complexes.
In particular, for any non-empty complex $C$, we have $c_0(C) =
1$, as there is a unique empty set of vertices, and it is a face of $C$.
Since flag complexes are the same as clique complexes of graphs, it is sometimes convenient to talk about face numbers in the language of graphs.
The face numbers defined here are shifted by one from what is often used for simplicial complexes. This is done because we are primarily concerned with flag complexes, or equivalently, clique complexes of graphs, where it is more natural to index $i$ as the number of vertices in a clique of the graph, following Eckhoff [@eckhoff].
The graph concept corresponding to the dimension of a simplicial complex is the clique number.
Note that the clique number of a graph is one larger than the dimension of its clique complex.
The Kruskal-Katona and Frankl-Füredi-Kalai theorems
===================================================
For the general case of simplicial complexes, the question of which face vectors are possible is answered by the Kruskal-Katona theorem [@kruskal; @katona]. Stating the theorem requires the following lemma.
Given any positive integers $m$ and $k$, there is a unique $s$ and unique $n_k > n_{k-1} > \dots > n_{k-s} \geq k-s > 0$ such that $$m = {n_k \choose k} + {n_{k-1}\choose k-1} + \dots + {n_{k-s}
\choose k-s}.$$
The representation described in the lemma is called the $k$-canonical representation of $m$.
\[Kruskal-Katona\] For a simplicial complex $C$, let $$m = c_k(C) =
{n_k \choose k} + {n_{k-1}\choose k-1} + \dots + {n_{k-s} \choose
k-s}$$ be the $k$-canonical representation of $m$. Then $$c_{k+1}(C) \leq {n_k \choose k+1} + {n_{k-1}\choose k} + \dots +
{n_{k-s} \choose k-s+1}.$$ Furthermore, given a vector $(1, c_1,
c_2, \dots, c_t)$ which satisfies this bound for all $1 \leq k <
t$, there is some complex that has this vector as its face vector.\[kruskat\]
To construct the complexes which demonstrate that the bound of the Kruskal-Katona theorem is attained, we need the reverse-lexicographic (“rev-lex") order. To define the rev-lex order of $i$-faces of a simplicial complex on $n$ vertices, we start by labelling the vertices $1, 2, \dots$. Let $\mathbb{N}$ be the natural numbers, let $A$ and $B$ be distinct subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ with $|A| = |B| = i$, and let $A \nabla B$ be the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$.
For example, $\{2, 3, 5\}$ precedes $\{1, 4, 5\}$, as 3 is less than 4, but $\{3, 4, 5\}$ precedes $\{1, 2, 6\}$.
We can also specify more than one number in the face vector. For two sequences $i_1 < \dots < i_r$ and $(m_1, \dots, m_r)$, let $$C
= C_{i_1}(m_1) \cup C_{i_2}(m_2) \cup \dots \cup C_{i_r}(m_r).$$ The standard way to prove the Kruskal-Katona theorem involves showing that if the numbers $m_1, \dots, m_r$ satisfy the bounds of the theorem, then the complex $C$ has exactly $m_j$ $i_j$-faces for all $j \leq r$ and no more. In this case, we refer to $C$ as the rev-lex complex on $m_1$ $i_1$-faces, …, $m_r$ $i_r$-faces.
For example, if the complex $C$ has ${9 \choose 3} + {6 \choose 2}
= 99$ 3-faces, then the Kruskal-Katona theorem says that it can have at most ${9 \choose 4} + {6 \choose 3} = 146$ 4-faces. The rev-lex complex on 99 3-faces and 146 4-faces gives an example showing that this bound is attained.
The 1-skeleton of the rev-lex complex that gives the example for the existence part of the Kruskal-Katona theorem always has as large of a clique as is possible without exceeding the number of edges allowed, as well as a chromatic number of either the number of non-isolated vertices or one less than this. It turns out that if we require a much smaller chromatic number, we can get a much smaller bound. To take an extreme example, if $c_3(C) = 1140$, then the Kruskal-Katona theorem requires that $c_4(C) \leq 4845$. But if we require the complex $C$ to be 3-colorable, then we trivially cannot have any faces on four vertices, and $c_4(C) =
0$.
We could ask what face vectors occur for $r$-colorable complexes for a given $r$. This was solved by Frankl, Füredi, and Kalai [@balanced]. In order to explain their result, we need the concept of a Turán graph.
The structure of the Frankl-Füredi-Kalai theorem [@balanced] is similar to that of the Kruskal-Katona theorem, beginning with a canonical representation of the number of faces.
Given positive integers m, k, and r with $r\geq k$, there are unique $s$, $n_k$, $n_{k-1}$, …, $n_{k-s}$ such that $$m =
{n_k\choose k}_r + {n_{k-1}\choose k-1}_{r-1} + \dots +
{n_{k-s}\choose k-s}_{r-s},$$ $n_{k-i}-\big\lfloor{n_{k-i}\over
r-i}\big\rfloor > n_{k-i-1}$ for all $0\leq i < s,$ and $n_{k-s}\geq k-s > 0$.
This expression is called the $(k, r)$-canonical representation of $m$.
\[Frankl-Füredi-Kalai\] For an $r$-colorable complex $C$, let $$m = c_k(C) = {n_k\choose k}_r + {n_{k-1}\choose k-1}_{r-1} +
\dots + {n_{k-s}\choose k-s}_{r-s}$$ be the $(k, r)$-canonical representation of $m$. Then $$c_{k+1}(C) \leq {n_k\choose k+1}_r +
{n_{k-1}\choose k}_{r-1} + \dots + {n_{k-s}\choose k-s+1}_{r-s}.$$ Furthermore, given a vector $(1, c_1, c_2, \dots c_t)$ which satisfies this bound for all $1 \leq k < t$, there is some $r$-colorable complex that has this vector as its face vector. \[coloredKK\]
The examples which show that this bound is sharp come from a colored equivalent of the rev-lex complexes of the Kruskal-Katona theorem.
The complex $C_i^r(n)$ is $r$-colorable because we can color all vertices which are $i$ modulo $r$ with color $i$.
As with the uncolored case, we can define a rev-lex complex with specified face numbers of more than one dimension. For two sequences $i_1 < \dots < i_s$ and $(m_1, \dots, m_s)$, let $C =
C_{i_1}^r(m_1) \cup C_{i_2}^r(m_2) \cup \dots \cup
C_{i_s}^r(m_s)$. The proof of Theorem \[coloredKK\] involves showing that if the numbers $m_1, \dots, m_r$ satisfy the bounds of the theorem, then the complex $C$ has exactly $m_j$ $i_j$-faces and no more. In this case, we refer to $C$ as the $r$-colored rev-lex complex on $m_1$ $i_1$-faces, …, $m_r$ $i_r$-faces. This complex is likewise $r$-colorable with one color for each value modulo $r$.
In the case of flag complexes, the face numbers of the complex must still follow the bounds imposed by the chromatic number by Theorem \[coloredKK\]. Still, there are graphs whose clique number is far smaller than the chromatic number, and having no large cliques seems to force tighter restrictions on the clique vector than the chromatic number alone. In particular, given a graph $G$ of clique number $n$, we must have $c_i(G) = 0$ for all $i > n$, while the bound from the chromatic number and Theorem \[coloredKK\] may be rather large. Note that the chromatic number must be at least the size of the largest clique, as any two vertices in a maximum size clique must have different colors.
It has been conjectured by Kalai (unpublished) and Eckhoff [@mainconj] that, given a graph $G$ with clique number $r$, there is an $r$-colorable complex with exactly the same face numbers as the clique complex of the graph. Their conjecture generalizes the classical Turán theorem from graph theory, which states that among all triangle-free graphs on $n$ vertices, the Turán graph $T_{n,2}$ has the most edges [@turan]. The goal of the following section is to verify Theorem \[maintheorem\], proving their conjecture.
Proof of the Kalai-Eckhoff conjecture
=====================================
Fix a graph $G$ with $c_{r+1}(G) = 0$ and fix $k \geq 0$. We start by showing that there is an $r$-colorable complex $C$ with $c_k(G) = c_k(C)$ and $c_{k+1}(G) = c_{k+1}(C)$ (see Lemma \[mainlemma\] below).
The case $k = 1$ of the lemma is given by Turán’s theorem [@turan]. It was generalized by Zykov [@zykov] to state that if $G$ is a graph on $n$ vertices of chromatic number $r$, then $c_i(G) \leq {n \choose i}_r$. The case $k = 2$ was proven by Eckhoff [@eckhoff0]. A subsequent paper of Eckhoff [@eckhoff] established a bound on $c_i(G)$ in terms of $c_2(G)$ for all $2 \leq i$. All of these results are special cases of our Theorem \[restate\] and proven independently below.
If $G$ is a graph with $c_{r+1}(G) = 0$ and $k$ is a nonnegative integer, then there is some $r$-colorable complex $C$ with $c_k(C)
= c_k(G)$ and $c_{k+1}(C) = c_{k+1}(G)$. \[mainlemma\]
Proof. We use induction on $k$. For the base case, if $k = 0$, take $C$ to be a complex with the same number of vertices as $G$, no edges, and all vertices the same color.
Otherwise, assume that the lemma holds for $k-1$, and we need to prove it for $k$. The approach for this is to use induction on $c_{k+1}(G)$. For the base case, if $c_{k+1}(G) = 0$, then there is trivially some $r$-colorable complex $C$ with $c_k(C) = c_k(G)$ and $c_{k+1}(C) = 0$.
For the inductive step, suppose that $c_{k+1}(G) > 0$. Let $v_0$ be the vertex of $G$ contained in the most cliques of $k+1$ vertices; in case of a tie, arbitrarily pick some vertex tied for the most to label $v_0$. Let the vertices of $G$ not adjacent to $v_0$ be $v_1, v_2, \dots v_s$.
Given a graph $G$ and a vertex $v$, there is a bijection between $k$-cliques of [$\textrm{lk}_{G}({v})$]{} and $(k+1)$-cliques of $G$ containing $v$, where a $k$-clique of [$\textrm{lk}_{G}({v})$]{} corresponds to the $(k+1)$-clique of $G$ containing the $k$ vertices of the $k$-clique of [$\textrm{lk}_{G}({v})$]{} together with $v$. Then the number of $(k+1)$-cliques of $G$ containing $v$ is $c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v})}})$. In particular, the choice of $v_0$ gives $c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_0})}}) \geq
c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v'})}})$ for every vertex $v' \in G$.
Define graphs $G_0, G_1, \dots, G_{s+1}$ by setting $G_{i+1} = G -
\{v_0, v_1, \dots v_i\}$ for $0 \leq i \leq s$ and $G_0 = G$. Clearly, $G = G_0 \supset G_1 \supset \dots \supset G_{s+1}$. Further, $G_{s+1}$ is the induced subgraph on the vertices adjacent to $v_0$, which is [$\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_0})$]{}.
Since $c_{r+1}(G) = 0$, $c_r({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_0})}}) = 0$, for otherwise, the $r$ vertices of an $r$-clique of [$\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_0})$]{} together with $v_0$ would form an $(r+1)$-clique of $G$. Then $c_r(G_{s+1}) =
0$. Further, since $c_{k+1}(G) > 0$, and $v_0$ is contained in the most $(k+1)$-cliques of any vertex of $G$, $v_0$ is contained in at least one $(k+1)$-clique, and so $c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_0})}}) > 0$. Since $v$ is contained in at least one $(k+1)$-clique of $G$, we have $c_{k+1}(G_{s+1}) < c_{k+1}(G)$.
Then by the second inductive hypothesis, there is some $(r-1)$-colorable complex $C_{s+1}$ such that $c_k(C_{s+1}) =
c_k(G_{s+1})$ and $c_{k+1}(C_{s+1}) = c_{k+1}(G_{s+1})$. Since given any $(r-1)$-colorable complex, there is an $(r-1)$-colorable rev-lex complex with the same face numbers, we can take $C_{s+1}$ to be a rev-lex complex. Further, since $c_{k+1}(C_{s+1})$ and $c_k(C_{s+1})$ only force a lower bound on $c_{k-1}(C_{s+1})$, but not an upper bound, we can take $c_{k-1}(C_{s+1}) \geq
c_{k-1}(G)$.
Let $c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}}) = a_i$ and $c_{k-1}({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}}) =
b_i$. Since $G_{i+1} = G_i - v_i$, $c_{k+1}(G_i) -
c_{k+1}(G_{i+1}) = a_i$ and $c_k(G_i) - c_k(G_{i+1}) = b_i$. We have $c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_0})}}) \geq c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_i})}})$ by the choice of $v_0$. We also have $c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_i})}}) \geq c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}})$ since $G_i \subset G$. Thus $$c_k(C_{s+1}) = c_k(G_{s+1}) =
c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_0})}}) \geq c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G}({v_i})}}) \geq
c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}}) = a_i.$$
Given an $r$-colored complex $C_{i+1}$ such that $c_{k+1}(C_{i+1})
= c_{k+1}(G_{i+1})$, $c_k(C_{i+1}) = c_k(G_{i+1})$, and the induced subcomplex of $C_{i+1}$ on the vertices of the first $r-1$ colors is isomorphic to $C_{s+1}$, we want to construct a complex $C_i$ such that $c_{k+1}(C_i) = c_{k+1}(G_i)$, $c_k(C_i) =
c_k(G_i)$, and the induced subcomplex of $C_i$ on the vertices of the first $r-1$ colors is isomorphic to $C_{s+1}$.
Construct $C_i$ from $C_{i+1}$ by adding a new vertex $v'_i$ of color $r$. Let the $(k+1)$-faces containing $v'_i$ consist of each of the first $a_i$ $k$-faces in rev-lex order of $C_{s+1}$ together with $v'_i$, and let the $k$-faces containing $v'_i$ consist of each of the first $b_i$ $(k-1)$-faces in rev-lex order of $C_{s+1}$ together with $v'_i$.
If this construction can be done, then $c_{k+1}(C_i)$ is the number of $(k+1)$-faces of $C_i$ containing $v'_i$ plus the number of $(k+1)$-faces of $C_i$ not containing $v'_i$, which are $a_i$ and $c_{k+1}(C_{i+1})$, respectively. Then $$c_{k+1}(C_i) = c_{k+1}(C_{i+1}) + a_i = c_{k+1}(G_{i+1}) + a_i =
c_{k+1}(G_i).$$ Likewise, we have $$c_k(C_i) = c_k(C_{i+1}) + b_i
= c_k(G_{i+1}) + b_i = c_k(G_i).$$ Further, it is clear from the construction that the induced subcomplex on vertices of the first $r-1$ colors is unchanged from $C_{i+1}$, and hence is isomorphic to $C_{s+1}$.
In order to show that the construction is possible, we must show that $c_k(C_{s+1}) \geq a_i$ and $c_{k-1}(C_{s+1}) \geq b_i$, and that it is possible for an $(r-1)$-colored complex $C$ to have exactly $c_k(C) = a_i$ and $c_{k-1}(C) = b_i$. For the first of these, we have already shown that $c_k(C_{s+1}) \geq a_i$.
For the second, $c_{k-1}({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}}) = b_i$. But ${\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}} \subset G_i \subset G$, so $$b_i =
c_{k-1}({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}}) \leq c_{k-1}(G_i) \leq c_{k-1}(G) \leq
c_{k-1}(C_{s+1}).$$
For the third, since $G_i \subset G$, we have $c_{r+1}(G_i) \leq
c_{r+1}(G) = 0$, and so $c_{r+1}(G_i) = 0$. Then $c_r({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}}) = 0$. We also have $c_k({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}}) =
a_i$ and $c_{k-1}({\ensuremath{\textrm{lk}_{G_i}({v_i})}}) = b_i$ by the definitions of $a_i$ and $b_i$. Then by the first inductive hypothesis, there is some $(r-1)$-colored complex $C'_i$ such that $c_k(C'_i) = a_i$ and $c_{k-1}(C'_i) = b_i$. Then we can take $C'_i$ to be the $(r-1)$-colored rev-lex complex with $c_k(C'_i) = a_i$ and $c_{k-1}(C'_i) = b_i$. Since $C_{s+1}$ is an $(r-1)$-colored rev-lex complex with $c_k(C_{s+1}) \geq a_i$ and $c_{k-1}(C_{s+1})
\geq b_i$, $C'_i \subset C_{s+1}$, and we can choose the link of $v'_i$ in $C_i$ to be $C'_i$.
We can repeat this construction for each $0 \leq i \leq s$ to start with $C_{s+1}$, then construct $C_s$, then $C_{s-1}$, and so forth, until we have an $r$-colored complex $C_0$ such that $c_k(C_0) = c_k(G)$ and $c_{k+1}(C_0) = c_{k+1}(G)$. This completes the inductive step for the induction on $c_{k+1}(G)$, which in turn completes the inductive step for the induction on $k$. $\Box$
We are now ready to prove the result which immediately implies Theorem \[maintheorem\], and hence establish the Kalai-Eckhoff conjecture, by taking $r$ to be the clique number of $G$.
For every graph $G$ with $c_{r+1}(G) = 0$, there is an $r$-colorable complex $C$ such that $c_i(C) = c_i(G)$ for all $i$.\[restate\]
Proof. By Lemma \[mainlemma\], we can pick an $r$-colored complex $C_i$ such that $c_i(C_i) = c_i(G)$ and $c_{i+1}(C_i) =
c_{i+1}(G)$ for all $i \geq 1$. By Theorem \[coloredKK\], we can take $C_i$ to be the rev-lex complex on $c_i(G)$ $i$-faces and $c_{i+1}(G)$ $(i+1)$-faces, and then $\cup_{i=1}^{r} C_i$ will have the desired face numbers. $\Box$
*Acknowledgements.* I would like to thank my thesis advisor Isabella Novik for suggesting this problem, and for her many useful discussions on solving the problem and writing an article.
[99]{} J. Eckhoff, Intersection properties of boxes. I. An upper-bound theorem, Israel J. Math. 62 (1988) no. 3 283-301. J. Eckhoff, The maximum number of triangles in a $K_4$-free graph, Discrete Math. 194 (1999) no. 1-3 95-106. J. Eckhoff, A new Turán-type theorem for cliques in graphs, Discrete Math. 282 (2004) 113-122. P. Frankl, Z. Füredi, and G. Kalai, Shadows of colored complexes, Math. Scand. 63 (1988) 169-178. G. Katona, A theorem of finite sets, in: Theory of Graphs, Academic Press, New York, 1968, pp. 187-207. J.B. Kruskal, The number of simplices in a complex, in: Mathematical Optimization Techniques, University fo California Press, Berkeley, California, 1963, pp. 251-278. R. Stanley, Balanced Cohen-Macaulay complexes, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 249 (1979) 139-157. R. Stanley, Combinatorics and Commutative Algebra, Second Edition, Birkhauser Boston, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, 1996, 53-64. P. Turán, Eine Extremalaufgabe aus der Graphentheorie Mat. Fiz. Lapok 48 (1941) 436-452. A.A. Zykov, On some properties of linear complexes, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (1952) no. 79.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Generation of neutrino mass in $SO(4)$ model is proposed here. The algebraic structure of $SO(4)$ is same as to that of $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$. It is shown that the spontaneous symmetry breaking results three massive as well as three massless gauge bosons. The standard model theory according to which there exist three massive gauge bosons and a massless one is emerged from this model. In the framework of $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$ a small Dirac neutrino mass is derived. It is also shown that such mass term may vanish with a special choice. The Majorana mass term is not considered here and thus in this model the neutrino mass does not follow seesaw structure.\
PACs: 11.15.Ex; 11.30.Qc; 12.60.Cn; 14.60.Pq; 14.70.Pw\
Keywords: Left Right Symmetry, SO(4) model, Extension of electroweak gauge sectors, Neutrino Mass Generation, Dirac Neutrino mass
author:
- |
Indranath Bhattacharyya\
Department of Mathematics\
Govt. College of Engineering and Ceramic Technology,\
73 A.C. Banerjee Lane, Kolkata-700 010, INDIA\
E-mail : $i_{-}[email protected]$\
title: 'Neutrino mass generation in the SO(4) model'
---
.3in
Introduction:
=============
In the framework of standard model the neutrino is considered as the massless particle. With this motivation it is also been assumed that no right handed neutrino can enter in the theory. The situation became changed when Pontecorvo proposed the neutrino oscillations leading to the nonzero neutrino mass [@Pontecorvo]. After that the solar neutrino problem and atmospheric neutrino anomaly led to the concept of the existence of small non-zero neutrino mass. The neutrino mass physics took a revolutionary shape when at the [*Neutrino’98*]{} (June, 1998) conference in Takayama, Japan, the Super-Kamiokande collaboration announced the discovery of oscillations of the cosmic ray neutrinos, which would clearly indicate the existence of neutrino mass. To explain the mass generation mechanism of the neutrino the standard model theory is needed to be extended. There are a number of such extension models incorporating the neutrino mass. There exist two classes of models where introduction of lepton number violating interactions leads to radiative generation of small neutrino mass. The first one is the Zee model [@Zee] where a charged $SU(2)_{L}$ singlet field $\eta^{+}$ is added to the standard model along with a second Higgs doublet. In the second model, called Babu model [@Babu], one charged field $\eta^{+}$ along with a doubly charged field $h^{++}$ are added to the standard model, but no second Higgs doublet is introduced. There is an another model [@Mohapatra1] where the neutrino mass is generated without including the right handed neutrino in the theory. In this model an additional $SU(2)_{L}$ triplet Higgs field ($\triangle^{++}, \triangle^{+},
\triangle^{0}$) is added and it breaks the lepton number by two units and lead to the Majorana mass [@Majorana] of the neutrinos. In fact, the question is not only how to generate the neutrino mass in the extension of standard model, but also how to fix the smallness of neutrino mass compared to the mass of the charged fermions. Another big question arises that the standard model without right handed neutrino has got the desirable property that anomaly cancellations imply charge quatization [@Golowich-Pal] if there is only one family of fermions. This property is lost in presence of right handed neutrinos, as well as of more than one fermion generation. It has been pointed out [@Babu-Mohapatra] that if the neutrino is considered as Majorana particle then anomaly cancellation would imply charge quantization regardless of the number of generations.\
An elegant way to generate the neutrino mass is to include the right handed neutrinos in the model which leads to the left right symmetric model [@Pati-Salam; @Mohapatra-Pati; @Senjanovic-Mohapatra]. In the standard model $B-L$ is a global symmetry and cannot be gauged. But when the right handed neutrino is included in the model the $B-L$ becomes gaugable and the $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}\times U(1)_{B-L}$ is the gauge group of the left right symmetric model [@Brahmachari; @Mohapatra-marshak]. The seesaw structure of neutrino mass [@Mohapatra-Senjanovic] emerges in this left-right symmetric model. In this method the neutrino mass is generated by the spontaneous breaking of global $B-L$ symmetry. It has also been proposed that the generation of Majorana neutrino mass may be a consequence of the creation of massless Goldstone boson, called majoron [@Mohapatra-Chikashige]. The neutrinoless double beta decay process is supposed to emit the majoron, although such process is subjected to be verified. several experiments have searched for neutrinoless double beta decay, but clear evidence is yet to be found. This majoron can couple to the charged fermions. The upper bound of the strength of Majoron-electron coupling is calculated in the astrophysical consideration (according to standard model of sun) as $g_{eJ}\leq 10^{-10}$ [@Chanda].\
In the present article we have proposed a new mechanism to generate the neutrino mass, which would be simply the Dirac mass term. We have shown here that in the framework of $SO(4)$ model the Dirac mass term of neutrino might be very small without any introduction of Majorana mass term. Hierarchy of the masses in the fermionic sector could be explained well in this $SO(4)$ model. The $SO(4)$ model incorporates both left as well as right hand fields. In Sec-2 we have designed the model to rescue the standard model after the spontaneous symmetry breaking. In Sec-3 we have discussed the mass generation in the fermionic sector and shown how to generate neutrino mass using this left right symmetric model.
Mass generation of Gauge bosons:
================================
It is well known that the $SO(4)$ and $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ have the same Lie Algebraic structures. Therefore, to consider the left-right symmetric $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$ model we can consider simply the $SO(4)$ model. Such model can be thought of as a generalization of the standard model of the electro-weak theory. It is quite reasonable to construct the Lagrangian as, $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\sigma)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i=1}^{3}(\partial_{\mu}\phi_{i})^{2}-\mu^{2}[\sigma^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\phi^{2}]
-\frac{\lambda}{4}[\sigma^{2}+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\phi^{2}]^{2}\eqno{(1)}$$ where, $$\sigma\rightarrow \sigma+\phi_{i}\overline{\Lambda}_{i}\hspace{1cm}
\phi_{i}\rightarrow\phi_{i}+\varepsilon_{ijk}\Lambda_{j}\phi_{j}-\sigma
\overline{\Lambda}_{i}\eqno{(2)}$$ If we consider a new function $\Phi$ s.t. $$\Phi=\left(%
\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma+i\phi_{3} & \phi_{2}+i\phi_{1} \\
-\phi_{2}+i\phi_{1} & \sigma-i\phi_{3} \\
\end{array}%
\right)\eqno{(3)}$$ then the Lagrangian takes the form $$\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{4}Tr[(\partial_{\mu}\Phi^{\dag})(\partial^{\mu}\Phi)]
-\frac{\mu^{2}}{2}Tr[\Phi^{\dag}\Phi]-\frac{\lambda}{8}(Tr[\Phi^{\dag}\Phi])^{2}\eqno{(4)}$$ Our aim is to generate the mass of the gauge bosons. In the framework of standard model theory a mass is produced when a gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken. To make the Lagrangian, given by the equation (4), a gauge invariant we replace the covariant derivative $\partial_{\mu}$ by $D_{\mu}$ as follows: $$D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}+g\sum_{\alpha=1}^{3}\frac{\tau_{\alpha}}{2}L_{\mu}^{\alpha}
-g'\sum_{\alpha=1}^{3}\frac{\tau_{\alpha}}{2}R_{\mu}^{\alpha}\eqno{(5)}$$ Here $L_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ and $R_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ are the gauge fields associated with $SU(2)_{L}$ and $SU(2)_{R}$ respectively. The $\Phi$ defined by the equation (3) has the transformation properties as follows: $$\Phi'=U_{L}\Phi U_{R}^{\dag}\eqno{(6)}$$ where, $$U_{L}\equiv e^{i\Lambda_{L}^{\kappa}\frac{\tau_{\kappa}}{2}}\hspace{1cm}U_{R}\equiv
e^{i\Lambda_{R}^{\kappa}\frac{\tau_{\kappa}}{2}}$$
We would like to design the model in such a way that it generates the masses of all gauge bosons, all known fermions and in addition the neutrino masses. In this model the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken when $\Phi$ takes up the vacuum expectation value, i.e., $$\langle\Phi\rangle=v\left(%
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}%
\right)\eqno{(7)}$$ A small perturbation about $\langle\Phi\rangle$ generates the gauge boson mass. The Lagrangian for the mass term is obtained as $$\mathcal{L}_{mass}=-\frac{v^{2}}{8c_{W}^{2}}\sum_{\alpha}(c_{W}L_{\mu}^{\alpha}
-s_{W}R_{\mu}^{\alpha})^{2}\eqno{(8)}$$ The above Lagrangian shows that we lead to a situation in which three massive fields $c_{W}L_{\mu}^{\alpha} -s_{W}R_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ along with three massless fields $s_{W}L_{\mu}^{\alpha}+c_{W}R_{\mu}^{\alpha}$ are present. From the equation (8) the Lagrangian for the mass terms can also be written as $$\mathcal{L}_{mass}=\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{1}+\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{2}\eqno{(9)}$$ where, $$\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{1}=-\frac{v^{2}}{8}[(L_{\mu}^{1})^{2}+(L_{\mu}^{2})^{2}]-
\frac{v^{2}}{8c_{W}^{2}}[c_{W}L_{\mu}^{3}-s_{W}R_{\mu}^{3}]^{2}
+0[s_{W}L_{\mu}^{3}+c_{W}R_{\mu}^{3}]^{2}\eqno{(9a)}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{2}=-\frac{v^{2}}{8}[(R_{\mu}^{1})^{2}+(R_{\mu}^{2})^{2}]\eqno{(9b)}$$ Let us watch carefully the terms $\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{1}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{2}$. The terms $\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{1}$ looks like the SM Lagrangian for mass terms of gauge bosons. Only difference is that there exists $R_{\mu}^{3}$ field instead of the field $B_{\mu}$. We know the generator $T_{R}^{3}$ is associated with $R_{\mu}^{3}$ whereas $B_{\mu}$ corresponds to $Y$. In the $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}\times U(1)_{B-L}$ framework Gellmann-Nishigima type of relation $$Y=2T_{R}^{3}+(B-L)\eqno{(10)}$$ is well known and in this model the Majorona neutrino mass is generated by the spontaneous breaking of $B-L$ symmetry. But we don’t incorporate the Majorana mass term as $B-L$ maintains a perfect symmetry in the particle world so far the occurrence of double beta decay process is established. Therefore in our model we simply identify $$Y=2T_{R}^{3}\eqno{(11)}$$ and then the equation (9a) becomes $$\mathcal{L}_{mass}=-\frac{v^{2}}{8}[(W_{\mu}^{1})^{2}+(W_{\mu}^{2})^{2}]-
\frac{v^{2}}{8c_{W}^{2}}[c_{W}W_{\mu}^{3}-s_{W}B_{\mu}]^{2}
+0[s_{W}W_{\mu}^{3}+c_{W}B_{\mu}]^{2}\eqno{(12)}$$ with taking $L_{\mu}^{1}=W_{\mu}^{1}$, $L_{\mu}^{2}=W_{\mu}^{2}$, $L_{\mu}^{3}=W_{\mu}^{3}$ and $R_{\mu}^{3}=B_{\mu}$. Thus the standard model is rescued by the equation (12), but in addition to that we get the mass term of $R_{\mu}^{1}$ and $R_{\mu}^{2}$ in equation (9b) that is beyond the standard model scenario. Even no such right hand gauge boson fields have been detected experimentally, although their existence cannot be ruled out. At least we can say that all the known particles, predicted in the standard model theory, are incorporated in the $SO(4)$ model.
Mass generation of fermionic sector:
====================================
Let us now consider the fermionic sector. It is quite clear that the fermion contents in this model are given by $$\left(%
\begin{array}{c}
\nu \\
l \\
\end{array}%
\right)_{L}\equiv
\left(%
\begin{array}{c}
u \\
d \\
\end{array}%
\right)_{L}\equiv(2,1)\hspace{2cm}
\left(%
\begin{array}{c}
\nu \\
l \\
\end{array}%
\right)_{R}\equiv
\left(%
\begin{array}{c}
u \\
d \\
\end{array}%
\right)_{R}\equiv(1,2)$$ where, $\nu, l, u$ and $d$ stand for neutrino, lepton, up and down quark respectively of all three generations.\
In the $SO(4)$ model the Yukawa term of the Lagrangian is taken as $$\mathcal{L}^{Y}=\sum_{f}g_{f}[\left(%
\begin{array}{cc}
\overline{u}^{f} & \overline{d}^{f} \\
\end{array}%
\right)_{L}\left(%
\begin{array}{cc}
v & 0 \\
0 & v \\
\end{array}%
\right)(1-x_{f}\tau_{2})\left(%
\begin{array}{c}
u^{f} \\
d^{f} \\
\end{array}%
\right)_{R}+h.c.]\eqno{(13)}$$ where, $\left(%
\begin{array}{cc}
u^{f} & d^{f} \\
\end{array}%
\right)$ represents a general fermionic doublet and $x_{f}$ represents a real number lying between -1 to 1. From the above Lagrangian we obtain the fermionic mass term as $$\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{Y}=\sum_{f}\frac{g_{f}v}{\sqrt{2}}[(1-x_{f})\overline{u}^{f}u^{f}+(1+x_{f})
\overline{d}^{f}d^{f}]\eqno{(14)}$$ Clearly the difference of the masses of up and down quark (of all generations) arise due to the factor $|x_{f}|=\frac{m_{u_{f}}}{m_{d_{f}}}$. Let us now study the leptonic sector. The mass term generated in the above manner becomes $$\mathcal{L}_{mass}^{l}={g_{l}v}{\sqrt{2}}[(1-x_{l})\overline{\nu}\nu+(1+x_{f})
\overline{l}l]\eqno{(15)}$$ \[Note that in the equation (15) $\nu$ denotes the neutrino of generation $l$ lepton. For the convenience of notation the generation index $l$ is simply dropped from the suffix of $\nu$.\]\
Thus the mass of the neutrino becomes $$m_{\nu_{l}}=\frac{g_{l}v}{\sqrt{2}}(1-x_{l})\eqno{(16)}$$ that is to be identified as the Dirac mass of the neutrino. We see that in the $SO(4)$ model Dirac mass of neutrino can be produced without any difficulty. Also in the leptonic sector there is a scope to recover the standard model theory by assuming $x_{l}=1$ leading zero neutrino mass. Therefore, it is quite clear that $x_{f}$ plays a key role to fix the mass of quark and lepton sector for a given generation. Although we cannot establish any rule to fix the nature of $x_{f}$ for different quarks and leptons, but at least we can say that for $0<x_{l}\ll 1$ a small neutrino mass is obtained.
Discussion
==========
The model that we have discussed here is not only simple, but it also rescues the standard model of the electroweak theory with some special choices. If we look on the well known $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}\times U(1)_{B-L}$ we see that the Majorana mass term of the neutrino is generated by the spontaneous breaking of global $B-L$ symmetry and the unbroken symmetry is $U(1)_{Q}$. Such symmetry breaking occurs in two steps. But in our model the symmetry is broken once from $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$ to $\times SU(2)_{R}$, not to any $U(1)$ symmetry. That is the unbroken symmetry in our model is $\times SU(2)_{R}$. The generator $Y$ is one of three generators of a $SU(2)$ group and ultimately we get $Q$ through the Gellmann-Nishigima relation as in the usual standard model case. However, we cannot detect the fields associated to the other two generators. Another simplicity of $SO(4)$ model is the absence of Majorana type of mass. In this model the Dirac mass term may be very small and thus the smallness of the neutrino mass can be explained without introducing any Majorana mass term. The seesaw structure of the neutrino mass is not emerged in this model. Therefore, the model can be considered as an alternative of the seesaw mechanism.
[99]{} B. Pontecorvo, [*JETP*]{} [**6**]{}, 429 (1957) and [*JETP*]{} [**7**]{}, 172 (1958) A. Zee, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B93**]{}, 389 (1980) K. S. Babu, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 203**]{}, 132 (1988) R. N. Mohapatra, [*arxiv: hep-ph / 9910365*]{} (1999) E. Majorana, [*Nuovo Cim.*]{}, [**14**]{}, 171 (1937) E. Golowiich and P. B. Pal [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D41**]{}, 3537 (1990) K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**63**]{}, 938 (1989) J. C. Pati and A. Salam, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D10**]{}, 275 (1974) R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D11**]{}, 566 and 2558 (1975) G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D12**]{}, 1502 (1975) B. Brahmachari, E. Ma and U. Sarkar, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{}, 011801 (2003) R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**91 B**]{}, 222 (1980) R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**44**]{}, 912 (1980) Y. Chikashige, R.N. Mohapatra and R. D. Peccei, [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**98**]{}, 265 (1981),[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**45**]{}, 1926 (1980) R. Chanda, J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 37**]{}, 2714 (1988)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Hierarchically modular systems show a sequence of scale separations in some functionality or property in addition to their hierarchical topology. Starting from regular, deterministic objects like the Vicsek snowflake or the deterministic scale free network by Ravasz et al., we first characterize the hierarchical modularity by the periodicity of some properties on a logarithmic scale indicating separation of scales. Then we introduce randomness by keeping the scale freeness and other important characteristics of the objects and monitor the changes in the modularity. In the presented examples sufficient amount of randomness destroys hierarchical modularity. Our findings suggest that the experimentally observed hierarchical modularity in systems with algebraically decaying clustering coefficients indicates a limited level of randomness.'
address:
- 'Department of Theoretical Physics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budafoki út 8, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary'
- 'Laboratory of Computational Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O.Box 9400, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland'
author:
- 'D. Nagy'
- 'G. Tibély'
- 'J. Kertész'
title: The effect of disorder on the hierarchical modularity in complex systems
---
,
,
Modularity ,Fractals ,Hierarchical networks ,Average-linkage hierarchical cluster analysis
INTRODUCTION
============
During the last few years a great number of discoveries have formed our view of complex networks. It turned out that the scale-free property is an ubiquitous feature of most real networks, like the World Wide Web, metabolic networks, and collaboration networks, etc. [@Barabási; @Newman]. The hierarchical topology of most of these networks has also been studied [@RavaszBarabási; @hierstruct]. According to recent studies [@Ravasz; @Oltvai], a hierarchically modular organization lies beneath this topology: ’there are many highly integrated small modules which group into a few larger modules, which in turn can be integrated into even larger modules’ [@Ravasz]. The so-called *hierarchical network model* was introduced [@hierstruct], which is a simple illustration of the idea above. However, the modularity of real networks is still an open question. The problem of the unambiguous identification of modules or communities of a system at different hierarchical levels has not been solved ultimately, though important advances have been achieved [@community][^1]. The *average-linkage hierarchical clustering algorithm* [@Eisen] groups the points of a network according to the *topological overlap* between them [@Ravasz]. Modularity is then attributed to the clustered structure of the overlaps and hierarchical modularity is obtained if the observed clusters can be interpreted such, i.e. if the clusters are hierarchically nested. The advantage of this method is that it avoids the delicate problem of a priori identification of modules.
In Ref. [@Ravasz] metabolic networks were studied and the interesting conclusion was drawn that complex networks show hierarchical modularity if they are characterized by a clustering coefficient $C(k)$ decaying with a power law as a function of the degree $k$ of the nodes (often with an exponent close to unity). The clustering coefficient is a measure of the inter-connectedness of the neighbors of a particular node [@Barabási; @Newman; @Dorogov] and it is clearly related to the community structure. In Ref. [@Ravasz] this concept was nicely illustrated by a regular network and used to analyse the experimental data obtained for metabolic networks.
In the present work we address the question of the effect of randomness on the hierarchical modularity. In order to do so we introduce a measure of modularity in scale free (hierarchical) systems without using identification of modules. We apply this concept to randomly rearranged regular fractals and networks.
MODULARITY OF FRACTALS {#sec:Fractals}
======================
The Vicsek Snowflake
--------------------
Understanding the modularity of networks is rather difficult, because it is hidden in the network’s topology. Therefore, first we show the effect of modularity in the case of fractals. We investigated the modularity of *randomly rearranged* Vicsek snowflakes embedded into two dimensions.Our initial object was the well known fractal shown on the left of Fig. \[fig:otherps1\], which has regular self-similarity [@Snowflake]. At the highest hierarchical level, it consists of five well-separated blocks, and each of these blocks contains five smaller blocks in the same fashion, and so on. In our case, this hierarchical structure has a finite resolution, so it repeats itself until reaching an elementary block size or lower cutoff. The fractal’s dimension is given by the formula of $D = \ln 5/\ln 3 \approx 1.465$. Obviously, for the regular fractal, the blocks (which have a finer structure not resolved at this level) can be considered as modules at each level of the hierarchy. As these modules are intact until the next, finer level of the hierarchy is reached, there is a clear sequence of separation of scales: We have *hierarchical modularity*. Our goal is to measure quantitatively how this hierarchical modularity changes at different levels of random rearrangement.
Random Rearrangement of the Vicsek Snowflake {#themodel}
--------------------------------------------
We generated the initial regular Vicsek snowflake by taking a $3^N
\times 3^N$ sized bit matrix evenly filled with *ones*. One bit corresponds to an elementary block of the fractal. Then, starting with the highest hierarchical level, our algorithm ’cut out’ the five largest blocks, by turning the corresponding bits to *zero*. After that, taking the next sublevel, the next twenty five sub-blocks were cut out from the five large blocks having been generated in the previous step. After $N$ cutting steps one gets the expected Vicsek snowflake with finite resolution. The random rearrangement algorithm is based on this cutting method above. We got a continuous set of randomly rearranged fractals with a randomness being controlled by the parameter $p\in[0,1]$ in the following way: At each hierarchical level, we shifted all of the five blocks with probability $p$ to the remaining free spaces in the larger block. More precisely, we tossed for each of the five blocks whether they would be shifted or not, then we cut out the non-shifted ones, and *after* that we randomly placed the remaining ones to the free spaces with uniform distribution. So, before all of the cutting steps our rearrangement algorithm made that draw described above. In this model $p = 0$ corresponds to the original Vicsek snowflake, and $p = 1$ generates a totally random fractal, in which all the five blocks take place in the nine rooms with uniform random distribution at all hierarchical levels. By visual inspection it is clear that the degree of hierarchical modularity decreases as $p$ changes from $0$ to $1$ (see Figs. \[fig:otherps1\] - \[fig:otherps3\]), and in case $p = 1$, it should be vanished (at least on the average). Note that a $p = 1$ fractal is also made in a hierarchical manner, but the applied random rearrangement destroys its regular modular structure by mixing the modules together at every hierarchical level.
![Randomly rearranged fractals of size $N = 7$; $p = 0.8$ (left) and $p = 1$ (right)[]{data-label="fig:otherps3"}](fraktal_0s.eps "fig:"){height="180pt"} ![Randomly rearranged fractals of size $N = 7$; $p = 0.8$ (left) and $p = 1$ (right)[]{data-label="fig:otherps3"}](fraktal_02.eps "fig:"){height="180pt"}
![Randomly rearranged fractals of size $N = 7$; $p = 0.8$ (left) and $p = 1$ (right)[]{data-label="fig:otherps3"}](fraktal_04s.eps "fig:"){height="180pt"} ![Randomly rearranged fractals of size $N = 7$; $p = 0.8$ (left) and $p = 1$ (right)[]{data-label="fig:otherps3"}](fraktal_06.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"}
![Randomly rearranged fractals of size $N = 7$; $p = 0.8$ (left) and $p = 1$ (right)[]{data-label="fig:otherps3"}](fraktal_08s.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"} ![Randomly rearranged fractals of size $N = 7$; $p = 0.8$ (left) and $p = 1$ (right)[]{data-label="fig:otherps3"}](fraktal_1.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"}
Measurement of Hierarchical Modularity {#measurement}
--------------------------------------
In Ref. [@Vicsek] several methods for measuring the dimension of regular fractals were compared. In order to quantify modularity, we apply the *box counting method*, where we cover growing regions of the fractal with a growing square window started from the centre, and at each step we count the mass (the number of elementary blocks) inside the window. By this means, one gets a mass function: the inside mass of the fractal as a function of the linear size of the window. As pointed out in Ref. [@Vicsek], for regular fractals this mass function is not a straight line in a log-log plot: There are periodic deviations due to the above mentioned separation of scales, i.e., due to modularity. Therefore we consider the periodicity of these deviations from the straight lines as the measure of modularity. From our model, presented in Sec. \[themodel\], one gets different deviation functions for different values of $p$. In order to analyse these functions we applied Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to them.
Results
-------
In this subsection we discuss the results of the measurement of modularity described above in Sec. \[measurement\].
The log-log plots of the mass deviation functions as a function of the window size are plotted in Fig. \[fig:devfunc\] for different values of parameter $p$. For non-zero $p$, each curve is the average of $200$ randomly rearranged fractals (with same $p$).
![The deviation functions for fractals $N = 7$ at different levels of randomization. The value of $p$ decreases by $0.2$ from above ($p = 1$, red) to below ($p = 0$, black). In cases $p \neq 0$ we averaged 200 randomly rearranged fractals.[]{data-label="fig:devfunc"}](massdev.eps){width="380pt"}
Apparently, the mass deviation functions reflect the hierarchical modularity of the fractals of different $p$ values. In the $p = 0$ case, the function has an inherent structure corresponding to its high degree of modularity. This scale-free structure is more visible on the farther periods of the function, because there we have more points. This inherent structure of the curves vanishes as $p \rightarrow 1$. The maximum deviation also decreases as we increase $p$, and the functions become smoother and smoother (apart from the basic high peaks with values of $0$), indicating the vanishing modularity of the fractals. The $0$-valued peaks correspond to powers of $3$: when the linear size of the window reaches powers of $3$, the window contains a whole sub-fractal with the exact dimension. This is the consequence of not mixing the elements in a continuous way. The deviation is non-positive for all values of $p$, which can be explained by the geometry of the applied rectangular windowing method in our special case. The vanishing modularity could be better represented taking the FFT spectrum of the functions in Fig. \[fig:devfunc\]. We analysed the last three periods of the functions with FFT, where they have the finest inherent structure. The results are plotted in Fig. \[fig:FFT\].
![The FFT spectrum of the deviation functions of Fig. \[fig:devfunc\]. The value of $p$ increases by $0.2$ from above ($p = 0$, black) to below ($p = 1$, red).[]{data-label="fig:FFT"}](Fourier.eps){width="380pt"}
Because of the triadic organization of the fractals, the fundamental spatial frequency is $f = 1/\log 3 \approx 2.096$. This corresponds to the $0$-valued peaks mentioned above, therefore the first peaks in the FFT spectra are direct consequences of the geometry of our method. For the regular fractal ($p = 0$) one could notice the first, second and third harmonics which indicate the scale-free property of the deviation function. The first harmonics, which indicates the fine structure of the deviation functions, significantly decreases for increasing values of $p$, and the second and third harmonics totally disappear, what verifies the decreasing degree of hierarchical modularity of the fractals for increasing rearrangement probability $p$.
MODULARITY OF NETWORKS
======================
The Randomization of the Hierarchical Network Model
---------------------------------------------------
Our starting point was the deterministic, modular hierarchical network model of Ravasz and Barabási [@RavaszBarabási] (see Fig. \[fig:determ\]).
![The deterministic hierarchical network at different sizes [@RavaszBarabási][]{data-label="fig:determ"}](determ.eps){width="300pt"}
Its main features correspond to the real networks [@RavaszBarabási]: the degree distribution is scale-free, the clustering coefficient is independent of the size, and follows a power-law as a function of degree: $C(k) \propto k^{-\alpha}$. In real networks, $\alpha$ is usually about 1. The regular model also has obviously hierarchically modular structure. As real grown networks are to some extent random, the question raises how the modularity is influenced by the randomness. In order study this problem, we used a link randomization procedure, earlier already applied to investigate the influence of randomness on synchronization [@koreai]. In this model two links were chosen randomly, and one node of both links was exchanged between the two links. This process was executed $M
\times p$ times, where $M$ is the number of the links and $p$ is the control parameter of the randomization. This method conserves the degree distribution, as it does not change the degree of any node. As $p$ increases from $0$ to $1$, the average clustering coefficient $\bar {C}$ first falls rapidly then becomes constant (see Fig. \[fig:cp\]).
![The clustering coefficient as a function of the randomization. Each point represents $200$ networks of $3125$ nodes.[]{data-label="fig:cp"}](cp.eps){width="300pt"}
For $p = 1$, the degree dependence of $C(k)$ has two regions. It seems that the very low degree ($k < 10$) nodes’ behavior is significantly different from the rest. Due to this effect and to the crossover it causes, the asymptotics sets in rather late. However, it is clear that the distribution is very broad and it has possibly a power law tail (Fig. \[fig:ck\]). Also due to the small $k$ anomaly the average $C$ decrease with increasing system size for the considered number of nodes.
![Clustering as a function of degree. The slope of the dotted line is $-0.913$. From the average of $400$ networks of $78125$ nodes, $p = 1$.[]{data-label="fig:ck"}](ck.eps){width="300pt"}
Topological Overlap Matrix
--------------------------
To investigate the presence or absence of modules and hierarchical structure, we used the topological overlap matrix (TOM) of the network [@Ravasz]. The $ij$ element of this matrix, $T_{ij}$ equals the number of mutual neighbours of the nodes $i$ and $j$ (plus $1$ if $i$ and $j$ are connected), normalized by the minimum degree of $i$ and $j$, so $T_{ij}$ is between $0$ and $1$. Thus, the $i$-th row and column represents the overlap of the node $i$ with the other nodes of the network ($T_{ii}$ is defined as $1$). If there is an isolated module of densely interconnected nodes in the network, and rows/columns representing the nodes of the module are close to each other in the topological overlap matrix, the module appears in the matrix as a square centred on the diagonal with elements close to $1$. Of course, to enable this interpretation, the right sequence of the nodes has to be determined, just according to their overlap values, as it is outlined in the next paragraph. The hierarchy of modules is represented by a system of smaller and smaller (and more and more cohesive) squares embedded into the larger squares (in which the overlap of the modules decreases with the module size). These features can be easily observed on the matrix of the deterministic model (Fig. \[fig:tom1\]).
![Topological overlap matrix of the original deterministic hierarchical network. The number of nodes is $625$.[]{data-label="fig:tom1"}](tom1.eps){width="400pt"}
The sequence of the rows/columns representing the nodes in the matrix is essential to recognize the modules and hierarchy. The rows/columns concerning nodes with big overlap have to be next to each other in the TOM, forming squares centred on the diagonal. In order to get the right sequence, we slightly modified the average linkage clustering method [@Ravasz; @Eisen]. The original algorithm builds communities joining nodes into ’supernodes’ (see Fig. ??: hierarchical tree, after a contraction the order in the new supernode has to be determined). In each step two nodes are joined, meanwhile the TOM decreases by one row and column. The basic steps of the algorithm:
- First it finds the highest element in the TOM and contracts the two corresponding nodes into a supernode.
- The corresponding rows and columns of the two original nodes in the matrix are contracted into 1 row and 1 column (matrix elements are averaged), then the next round is started.
- This procedure is repeated until the TOM decreases into a $1\times1$ matrix (every node joined into one supernode).
The previous steps describe the original algorithm. Because it was unable to reconstruct even the simple regular case shown on Fig. \[fig:tom1\], some modifications were applied:
- It is possible that the above algorithm finds more than one elements with the same high value in the same step. In this case the contraction resulting the smallest supernode is performed. If this quantity is also degenerated, then the choice is made at random. The goal of this modification is to make the growing of the supernodes
- We are searching for clusters, not just pairs. Therefore the algorithm examines that the selected contraction is good from the view of building a cluster (containing more than $2$ nodes). If a better contraction is possible, that will be executed.
This way a sequence of contractions emerges. Parallel with the above algorithm placing the contracted nodes next to each other, the ’clustered’ sequence of the nodes appear. To make the above algorithm more clear, there is a small example:
![On the left-hand side, the contraction process is shown for $6$ nodes. On the right-hand side, the resulting dendogram is displayed. Below: the corresponding matrices at timestep $t=0\textrm{(the original TOM)}, 1, 2, 3$. The grey characters are out of interest.[]{data-label="fig:kieg"}](kieg.eps){width="400pt"}
[l l r]{}
0 a b c d e
--- --- ------ ------ ------ ------
a $.1$ $.7$ $.5$ $.3$
b $.2$ $.1$ $.3$
c $.4$ $.3$
d $.3$
&
1 ac b e d
---- ---- ------- ------ ------- --
ac $.15$ $.3$ $.45$
b $.3$ $.1$
e $.3$
&
2 acd b e
----- ----- ------- ------ -- --
acd $.13$ $.3$
b $.3$
\
0.1cm
[l]{}
3 acd be
----- ----- -------- -- -- --
acd $.215$
\
Applying this algorithm, the TOM of the randomized deterministic network is visually interpretable (Fig. \[fig:tom2\]):
![The topological overlap matrix of the randomized ($p = 1$) deterministic hierarchical network ($625$ nodes).[]{data-label="fig:tom2"}](tom2.eps){width="400pt"}
modular organization is not recognizable with this clustering algorithm after the randomization process for $p=1$. This network is therefore scale free, it has a broad, probably power law $C(k)$ distribution – without a modular structure. We would like to make the vanishing of the regular modularity quantitatively accessible in a similar way as in the case of the fractals: First, the elements of the TOM are raised to the third power in order to weaken the influence of the many small elements (to ´make contrast´). Then the elements are projected (summed) perpendicular to the diagonal (note that it means $2N-1$ sums for a $N \times N$ matrix), and the result is Fourier-analysed (Fig. \[fig:tomfft\]).
![FFT spectra of topological overlap matrices. Each curve represents an averaged spectrum over 500 networks of 625 nodes for $p
= 0$ (a), $0.01$ (b), $0.05$ (c), $0.2$ (d), $0.4$ (e), $1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:tomfft"}](tomfft1.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"} ![FFT spectra of topological overlap matrices. Each curve represents an averaged spectrum over 500 networks of 625 nodes for $p
= 0$ (a), $0.01$ (b), $0.05$ (c), $0.2$ (d), $0.4$ (e), $1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:tomfft"}](tomfft2.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"} ![FFT spectra of topological overlap matrices. Each curve represents an averaged spectrum over 500 networks of 625 nodes for $p
= 0$ (a), $0.01$ (b), $0.05$ (c), $0.2$ (d), $0.4$ (e), $1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:tomfft"}](tomfft3.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"} ![FFT spectra of topological overlap matrices. Each curve represents an averaged spectrum over 500 networks of 625 nodes for $p
= 0$ (a), $0.01$ (b), $0.05$ (c), $0.2$ (d), $0.4$ (e), $1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:tomfft"}](tomfft4.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"} ![FFT spectra of topological overlap matrices. Each curve represents an averaged spectrum over 500 networks of 625 nodes for $p
= 0$ (a), $0.01$ (b), $0.05$ (c), $0.2$ (d), $0.4$ (e), $1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:tomfft"}](tomfft5.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"} ![FFT spectra of topological overlap matrices. Each curve represents an averaged spectrum over 500 networks of 625 nodes for $p
= 0$ (a), $0.01$ (b), $0.05$ (c), $0.2$ (d), $0.4$ (e), $1$ (f).[]{data-label="fig:tomfft"}](tomfft6.eps "fig:"){width="180pt"}
A peak in the average of the amplitude-spectra indicates the presence of equal-sized modules. As $p$ increases from zero, the peaks indicating the presence of the 5-node and 25-node modules are decreasing to zero rapidly (see Fig. \[fig:tomfftpeak\]).
![FFT peaks corresponding to the $5$- (a) and $25$-node (b) clusters of the deterministic, hierarchical network as functions of randomization, averages over $500$ networks of size $625$ (squares), $125$ (circles), $25$ (triangles). The amplitudes are normalized by the value corresponding to $p = 0$. []{data-label="fig:tomfftpeak"}](tomfftpeak1.eps "fig:"){width="300pt"} ![FFT peaks corresponding to the $5$- (a) and $25$-node (b) clusters of the deterministic, hierarchical network as functions of randomization, averages over $500$ networks of size $625$ (squares), $125$ (circles), $25$ (triangles). The amplitudes are normalized by the value corresponding to $p = 0$. []{data-label="fig:tomfftpeak"}](tomfftpeak2.eps "fig:"){width="300pt"}
DISCUSSION {#concl}
==========
In this paper we analysed the effect of randomness on the hierarchical modularity of scale free structures. The quantitative analysis was based on an important feature of modularity: the separation of scales. We studied regular structures (Vicsek snowflake, deterministic modular network) where randomness was introduced such that scale freeness and other features (broad distribution of $C(k)$) were maintained. Appropriate characteristics of modularity were chosen using Fourier components of the mass deviation function (for fractals) or of projections of the elements of the TOM (networks). In both cases we observed a significant decrease of hierarchical modularity with increasing randomness. For networks, we also observed a rapid fall for small values of $p$ in the clustering coefficient and in the Fourier peaks, suggesting a crossover similar to the phenomenon described in Ref. [@koreai].
It has to be emphasized that the applicability of the Fourier analysis is based on the fact that the regular, hierarchical structures had a regular scale separation. If the separation of scales is less regular, hierarchical modularity can still exist, however, sufficient randomization would destroy it in this case too. In many real networks signatures of hierarchical modularity could be found [@RavaszBarabási] and the same is true for some model networks like the Holme-Kim [@Holme-Kim; @Szabó] network [@private]. This indicates that the level of irregularity in these networks is far from that reached by randomization in our models.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
================
Thanks are due to T. Vicsek, E. Ravasz and A.-L. Barabási for important discussions.
[00]{}
R. Albert, A-L. Barabási: Statistical Mechanics of Complex Networks, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, pp. 47-97 (2002)
M.E.J. Newman: The structure and function of complex networks, SIAM Review [**45**]{}, pp. 167-256 (2003)
E. Ravasz, A-L. Barabási: Hierarchical organization in complex networks, Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 026112 (2003)
A-L. Barabási, Z. Dezsõ, E. Ravasz, S-H. Yook and Z. Oltvai: Scale-free and hierarchical structures in complex networks, Sitges Proceedings on Complex Networks (2002)
E. Ravasz, et al.: Hierarhical Organization of Modularity in Metabolic Networks, Science [**297**]{}, pp. 1551-1555 (2002)
Z.N. Oltvai, A-L. Barabási: Life’s Complexity Pyramid, Science [**298**]{}, pp. 763-764 (2002)
A. Clauset, M.E.J. Newman, and C. Moore: Finding community structure in very large networks, Phys. Rev. E [**70**]{}, 066111 (2004), G. Palla, I. Derényi, I. Farkas, and T. Vicsek, on community identification by clique percolation (to appear in Nature)
M.B. Eisen, P.T. Spellman, P.O. Brown and D. Botstein: Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**95**]{}, pp. 14863-14868 (1998)
S.M. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes: Evolution of networks, Adv. Phys. [**51**]{}, pp. 1079-1187 (2002)
T. Vicsek: Fractal Models for Diffusion Controlled Aggregation, J. Phys. A16, L647-651 (1983)
T. Tél, Á. Fülöp, T. Vicsek: Determination of fractal dimensions for geometrical multifractals, Physica A [**159**]{}, pp. 155-166 (1989)
E. Oh, K. Rho, H. Hong, B. Kahng: Modular Synchronization in Complex Networks; arXiv:cond-mat/0408202 (2004)
P. Holme B.J. Kim, Phys. Rev. E [**65**]{}, 026107 (2002)
G. Szabó, M. Alava, J. Kertész: Structural Transitions in Scale-free Networks; Phys. Rev. E [**67**]{}, 056102 (2003)
E. Ravasz, private communication
[^1]: In the paper by Clauset et al. [@community] a quantity called modularity is defined based on already identified modules. We want to avoid this a priori identification (which is often a hard task) and we use the term modularity in the every-day sense for systems consisting of well identifiable and separable composite units.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) is an effective method for solving wide fields of convex problems. At each iteration, the classical ADMM solves two subproblems exactly. However, in many applications, it is expensive or impossible to obtain the exact solutions of the . To overcome the difficulty, some proximal terms are added to the subproblems. This class of methods normally solves the original subproblem approximately, and thus takes more iterations. This fact urges us to consider that a special proximal term can lead to a better result as the classical ADMM. In this paper, we propose a proximal ADMM whose regularized matrix in the proximal term is generated by the BFGS update (or memory BFGS) at every iteration. These types of matrices use second-order information of the objective function. The convergence of the proposed method is proved under certain assumptions. Numerical results are to show the effectiveness of the proposed proximal ADMM.'
author:
- Yan Gu and Nobuo Yamashita
bibliography:
- 'LBFGS.bib'
title: An Alternating Direction Method of Multiplier with the BFGS pdate for Structured Convex Quadratic Optimization
---
**Keywords:** alternating direction method , variable metric semi-proximal method, BFGS , limited memory BFGS, convex .
Introduction {#intro}
============
We consider the following convex problem: $$\label{convex}\begin{array}{ll}
\hbox{minimize}& \frac{1}{2}\|Ax-b\|^2+g(x)\\
\hbox{subject to}& x\in \R^n, \\ \end{array}$$ where $g: \R^n \rightarrow \R\cup \{\infty\}$ is a proper convex function, $A\in \R^{m \times n}$ and $b\in \R^m$. For example, “$g$” here can be an indicator function on a convex set or the $l_1$ penalty function $\|x\|_1:=\sum\nolimits_{i=1}^{m}|x_i|$. includes many important statistical learning problems such as the LASSO problem [@tibshirani1996regression]. The number $n$ of variables in these learning problems is usually large.
Let $f(x)=\frac{1}{2}\|Ax-b\|^2$. Then problem can be written as $$\label{cp} \begin{array}{ll}
\hbox{minimize}& f(x)+g(y)\\
\hbox{subject to}& x-y=0 \\
& x, y\in \R^n. \end{array}$$ Let $\L_{\beta}(x,y,\la)$ be the augmented Lagrangian function for defined by $$\label{augL}
\L_{\beta}(x,y,\la):=f(x)+g(y)-\langle\la,x-y\rangle+\frac{\beta}{2}\|x-y\|^2,$$ where $\la\in\R^n$ is multipliers associated to the linear constraints and $\beta>0$ is a penalty parameter.
the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) was proposed by Gabay and Mercier [@gabay1976dual], Glowinski and Marrocco [@glowinski1975approximation] in the mid-1970s. generates sequence via the following :
[\[equ:ADMM\]]{} \[alx\]x\^[k+1]{}=\_[x]{}Ł\_(x,y\^k,\^k),\
\[aly\]y\^[k+1]{}=\_[y]{}Ł\_(x\^[k+1]{},y,\^k),\
\[all\]\^[k+1]{}=\^k-(x\^[k+1]{}-y\^[k+1]{}).
The global convergence of the ADMM - can be established under very mild conditions [@boyd2011distributed].
By noting the fact that the subproblem in - may be difficult to solve exactly in many applications, Eckstein [@eckstein1994some] and He et al. [@HLHY2002] have considered to add proximal terms to the subproblems for different . Recently, Fazel et al. [@fazel2013hankel] proposed the following semi-proximal ADMM scheme:
[\[equ:sADMM\]]{} \[equ:sADMM1\] x\^[k+1]{}=\_[x]{} Ł\_(x,y\^k,\^k) + 12 x - x\^[k]{}\_[T]{}\^2,\
\[equ:sADMM2\] y\^[k+1]{}=\_[y]{} Ł\_(x\^[k+1]{},y,\^k) + 12 y - y\^[k]{}\_[S]{}\^2,\
\[equ:sADMM3\] \^[k+1]{}=\^[k]{}-(x\^[k+1]{}-y\^[k+1]{}),
where ${{\color{black}{\alpha}}} \in (0, (1+\sqrt 5)/2)$, $\|z\|_G = \sqrt {z^ \top Gz}$ for $z \in \R^n$ and $G \in \R^{n \times n}$. Fazel et al. [@fazel2013hankel] its global convergence when $T$ and $S$ are positive semidefinite, which makes the algorithm more flexible. See [@deng2012global; @he2012convergence; @fazel2013hankel; @xu2011class] for a brief history of the development of the semi-proximal ADMM and the corresponding convergence results.
In this paper, we suppose that $y^{k+1}$ in is easily obtained. For example, if $g(y)=\tau \|y\|_1$ with $\tau>0$ and $S=0$, then $y^{k+1}$ within $O(n)$. Then our main focus is how to solve when $n$ is large. We may choose a reasonable positive semidefinite matrix $T$ so that we get $x^{k+1}$ quickly.
One of such examples of $T$ is $T = {{\color{black}{\xi}}} I -A^\top A$ with ${{\color{black}{\xi}}}> \lambda_{\max}(A^\top A)$, Then is written as $$\begin{aligned}
x^{k+1} &=&\arg\min_{x} \left\{ f(x) -\langle \lambda^k, x - y^k\rangle +
\frac{\beta}{2}\|x-y^{k}\|^2+\frac{1}{2}\|x-x^k\|_{T}^2 \right\} \\
&=& \arg\min_{x} \left\{{{\color{black}{\langle Ax^{k}-b, Ax \rangle - \langle \lambda^{k}, x\rangle}}} + \frac{\beta}{2}\|x-y^{k}\|^2+\frac{{{\color{black}{\xi}}}}{2}\|x-x^{k}\|^2 \right\}\\
&=& (\lambda^k + \beta y^k + {{\color{black}{\xi}}} x^k - A^\top A x^k+ A^\top b)/ (\beta + {{\color{black}{\xi}}}).\end{aligned}$$ The other example is $T = {{\color{black}{\xi}}} I - \beta I - A^\top A$ with ${{\color{black}{\xi}}}> \lambda_{\max}(\beta I + A^\top A)$. Then is written as $$\begin{aligned}
x^{k+1}= x^k - {{\color{black}{\xi}}}^{-1}(A^\top A x^k - A^\top b - \lambda^k + \beta x^k - \beta y^k ).\end{aligned}$$ In both cases $x^{k+1}$ is calculated within $O(mn)$. However, since subproblems do not include second-order information on $f$, the convergence of ADMM with such $T$ might be slow.
such that it is positive semidefinite, subproblem is easily solved, and it has some information on $f$. Let $M$ be the Hessian matrix of the augmented Lagrangian function $\L_\beta$, that is $M \colon = \nabla^2_{xx} \L_{\beta}(x,y,\la) = A^\top A + \beta I$. Note that $M \succ 0$ whenever $\beta > 0$. Then, we consider a matrix $B$ that has the following three properties:
$T=B - M$;
$B \succeq M $;
$B$ has some second order information on $M$.
is written as $$\begin{aligned}
x^{k+1}&=&\arg\min_{x} \left\{ f(x) -\langle \lambda^k, x - y^k\rangle +
\frac{\beta}{2}\|x-y^{k}\|^2+\frac{1}{2}\|x-x^k\|_{T}^2 \right\} \\
&=&\arg\min_{x} \left\{ \langle A^\top(Ax^{k}-b)+\beta(x^{k}-y^k)-\lambda^{k}, x \rangle
+\frac{1}{2}\|x-x^{k}\|_{B}^2 \right\} \\
&=&x^{k} - B^{-1}\left(A^\top A x^k - A^\top b - \lambda^k + \beta (x^k - y^k) \right).\end{aligned}$$
In this paper, we propose to construct via the BFGS update at every iteration. $B$ and $T$ at every step depend on $k$, that is, they become $B_k$ and $T_k$, and the resulting ADMM is a variable metric semi-proximal ADMM (short by [VMSP-ADMM]{}) given as:
[\[equ:ADMMB\]]{} \[equ:ADB1\] x\^[k+1]{}=\_[x]{} Ł\_(x,y\^k,\^k) + 12 x - x\^[k]{}\_[T\_k]{}\^2,\
\[equ:ADB2\] y\^[k+1]{}=\_[y]{} Ł\_(x\^[k+1]{},y,\^[k]{}) + 12 y - y\^[k]{}\_[S]{}\^2,\
\[equ:ADB3\] \^[k+1]{}=\^[k]{}-(x\^[k+1]{}-y\^[k+1]{}).
The main contributions of the paper are as follows:
We report some numerical results for the proposed methods which shows that they outperform the existing ADMM when $n$ large.
We define $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ as the standard inner product in $\R^n$: $\langle x, y \rangle = \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i y_i,$ for all $x, y \in \R^n.$ We use $\|\cdot \|$ to denote the 2-norm of a vector: $\|x\| = \langle x, x \rangle ^{1/2}.$ For a real symmetric matrix ${S}$, we ${S}\succeq 0$ (${S}\succ 0$) if ${S}$ is positive semidefinite (positive definite).
ADMM with the BFGS update and its Convergence analysis {#section:convergence}
======================================================
Construction of the regularized matrix TEXT via the BFGS update
---------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Introduction, we propose to construct $T_k$ as $T_k = B_k - M$, where $M = \nabla^2_{xx} \L_{\beta}(x,y,\la)$. We want $T_k$ to be positive semidefinite for global convergence as Moreover we want $B_k$ to be as close to $M$ as possible for rapid convergence. To this end, we propose to generate $B_k$ by with respect to $M$. Then we may consider the BFGS update with a given $s \in R^n$ and $l=Ms$. Note that $s^\top l>0$ when $s\neq 0$. Since BFGS usually constructs the inverse of $B_k$, we let $H_k = B_k^ {-1}.$ Using $H_k$, we can easily solve subproblem .
Now we briefly sketch BFGS and Let $s_{k}=x^{k+1}-x^{k}, l_{k}=M s_{k}$. Then the BFGS for $B_{k+1}$ and $H_{k+1}$ are given as $$\label{bfgsb}
B^{BFGS}_{k+1}=B_{k}+{\frac {{l}_{k}{l}_{k}^\top}{{l}_{k}^\top {s}_{k}}}-{\frac {B_{k}{s}_{k}{s}_{k}^\top B_{k}^\top}{{s}_{k}^\top B_{k}{s}_{k}}},$$
$$\label{bfgsh}
H^{BFGS}_{k+1}=\left(I-{\frac {s_{k}l_{k}^\top}{s_{k}^\top l_{k}}}\right) H_k \left(I-{\frac {l_{k}s_{k}^\top}{s_{k}^\top l_{k}}}\right)+{\frac {s_{k}s_{k}^\top}{s_{k}^\top l_{k}}}.$$ Since $ s_{k}^\top l_{k} >0$, $B_{k+1}^{BFGS}$ and $H_{k+1}^{BFGS}$ are positive definite whenever $B_k, H_k \succ 0$. Moreover $$l_{k}=B_{k+1}^{BFGS} s_{k}~~ \mathrm{and}~~ s_{k} = H_{k+1}^{BFGS} l_{k}.$$
requires only matrix-vector multiplications, which brings the computational cost at each iteration to $O(n^2)$. If the number of variables is very large, even $O(n^2)$ per iteration is too expensive
A less computationally intensive method is the limited memory BFGS method [@nocedal1980updating; @hale2013introduction]. Instead of updating and storing the entire approximated inverse Hessian matrix, the L-BFGS method uses the last $h$ iterations and The updating in L-BFGS brings the computational cost down to $O(hn)$ per iteration.
Property of the regularized matrix TEXT via the BFGS update
-----------------------------------------------------------
For the global convergence, we need $T_k = B_k - M \succeq 0$, that is $B_k \succeq M$. Note that $B_k \succeq M $ is equivalent to $H_k \preceq M^{-1}$, . We will show that $H_k \preceq M^{-1}$ for all $k$ when the initial matrix $H_0$ satisfies $$H_0 \preceq M^{-1}.$$ We first show a technical lemma on $s$ and $l$.
\[lemma:sy\] Let $s \in R^n$ such that $s\neq 0$. Moreover let $l=M s$ and $\Phi=\{ z\in R^n\;|\; \langle s, z\rangle =0\}$. Then for any $v\in R^n$, there exist $c\in R$ and $z\in \Phi$ such that $v=cl+z$.
Let $v\in R^n$. Then there exist $c_1, c_2 \in R$ and $z^1, z^2\in \Phi$ such that $v=c_1 s+z^1$ and $l=c_2 s +z^2$. Since $s^\top l>0$, $c_2 \neq 0$. Thus $s=\frac{1}{c_2} l-\frac{1}{c_2} z^2$. Substituting it into $v=c_1 s+z^1$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
v=c_1\left( \frac{1}{c_2} l-\frac{1}{c_2} z^2\right)+z^1=\frac{c_1}{c_2} l+z^1-\frac{c_1}{c_2}z^2.\end{aligned}$$ Let $c=\frac{c_1}{c_2}$ and $z=z^1-\frac{c_1}{c_2}z^2$. Then $z\in \Phi$ and $v=cl+z$.
Recall the BFGS (\[bfgsh\]) is rewritten as $$\label{eqn:HVS}
{{\color{black}{
H_{\rm next} = H - \frac{H l s^\top + s l^\top H} {s^\top l} + \left(1 + \frac{l^\top H l}{s^\top l}\right) \frac{s s^\top}{s^\top l},
}}}$$ where $H$ is the proximal matrix for the current step and $H_{\rm next}$ is the new matrix generated via BFGS update. Moreover we have $$\label{eqn:HyAy}
H_{\rm next} l =s= M^{-1} l.$$
The following theorem will play a key role the global convergence method.
\[theorem:basic\] Let $s \in R^n$ such that $s\neq 0$, and let $l=M s$. If $H \preceq M^{-1}$, then $H_{ next} \preceq M^{-1}$.
[1.3]{}
Let $v$ be an arbitrary nonzero vector in $R^n$. Let $\Phi=\{ z\in R^n\;|\; \langle s, z\rangle =0\}$. From Lemma \[lemma:sy\] there exist $c \in R$ and $z\in \Phi$ such that $v=cl+z$. It then follows from (\[eqn:HyAy\]) and the definition of $z$ that $$\begin{aligned}
v^\top H_{\rm next} v &=& (cl+z)^\top H_{\rm next} (cl+z) \\
&=& c^2 l^\top s + 2 cs^\top z + z^\top H_{\rm next} z \\
&=& c^2 l^\top s + z^\top H_{\rm next} z \\
&=& c^2 l^\top M^{-1} l+ z^\top H_{\rm next} z.\end{aligned}$$ We now consider the last term of the right-hand side of the last equation. Since $z\in \Phi$, we have $$z^\top \left( \frac{sl^\top}{s^\top l} H \frac{ls^\top}{s^\top l} \right) z= 0,$$ $$z^\top \left( \frac{sl^\top}{s^\top l} H \right) z =0$$ and $$z^\top \left( \frac{ss^\top}{s^\top l} \right) z = 0.$$ It then follows from (\[eqn:HVS\]) that $$z^\top H_{\rm next} z = z^\top {{\color{black}{H}}} z - 2 z^\top \left( \frac{s l^\top}{s^\top l} H\right) z + z^\top \left( \frac{s l^\top}{s^\top l} H \frac{l s^\top}{s^\top l}\right) z + \frac{z^\top s s^\top z}{s^\top l}= z^\top H z.$$ Moreover equation (\[eqn:HyAy\]) implies $$l^\top M^{-1} z= s^\top z =0.$$ Consequently we have $$\begin{aligned}
v^\top H_{\rm next} v &=&c^2 l^\top M^{-1} l+ z^\top H z \\
&\leq &c^2 l^\top M^{-1} l+ z^\top M^{-1} z \\
&=& (cl+z)^\top M^{-1} (cl+z) - 2 cl^\top M^{-1} z \\
&=& v^\top M^{-1} v,\end{aligned}$$ where the inequality follows from the assumption. Since $v$ is arbitrary, we have $H_{\rm next} \preceq M^{-1}$.
This theorem shows that if $H_0 \preceq M^{-1}$, then $H_k \preceq M^{-1}$, and hence $T_k \succeq 0$.
The variable metric semi-proximal ADMM with BFGS and its global convergence {#subsection:convergence}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
initialization
We give some conditions for sequence $\{T_k\}$ that should be obeyed to guarantee the convergence.
\[cond\] For a sequence $\{T_k\}$ in framework , there exist $T \succeq 0$ and a sequence $\{\gamma_k\}$ such that
$T \preceq T_{k+1} \preceq (1+\gamma_k) T_k$ for all $k$,
$\sum\limits_{0}^{\infty} \gamma_k < \infty$ and $\gamma_k \geq 0$ for all $k$.
\[theo:conv\] Let $\{(x^k, y^k, \lambda^k)\}$ be generated by , and let $\{T_k\}$ be a sequence satisfying Condition \[cond\]. Then sequence $\{(x^k, y^k, \lambda^k)\}$ converges to a point $(x^*, y^*, \la^*) \in \Omega^*$.
See Appendix \[section:convergence property\].
.
\[convergence\] Suppose that sequence $\{T_k\}$ is generated by the BFGS (or L-BFGS) update with $M$. Suppose also that $\{T_k\}$ satisfies Condition \[cond\]. Then sequence $\{(x^k, y^k, \lambda^k)\}$ generated by ADM-BFGS converges to a point $(x^*, y^*, \la^*) \in \Omega^*$.
The theorem directly follows from Theorem \[theo:conv\].
Numerical results {#section:numerical}
=================
Conclusions {#section:conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we have proposed a special proximal ADMM where the proximal matrix derived from the BFGS or limited memory BFGS method. Numerical results on several random problems with the large scale data given to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Theorem \[theorem:basic\] holds only when the Hessian matrix of the augmented Lagrangian function, that is, is a constant matrix. As a future work, we will consider more general problems by ADMM with BFGS update whose $x$-subproblems become unconstrained quadratic programming problem as in this paper. Then we may apply Theorem \[theorem:basic\] for global convergence.
[1]{}
Convergence of variable metric semi-proximal ADMM {#section:convergence property}
=================================================
Now we rewrite the iteration . Let Using the first-order optimality conditions the new iterate $(x^{k+1}, y^{k+1})$ is generated by the following procedure.
[step 1:]{} Find $x^{k+1} \in \R^n$ such that ${{\color{black}{\eta_f^{k+1}}}} \in \partial f(x^{k+1})$ and $${{\color{black}{\eta_f^{k+1}}}} - \la^k + \beta(x^{k+1}-y^k) + T_k (x^{k+1} - x^k) = 0,$$
[step 2:]{} Find $y^{k+1} \in \R^n$ such that ${{\color{black}{\eta_g^{k+1}}}} \in \partial g(y^{k+1})$ and $${{\color{black}{\eta_g^{k+1}}}} + \la^k - \beta(x^{k+1}-y^{k+1}) + S (y^{k+1} - y^k) = 0.$$
For $k = 0,1,2,...,$ we use the following notation: $$\label{not}
u^* = \left(\begin{array}{c}x^* \\ y^* \end{array}\right),\; u^k = \left(\begin{array}{c}x^k \\ y^k \end{array}\right),\; w^k = \left(\begin{array}{c}x^k\\ y^k\\ \lambda^k\end{array}\right), \; D_k = \left(\begin{array}{c c}T_k & 0\\ 0 & S\end{array}\right), \; \mathrm{and} \; G_k = \left(\begin{array}{c c c} T_k & 0 & 0\\ 0 & S + \beta I & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\beta}I\end{array}\right).$$ Moreover, for simplicity, we denote are obtained in steps 1 and 2 in VMSP-ADMM.
\[lemma:con\] Let $w^* = (x^*, y^*, \la^*)$, and $\{w^k\}$ be generated by the scheme . Then
The proofs of (i) and (ii) can be found in [@HLHY2002 Theorem 1] and [@HLHY2002 Lemma 3], respectively.
From the definitions of $\{D_k\}$ in , together with $T_k \succeq T \succeq 0, S \succeq 0$ and $\beta >0$, it follows that the sequences $\{D_k\}$ also satisfy $0 \preceq D \preceq D_{k+1} \preceq (1+\gamma_k) D_k$, for all $k$, where $D = \left(\begin{array}{c c} T & 0\\ 0 & S\end{array}\right)\; \mathrm{and} \;
\bar{G} = \left(\begin{array}{c c c} T & 0 & 0\\ 0 & S + \beta I & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{\beta}I\end{array}\right)$, respectively.
We define two constants $C_s$ and $C_p$ as follows: $$\label{conditon:c}
C_s\colon = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \gamma_k \; \; \mathrm{and} \;\; C_p\colon = \prod_{k=0}^{\infty} (1+\gamma_k).$$
implies that $0 \leq C_s < \infty$ and $1 \leq C_p < \infty$. $ T \preceq T_{k} \preceq C_p T_0$ for all $k$, which means that the sequences $\{T_k\}$ and $\{D_k\}$ are bounded.
Now we give the proof of Theorem \[theo:conv\].
First we show that the sequence $\{w^k\}$ is bounded. $$\label{theo:2:2}
\|w^{k+1} - w^*\|_{G_{k+1}}^2 \leq (1+\gamma_k)\|w^{k+1} - w^*\|_{G_k}^2.$$
Combining the inequality with , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{theo:conv:1}
\|w^{k+1} - w^*\|_{G_{k+1}}^2 \leq{}& (1+\gamma_k)\|w^k - w^*\|_{G_k}^2 - (1+\gamma_k)\left( \|u^{k+1} - u^k\|_{D_k}^2 + \beta \|x^{k+1} - y^k\|^2\right) \nn \\
\leq{} & (1+\gamma_k)\|w^k - w^*\|_{G_k}^2 - c_1 \left( \|u^{k+1} - u^k\|_{D_k}^2 + \|x^{k+1} - y^k\|^2\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1 = \min \{1, \beta\}$. It then follows that we have for all $k$, $$\label{theo:conv:2}
\|w^{k+1} - w^*\|_{G_{k+1}}^2
\leq (1+\gamma_k)\|w^k - w^*\|_{G_k}^2
\leq\cdots
\leq {{\color{black}{\left(\prod_{i=0}^{k} (1+\gamma_i)\right)}}} \|w^0 - w^*\|_{G_0}^2
\leq C_p \|w^0 - w^*\|_{G_0}^2.$$
From and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
c_1 \left( \|u^{k+1} - u^k\|_{D_k}^2 + \|x^{k+1} - y^k\|^2\right) \leq \|w^k - w^*\|_{G_k}^2 - \|w^{k+1} - w^*\|_{G_{k+1}}^2 + \gamma_k C_p \|w^0 - w^*\|_{G_0}^2.\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}c_1 \left( \|u^{k+1} - u^k\|_{D_k}^2 + \|x^{k+1} - y^k\|^2\right)
&{} \leq{} \|w^0 - w^*\|_{G_0}^2 - \|w^{k+1} - w^*\|_{G_{k+1}}^2 + \left(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\gamma_k\right) C_p \|w^0 - w^*\|_{G_0}^2 \nn \\
&{} \leq{} (1+ C_s C_p)\|w^0 - w^*\|_{G_0}^2.\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\label{theo:conv:3}
\lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \left( \|u^{k+1} - u^k\|_{D_k}^2 + \|x^{k+1} - y^k\|^2\right) = 0,$$ which indicates that $$\label{theo:lim} \lim_{k\rightarrow \infty} \|x^{k+1} - y^k\| = 0.$$
Since the sequence $\{w^k\}$ is bounded, it has at least one cluster point in $\Omega$. Let be a cluster point of $\{w^k\}$, and let $\{w^{k_j}\}$ be a subsequence of $\{w^k\}$ that converges to point $w^ \infty$.
Since $\{w^{k_j}\}$ converges to $w^\infty$, for any positive scalar $\epsilon$, there exists positive integer $q$ such that $$\label{theo:conv:6}
\|w^{k_q} - w^\infty\|_{G_{k_q}} < \frac{\epsilon}{{{\color{black}{C_p^{\frac 1 2}}}}},$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We extend Agler’s notion of a function algebra defined in terms of test functions to include products, in analogy with the practice in real algebraic geometry, and hence the term preordering in the title. This is done over abstract sets and no additional property, such as analyticity, is assumed. Realization theorems give several equivalent ways of characterizing the unit ball (referred to as the Schur-Agler class) of the function algebras. These typically include, in Agler’s terminology, a model (here called an Agler decomposition), a transfer function representation, and an analogue of the von Neumann inequality. The new ingredient is a certain set of matrix valued functions termed “auxiliary test functions” used in constructing transfer functions. In important cases, the realization theorems can be strengthened so as to allow applications to Pick type interpolation problems, among other things. Principle examples have as the domain the polydisk $\mathbb D^d$. The algebras then include $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$ (where the unit ball is traditionally called the Schur class) and $A(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$, the multivariable analogue of the disk algebra. As an application, it is shown that over the polydisk $\mathbb D^d$, (weakly continuous) representations which are $2^{d-2}$ contractive are completely contractive (hence having a commuting unitary dilation), offering fresh insight into such examples as Parrott’s of contractive representations of $A(\mathbb
D^3)$ which are not completely contractive.
address: |
School of Mathematics and Statistics\
Herschel Building\
Newcastle University\
Newcastle upon Tyne\
NE1 7RU\
UK
author:
- 'Michael A. Dritschel'
title: Realizations via Preorderings with Application to the Schur Class
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The classical realization theorem gives a variety of characterizations of those functions which are in the Schur class over the unit disk $\mathbb D$ in the complex plane $\mathbb C$; that is, those functions in the closed unit ball of $H^\infty(\mathbb D)$.
Jim Agler found a method for extending this result to the polydisk $\mathbb D^d$ [@MR1207393], though for dimension $d$ greater than $2$, one must use a different norm than the $H^\infty$ norm over an algebra of functions which potentially may be a proper subalgebra of $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d)$. The unit ball for such an algebra is now commonly known as the Schur-Agler class; the term Schur class usually being reserved for the unit ball of $H^\infty(X)$ when $X$ is a domain in $\mathbb C^d$. Among other things, the realization theorem states that a complex function $\varphi$ on the polydisk is in the Schur-Agler class if and only if it has a so-called Agler decomposition, expressing $1-\varphi\varphi^*$ as an element of a cone generated by products of certain positive kernels and kernels of the form $1-\psi\psi^*$, where $\psi$ is a coordinate function. Other equivalent conditions for membership in the Schur-Agler class include the existence of a transfer function representation and a von Neumann type inequality for suitably restricted tuples of commuting contractions. The equivalence of all of these conditions makes no a priori assumptions about the function $\varphi$, and it is this which enables the use of the realization theorem in such applications as Pick interpolation.
These results have been vastly generalized, in the spirit of Agler’s work (see, for example, [@MR3057412; @MR2742657; @MR2069781; @MR1937424; @MR3223895; @MR2337640; @MR2595740; @MR2597682; @MR1797710; @MR2899979; @MR2745478]). In particular, for a planar domain $X$ with smooth boundary components, the necessary machinery has been developed to enable Agler’s methods to be applied to the study of $H^\infty(X)$, and as a result, the settling of long-standing problems in operator theory related to these domains [@MR2375060; @MR2163865; @MR2389623; @MR2643788]. When $X$ is the polydisk $\mathbb D^d$, $d\geq 3$, far less is known, though important initial steps have been taken [@MR2502431; @MR2861551]. A central goal of this paper is to give realization theorems for $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d)$, and to apply it to elucidating certain phenomena observed in the study of commuting tuples of contraction operators. Following [@MR2389623], this is done abstractly, with the results for the polydisk constituting a special example. Indeed, the results cover a wide range of domains and function algebras on these domains, while at the same time demonstrating that assumptions of such properties as analyticity are in general unnecessary.
The Agler decomposition has its analogues in real algebraic geometry. For example, if we have a set in $\mathbb R^n$ consisting of those points at which a finite collection of polynomials is non-negative (a so-called basic semi-algebraic set), and these polynomials also include $1-\psi_i^2$ where each $\psi_i$ is a constant multiples of a coordinate function, then Putinar’s theorem [@MR1254128] (see also [@MR1829790]) states that a strictly positive polynomial is in the quadratic module generated by these polynomials; that is, it is in the cone generated by finite sums of squares of polynomials times the individual polynomials defining the semi-algebraic set. If however the polynomials $1-\psi_i^2$ are not necessarily included, the statement of Putinar’s theorem is in general false, even if the semi-algebraic set is assumed to be compact [@MR1829790]. However the situation can be salvaged in the compact setting by replacing the quadratic module by a preordering; that is, by considering the cone generated by finite sums of squares of polynomials multiplied by the various products of the polynomials defining the semi-algebraic set. This is the content of Schmüdgen’s theorem [@MR1092173]. Further refinements are possible. For example, if only two polynomials define the compact semi-algebraic set then one can get by with the quadratic module in Schmüdgen’s theorem ([@MR1829790 Corollary 6.3.7]), which because of Andô’s theorem is analogous to what happens in the complex case with Agler’s realization theorem.
Back in the complex function setting, work of Grinshpan, Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi, Vinnikov and Woerdeman [@MR2502431] shows that on the polydisk for dimension greater than $2$, one can recover the entire Schur class by using the appropriate variant of a preordering (see also Knese [@MR2861551]). The caveat is that they find it necessary to assume that the function they are considering is already known to be in the Schur class, and so there is no direct application to Pick interpolation in the Schur class.
Another hurdle to using the results in [@MR2502431] for interpolation is that the crucial transfer function representation is absent, though they do prove that a form of the von Neumann inequality is available. A particularly interesting aspect of [@MR2502431] is that the tuples of operators the authors are considering have a unitary dilation, obtained by showing that they induce a completely contractive representation of $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d)$ and then applying the standard machinery. There are many papers which consider the problem of determining conditions under which a tuple of commuting contractions has a unitary dilation, including those of Ball, Li, Timotin and Trent [@MR1722812] and Archer [@MR2308555], which prove a multivariable form of the commutant lifting theorem.
This paper has several goals. The first is to place the work of Grinshpan, Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi, Vinnikov and Woerdeman in the context of test functions on a set $X$, in this way allowing for a much broader class of function algebras. For example, there will be analogues, written ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, of the algebra $H^\infty(\mathbb D)$. The set $X$ can be topologized and closed in an appropriate norm, which allows us to make sense of the analogues ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ of the disk algebra $A(\mathbb D)$, in this context; that is, elements ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which extend continuously to the closure of $X$. It is noteworthy that there are *a priori* no assumptions made on the set $X$ or on the set of test functions (such as analyticity).
To begin with, a careful examination of the continuity properties of elements of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is carried out. Following this, we introduce the auxiliary test functions. In contrast to the original test functions, which are taken to be scalar valued, these are matrix valued functions. Moreover, in the setting of the so-called standard ample preordering, the auxiliary test functions can be taken to be functions in matrix valued ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, and the Schur-Agler class corresponding to these functions is the unit ball of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. As a consequence, we are then able to give a full version of the realization theorem, including the transfer function representation and analogues of the von Neumann inequality. Importantly, none of the realization theorems requires the assumption that the function under consideration is already in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. Thus in principle, in the ample case such applications as Agler-Pick interpolation are possible.
Even if the preordering is not ample, we show that elements of our generalized Schur-Agler class have a transfer functions representation, though it is not clear that everything with a transfer function representation is in our algebra except in the ample and the classical settings. However, the transfer functions with values in $\mathcal{L(H)}$ do form the unit ball of an algebra having a natural matrix norm structure, and so form an operator algebra. This nicely complements work in [@MR2595740], where it is shown that a collection of analytic (potentially matrix valued) test functions over a domain in $\mathbb C^n$ generate an operator algebra, and that a transfer function representation exists for the functions in this algebra; that is, such algebras are examples of transfer function algebras.
We are able to show that for transfer function algebras, certain types of representations (the so-called Brehmer representations over the analogue of the disk algebra and the weakly continuous Brehmer representations over the analogue of $H^\infty$) are completely contractive, implying the existence of a dilation of such a representation to something akin to a boundary representation (though without the assumption of irreducibility). This includes those representations which are contractive on the auxiliary test functions in the ample setting when we know these functions are in a matrix version of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$, meaning that such representations are also completely contractive. As a consequence, any representation which is $n$-contractive for appropriate $n$ (depending only on the number of test functions) will be completely contractive for ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$. Curiously, the condition of being a Brehmer representation does not obviously imply that the representation is contractive on auxiliary test functions, though this is ultimately an outcome of the realization theorems.
As mentioned above, the case when $X$ is the polydisk is of particular interest. Then the ample preordering gives $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,
\mathcal{L(H)})$. Since the auxiliary test functions are not given constructively, determining if a representation is contractive on these is in general difficult, but as mentioned above, $n$ contractive representations will be completely contractive if $n$ is sufficiently large. In the classical setting of Agler’s realization theorem for the polydisk the auxiliary test functions are simply the test functions, and by our definition, the Brehmer representations are in this case just those representations mapping the coordinate functions to commuting contractions. Such representations are also completely contractive on $A(\mathbb D^d)$ with respect to the appropriate matrix norm structure (something which can also be gleaned from results in [@MR2595740]). At first sight, this might seem paradoxical given Parrott’s example of a commuting triple of contractions without a unitary dilation. However since the matrix norm structure is not that of $H^\infty$ with the supremum norm, there is in fact no problem. Indeed, we show that there are choices in the Parrott example which give rise to a boundary representation (in the sense of Arveson), since it will be irreducible and not only will there be no commuting unitary dilation of the image of the coordinate functions, but in fact the only commuting contractive dilation is by means of a direct sum. Several other matrix valued boundary representations are also explicitly given, one arising from and example of Grinshpan, Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi and Woerdeman [@MR3057417], and another constructed from the Kaijser-Varopoulos example. It is also not difficult to see that the Crabbe-Davie example also gives a boundary representation. All of these send the coordinate functions to nilpotent matrices, though it can be shown that there must exist examples which are neither commuting unitaries nor unitarily equivalent to commuting nilpotents.
Finally, we demonstrate that in the setting of ample preorderings, Andô’s theorem allows us to instead consider so-called nearly ample preorderings. With this we are able to recover the full extent of the results of Grinshpan, Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi, Vinnikov and Woerdeman,and even generalize it, and at the same time improve the result mentioned in the previous paragraph by proving that when $d\geq
2$, for $n=2^{d-2}$, $n$-contractive weakly continuous representations of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and $n$-contractive representations of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ are completely contractive. In particular, over the polydisk the images of the coordinate functions under such a representation will be commuting contractions with a commuting unitary dilation. Viewed another way, any example such as Parrot’s of a representation of $A(\mathbb D^3)$ which is contractive but not completely contractive must fail to be $2$-contractive.
Test functions, preorderings, function spaces and topology {#sec:test-fns-preord-top}
==========================================================
Test functions and preorderings {#subsec:test-funct-preord}
-------------------------------
Let $X$ be a set, $\mathcal H$ a Hilbert space, and $\Psi$ a collection of $\mathcal{L(H)}$ valued functions on $X$. We call $\Psi$ a set of **test functions** if for $x\in X$, $\sup_{\psi\in\Psi} \|\psi(x)\| < 1$, and when restricted to any finite set, $\Psi$ generates all functions on that set (equivalently in the scalar valued case we are considering, $\Psi$ separates the points of $X$). *We assume that the test functions we are dealing with are complex valued, though we later construct certain matrix valued test functions from these*.
There are many interesting situations where the collection of test functions is infinite [@MR2389623]. *However, for this paper our focus will solely be on the situation when $d = |\Psi| :=
\mathrm{card}\,\Psi$ is finite*, though many of the initial results are valid in any case. This assumption has the advantage of allowing us to, among other things, avoid additional complexities in the proof of the realization theorems, since when $|\Psi|$ is finite certain representations in which we will be interested have a particularly simple form.
We use standard tuple notation on $\bigoplus_1^d \mathbb N$, $d$-tuples of non-negative integers $(n_i)$, endowed with the partial ordering $n' \leq n$ if and only if $n'_i \leq n_i$ for all $i$. If $n = (n_i) \in \bigoplus_1^d \mathbb N$, we write $|n|$ for the sum of the entries of $n$. Also, we denote by $e_i$ the tuple with all entries except the $i$th equal to zero, while the $i$th is $1$, and $0$ for the tuple where all entries are zero, and $1$ will stand for the tuple with all entries equal to $1$. We use the notation $\psi^n$ to stand for $\textstyle\prod \psi_i^{n_i}$, where the product is over the $n_i \in n$ which are nonzero.
By a **preordering** we mean a finite set $\Lambda \subset
\bigoplus_1^d \mathbb N$ with the property that for all $i$, $e_i <
\lambda$ for some $\lambda\in\Lambda$. This is at variance with the usual definition from real algebraic geometry, but happens to be more convenient in our context. The connection with the standard form should become apparent to those familiar with it.
We will see in the next section that for the applications we have in mind, the preordering is not unique, and in fact there are two rather special preorderings associated to any given preordering $\Lambda$. The first is the **minimal preordering** $\Lambda_m$, which is constructed from $\Lambda$ as the union of all $\lambda\in\Lambda$ such that if $\lambda'\in\Lambda$ and $\lambda \leq \lambda'$, then $\lambda' = \lambda$. In other words, the minimal preordering consists of the union of the maximal elements $\Lambda$. The other is the **maximal preordering** $\Lambda_M := \{\lambda\in
\bigoplus_{\psi\in\Psi} \mathbb N : \lambda \leq \lambda' \text{ for
some } \lambda'\in\Lambda\}$. Hence if $\lambda' \in\Lambda$ and $\lambda \leq \lambda'$, then $\lambda\in\Lambda_M$.
We find it convenient to decompose any maximal preordering $\Lambda_M$ as a disjoint union $\bigcup_{j=0}^\infty \Lambda_j$, where $\lambda
\in \Lambda_j$ if and only if $|\lambda| = j$. Thus the only element of $\Lambda_0$ is $0$, those in $\Lambda_1$ are the $e_i$s, and so on. Set $\Lambda_+, \Lambda_-$ equal to the union over $\Lambda_j$s where the index is even and odd, respectively. Now for any $\lambda \in
\Lambda_M$, there are $2^{|\lambda|}$ elements $\Lambda_M$ which are less than or equal to $\lambda$, half of which are in $\Lambda_+$ and half in $\Lambda_-$. For the purposes of fixing a clear labeling on certain vectors later on, we use the ordering on $\Psi$ to endow $\Lambda_M$ with the lexicographic ordering $\leq_\ell$.
Since $d = |\Psi| < \infty$, of particular interest will be the so-called **ample preorderings**. These are preorderings which have a largest element; that is, a unique maximal element, $\lambda^{m}$. When $\lambda^m = 1$, we call the resulting preordering a **standard ample preordering**. Thus if $\Lambda$ is an ample preordering, the corresponding maximal preordering has the form $\Lambda := \{\lambda\in \mathbb N^d : \lambda \leq \lambda^m
\}$. A minimal ample preordering thus consists of a single element, $\Lambda_m = \{\lambda^m\}$.
Let $\Lambda$ be ample with maximal element $\lambda^m$, and $\lambda^1,\lambda^2 < \lambda^m$ where $\lambda > \lambda^1$ or $\lambda^2$ implies $\lambda = \lambda^m$. Then for $j=1,2$, $\lambda
= \lambda^j + e_{\ell_j}$ for some $e_{\ell_j}$, where the addition is entrywise. A preordering $\Lambda_s \subset \Lambda$ with the property that $\lambda^1$ and $\lambda^2$ are maximal elements in $\Lambda_s$ is termed a **nearly ample preordering** under $\lambda^m$, and a **standard nearly ample preordering** when $\lambda^m = 1$.
A simple (indeed, unique) example of a standard nearly ample preordering when $d = |\Psi| =2$ is $\lambda^1 =(1,0)$, $\lambda^2 =
(0,1)$. For $d=3$, there are three choices of minimal standard nearly ample preordering, such as for example, $\lambda^1 =(1,1,0)$, $\lambda^2 = (1,0,1)$.
Kernels and function spaces {#subsec:kern-funct-spac}
---------------------------
Write $\mathcal{L(H)}$ for the bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$, $\mathcal{L(H,K)}$ for the bounded linear operators mapping between Hilbert spaces $\mathcal H$ and $\mathcal
K$.
Let $\{\sigma_\lambda\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ be a collection of $n_\lambda\times n_\lambda$ matrix valued functions on $X$ such that for each $x$,$\sup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\|\sigma_\lambda(x)\| < 1$. (These will later be the auxiliary test functions.) Define bounded functions $E_x$ on $\Lambda$ by $E_x(\lambda) = \sigma_\lambda(x)$. We use the notation $C_b(\Lambda)$ for the unital $C^*$-algebra generated by these functions. This is a finite dimensional algebra of dimension at most $\sum_\lambda n_\lambda$. As such, it is isomorphic to a direct sum of matrix algebras, and consequently, any representation will be (isomorphic to) a direct sum of identity representations applied to these matrix algebras. More specifically, for $\rho : C_b(\Lambda) \to \mathcal{L(E)}$, there will be orthogonal projections $P_\lambda$ with orthogonal ranges such that $\mathcal E =
\bigoplus_\lambda {{\mathrm{ran}\,}}P_\lambda \otimes \mathbb C^{n_\lambda}$, and $\rho(E_x) = \bigoplus_\lambda P_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda(x)$.
Let $\mathcal A$ and $\mathcal B$ be $C^*$-algebras. A kernel $\Gamma:X\times X \to \mathcal{L}(A,B)$ is called **completely positive** if for all finite sets $\{x_1,\dots,x_n\} \subset X$, $\{a_1,\dots,a_n\} \subset \mathcal A$ and $\{b_1,\dots,b_n\} \subset
\mathcal B$, $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n {{
\left<
\Gamma(x_i,x_j)(a_ia_j^*)b_i,b_j
\right>}} \geq 0.$$ A theorem due to Bhat, Barreto, Liebscher and Skeide [@MR2065240 Theorem 3.6] shows that this is equivalent the the condition that for finite sets $\{x_1,\dots,x_n\} \subset X$, the matrix $(\Gamma(x_i,x_j))$ is a completely positive map from $M_n(\mathcal A)$ to $M_n(\mathcal B)$, and that this is further equivalent to the existence of a Kolmogorov decomposition for $\Gamma$. We state a special case of this suited to our purposes.
\[prop:factorization\] Let $\mathcal H$ be a Hilbert space. The kernel $\Gamma:X\times X
\to \mathcal{L}(C_b(\Lambda), \mathcal{L(H)})$ is $($completely$)$ positive if and only if it has a **Kolmogorov decomposition**; that is, there exists a Hilbert space $\mathcal E$, a function $\gamma: X \to \mathcal{L(E,H)}$ and a unital $*$-representation $\rho:C_b(\Lambda) \to \mathcal{L(E)}$ such that $$\Gamma(x,y)(fg^*) = \gamma(x)\rho(f) \rho(g)^* \gamma(y)^*$$ for all $f,g\in C_b(\Lambda)$.
In the case of kernels $k:X\times X \to \mathcal{L(H)}$, which corresponds to replacing $C_b(\Lambda)$ by $\mathbb C$, it follows from standard results on completely positive maps, that positivity implies complete positivity. The existence of a Kolmogorov decomposition of positive operator valued kernels is originally due to Mlak [@MR0222712]. We use the notation $\mathbb
K_X^+(C_b(\Lambda), \mathcal{L(H)})$ for the set of completely positive kernels on $X\times X$ with values in $\mathcal L
(C_b(\Lambda), \mathcal{L(H)})$.
For a fixed preordering $\Lambda$, the collection of kernels $$\begin{split}
\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H} := &\left\{ k :X\times X \to
\mathcal{L(H)} : k\geq 0 \text{ and for each }
\lambda \in \Lambda,
\vphantom{\textstyle\prod_{\lambda\ni\lambda_i\neq 0}}\right. \\
&\hphantom{k :X\times X \to \mathbb \mathcal{L(H)} : }
\left.\textstyle\prod_{\lambda\ni\lambda_i\neq 0}
([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - (\psi_i\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})(\psi_i^*\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}))^{\lambda_i}*k \geq 0\right\},
\end{split}$$ are termed the **admissible kernels**. Here the kernel $[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}]$ has all entries equal to $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, the identity operator on $\mathcal H$, “$*$” indicates the pointwise or Schur product of kernels, and $([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] -
(\psi_i\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})(\psi_i^*\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}))^{\lambda_i}$ is the $\lambda_i$-fold Schur product of $[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - (\psi_i\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})(\psi_i\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})^*$. In the non-scalar case we interpret this Schur product as follows: for a kernel $F$ over $X\times X$, $$\left(([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - (\psi_i\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})(\psi_i\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})^* *
F\right)(x,y) := F(x,y) - (\psi_i(x)\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})F(x,y)(\psi_i(y)\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})^*.$$ More generally, if $F=ff^*$ and $G=gg^*$ are Kolmogorov decompositions of two positive kernels over Hilbert spaces $\mathcal F$ and $\mathcal
G$, respectively, then $$F*G(x,y) = (f(x)\otimes g(x))(f(y)\otimes g(y))^*.$$ It is clear that the resulting kernel is positive.
The kernels in $\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ are then used to define the Banach algebra ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ consisting of those functions $\varphi : X \to \mathcal{L(H)}$ for which there is a finite constant $c\geq 0$ such that for all $k\in \mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, $$(c^2[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*k \geq 0,$$ and $\|\varphi\|$ is defined to be the smallest such $c$. We call the resulting algebra the **Agler algebra** and the norm the **Schur-Agler norm**. Denote the unit ball in this norm by ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. This is referred to as the **Schur-Agler class**. In case the Agler algebra is isometrically isomorphic to $H^\infty(X)$, the unit ball is usually simply called the **Schur class**. It is not difficult to see that the function $1_X$ equaling $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ at all $x$ is in ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ since $[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] = 1_X1_X^*$. If $\mathcal{L(H)} = \mathbb C$, we write ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ and ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ for ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, respectively.
There are obvious modifications of these definitions which we will not explicitly state in the case of matrix valued test functions. For this setting, it will still be the case that the Agler algebra norm dominates the supremum norm.
For $\varphi \in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, we can also define a norm by $\|\varphi\|_\infty := \sup_{x\in X} \|\varphi(x)\|$. This will in general be different from the norm defined above. Furthermore, since the kernel $$k(y,z) =
\begin{cases}
1 & y=z; \\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ is admissible, it is apparent that $\|\varphi\|_\infty \leq
\|\varphi\|$.
Two preorderings $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ are **equivalent preorderings** if for all Hilbert spaces $\mathcal H$, $\mathcal
K_{\Lambda_1,\mathcal H} = \mathcal K_{\Lambda_2,\mathcal H}$, and consequently they generate the same Banach algebras.
\[lem:preorderings\_are\_equivalent\] Any preordering $\Lambda$ is equivalent to both its minimal preordering $\Lambda_m$ and its maximal preordering $\Lambda_M$.
We prove the lemma when $\mathcal H = \mathbb C$, the other cases following in an identical manner.
It is clear that $\mathcal K_{\Lambda_M} \subseteq \mathcal
K_\Lambda \subseteq \mathcal K_{\Lambda_m}$, so it suffices to ascertain that if $k\in \mathcal K_{\Lambda_m}$ and $\lambda \in
\Lambda_M$, then $$\prod_{\lambda\ni\lambda_i\neq 0} (1 -
\psi_i\psi_i^*)^{\lambda_i}*k \geq 0.$$
Choose $\lambda' \in \Lambda_m$ such that $\lambda' \geq \lambda$. We may assume that $\lambda' \neq \lambda$, since otherwise there is nothing to show. Hence there is some $i$ such that $p =
\lambda'(i)- \lambda(i) > 0$. The kernel $k_{\psi_i}$ with $$k_{\psi_i}(x,y) = (1-\psi_i(x)\psi_i(y)^*)^{-1} = \sum_n
\psi_i^n(x)\psi_i^{n*}(y),$$ is positive on $X$. The Schur product of positive kernels is positive, so if we set ${\tilde\lambda} = \lambda' - p
e_{\lambda_i}$ (the arithmetic done in the standard way), we find that $$\prod_{\tilde\lambda\ni\lambda_i\neq 0} (1 -
\psi_i\psi_i^*)^{\lambda_i}*k
= k_{\psi_i}^p * \prod_{{\tilde\lambda} \ni \lambda_i
\neq 0} (1 - \psi_i\psi_i^*)^{\lambda_i}*k \geq 0.$$ Continuing through those $i$ such that $\lambda'(i) > \lambda(i)$, after a finite number of steps we achieve the desired result.
\[lem:preorderings\_order\_adm\_kers\] Given two preorderings $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$, if for the corresponding maximal preorderings $\Lambda_{1,M} \subseteq
\Lambda_{2,M}$, then $\mathcal K_{\Lambda_2,\mathcal H} \subseteq
\mathcal K_{\Lambda_1,\mathcal H}$. Consequently, $H^\infty(X,\mathcal K_{\Lambda_1,\mathcal H}) \subseteq
H^\infty(X,\mathcal K_{\Lambda_2,\mathcal H})$, with the norm of any element in the first algebra greater than or equal to the value of the norm of that element in the second.
If $\Lambda_{1,M} \subseteq \Lambda_{2,M}$ , then every element $\lambda_1 \in \Lambda_{1,M}$ is less than or equal to a maximal element $\lambda_2^M \in \Lambda_{2,M}$, and so the first statement follows by arguing as in the last lemma. The other statements are immediate from the definitions of the admissible kernels and corresponding algebras.
We say that a kernel $\tilde k$ is **subordinate to** another kernel $k$ if there is a positive kernel $F$ such that $\tilde k =
k*F$. It is clear that if $G$ is a difference of positive kernels such that $G*k \geq 0$ and $\tilde k$ is subordinate to $k$, then $G*\tilde k \geq 0$. Hence if $k$ is an admissible kernel, any kernel subordinate to $k$ is also admissible.
The admissible kernels are particularly simple when we are dealing with standard ample preorderings, since they are all subordinate to a single kernel.
\[lem:adm\_kernels\_for\_ample\_po\] Let $\Lambda$ be a standard ample preordering over $\Psi =
\{\psi_1,\dots,\psi_d\}$. Then every kernel in $\mathcal
K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ is subordinate to $$k_s(x,y) := \left( 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes \prod_{j=1}^d
(1-\psi_j(x)\psi_j(y)^*)^{-1} \right).$$
Obviously $k_s$ is an admissible kernel, since it is the inverse with respect to the Schur product of $\left(
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes \prod_{j=1}^d
(1-\psi_j(x)\psi_j(y)^*)\right)$. Hence if $k$ is an admissible kernel, so that $(\prod_{j=1}^d (1-(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi_j(x))(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes \psi_j(y)^*)) k(x,y)) =
(F(x,y)) \geq 0$, then $k$ is seen to be subordinate to $k_s$.
The lemma implies that when $\Lambda$ is a standard ample preordering, it suffices to check membership in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ against the single kernel $k_s$. There is an obvious version of this for ample preorderings as well, but since we will primarily be interested in the standard case, we do not state it.
\[cor:po\_for\_polydisk\] For $X = \mathbb D^d$ with $\Psi = \{z_1,\dots,z_d\}$ the coordinate functions and $\Lambda$ the standard ample preordering, ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}=
H^\infty(\mathbb D^d, \mathcal{L(H)})$, and all admissible kernels are subordinate to $k_s\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, where $k_s$ is the Szegő kernel $$k_s(z,w) = \prod_{i = 1}^d (1 - z_i w_i^*)^{-1}.$$
This follows from the observation that $\varphi$ is in the unit ball of $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d, \mathcal{L(H)})$ if and only if $([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*(k_s\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}) \geq 0$, where $k_s = \prod_{j=1}^d
(1-z_jz_j^*)^{-1}$ is the Szegő kernel for the polydisk.
The realization theorem for the Schur class of the disk and Agler’s generalization {#subsec:real-theor-schur}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The now classical realization theorem is an amalgam of various results, all characterizing the Schur class for the unit disk $\mathbb
D$ (that is the unit ball of $H^\infty(\mathbb D)$). We state here the operator valued generalization (see, for example, [@MR1637941]).
\[thm:classical-realization\] Let $\varphi : \mathbb D \to \mathcal{L(H)}$. The following are equivalent:
1. $([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}]-\varphi \varphi^*)*k_s \geq
0$, where $k_s(z,w) = (1-zw^*)^{-1}$ is the Szegő kernel, or equivalently, $\varphi \in H_1^\infty(\mathbb D,\mathcal{L(H)})$; that is, $\varphi$ is in the Schur class;
2. There is a positive kernel $\Gamma:\mathbb D \times
\mathbb D \to \mathcal{L(H)}$ such that $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} -
\varphi(z) \varphi(w)^* = \Gamma(z,w)(1-zw^*)$;
3. There is a Hilbert space $\mathcal E$ and a unitary operator $U = \begin{pmatrix} A & B \\ C & D \end{pmatrix}$ in $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{E} \oplus \mathcal{H})$ such that $$\varphi(z) = D+Cz(I-Az)^{-1}B;$$
4. For every $T\in \mathcal{L(K)}$, $\mathcal K$ a Hilbert space, with $\|T\| < 1$, $\|\varphi(T)\| \leq 1$.
The last item is a version of von Neumann’s inequality. If $\varphi\in A(\mathbb D,\mathcal{L(H)})$, the operator valued version of the disk algebra, then we may instead simply assume that $\|T\|
\leq 1$ in von Neumann’s inequality. We interpret $\varphi(T)$ as $D+(C\otimes T)(I-(A\otimes T))^{-1}B$. The third item is referred to as a transfer function representation, and $(\mathcal H,U)$ is called a unitary colligation. The terminology comes from systems theory. The second item is called the Agler decomposition. In this case it is a trivial restatement of the first item. It becomes less trivial in the next theorem, which in the scalar version is due to Jim Agler [@MR1207393] (see [@MR1637941] for the operator valued case). We state it in terms of preorderings.
\[thm:Aglers-realization\] Fix $d\in\mathbb N$, $\Lambda^o = \{e_j\}_{j=1}^d$ and let $\varphi
: \mathbb D^d \to \mathcal{L(H)}$. The following are equivalent:
1. $([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}]-\varphi \varphi^*)*k \geq 0$ for all $k\in \mathcal K_{\Lambda^o,\mathcal H}$, or equivalently $\varphi \in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$; that is, $\varphi$ is in the Schur-Agler class;
2. There are positive kernels $\Gamma_j:\mathbb D
\times \mathbb D \to \mathcal{L(H)}$, $j=1,\dots, d$, such that $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} - \varphi(z) \varphi(w)^* =
\sum_j\Gamma_j(z,w) (1 - z_ jw_j^*)$;
3. There is a Hilbert space $\mathcal E$ and a unitary operator $U = \begin{pmatrix} A & B \\ C & D \end{pmatrix}$ in $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{E} \oplus \mathcal{H})$ such that for $z\in
\mathbb D^d$, $$\varphi(z) = D+CZ(z)(I-AZ(z))^{-1}B,$$ where $Z(z) = \sum_j z_j P_j$ and $\sum_j P_j =
1_{\mathcal{L(E)}}$;
4. For every $d$-tuple of commuting contractions $T =
(T_1,\dots, T_d)$ with $T_j\in \mathcal{L(K)}$, $\mathcal K$ a Hilbert space, with $\|T_j\| < 1$, we have $\|\varphi(T)\| \leq
1$.
We interpret $\varphi(T)$ in a similar manner as in the single variable case. As before, when $\varphi \in {{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, we may instead simply assume $\|T_j\| \leq 1$ for all $j$. Various examples, including that of Kaijser and Varopoulos [@MR0355642], show that when $d>2$, the Schur-Agler class is a strict subset of the unit ball of $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$. On the other hand, Andô’s theorem implies that when $d=2$, ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and $H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$ coincide.
One of the most useful aspects of the realization theorem is that it allows us to do interpolation [@MR1637941]. Since it particularly suits our needs, we state it in the setting of what is commonly known as tangential Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation.
\[thm:Agler-Pick-interp-polydisk\] Fix $d\in\mathbb N$, $\Lambda^o = \{e_j\}_{j=1}^d$ and domain $\mathbb D^d$. Let $\Omega$ be a subset of $\,\mathbb D^d$, and suppose that for Hilbert spaces $\mathcal H$ and $\tilde{\mathcal
H}$ there are functions $a,b:\Omega \to
\mathcal{L}(\tilde{\mathcal{H}} ,\mathcal{H})$ such that for any admissible kernel $k$ for ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ restricted to $\Omega$, $$(aa^*-bb^*)*k \geq 0.$$ Then there is a function $\varphi \in H_1^\infty({\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^o,\tilde{\mathcal{H}}})$ such that $b = \varphi a$, where the multiplication is pointwise.
The proof is essentially a reworking of the proof of the realization theorem, giving a function $\varphi$ over $\Omega$ with a transfer function representation such that $b = \varphi a$. The transfer function representation immediately extends to all of $\mathbb D^d$, and so by the realization theorem, $\varphi$ extends to a function in the unit ball of $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^o,
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}})$.
The identification of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and $H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$ when $d=2$ in the realization theorem uses a version of Andô’s theorem [@MR0155193] for ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ (the standard version of Andô’s theorem corresponds to the case when $\mathcal H =
\mathbb C$), as well as a theorem of Arveson’s [@MR1668582].
\[thm:Andos-theorem-for-ALH\] Let $\pi: A(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)}) \to \mathcal{L(K)}$ or $\pi:
H^\infty(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)}) \to \mathcal{L(K)}$ be a unital representation with the property that $\|\pi(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes z_j)\| \leq 1$ or $\|\pi(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes z_j)\| < 1$, respectively, for $j=1,2$. Then $\pi$ dilates to a representation $\tilde\pi$ such that $\pi(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes z_j)$ is unitary, and consequently, $\pi$ is completely contractive.
For any $F\in \mathcal{L(H)}$, the constant function $F\otimes 1$ is obviously in $A(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)})$. Thus $\pi$ restricted to the constant functions induces a unital representation of $\mathcal{L(H)}$, and since $\mathcal{L(H)}$ is a $C^*$-algebra, the induced representation is contractive.
Now suppose that $\pi: A(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)}) \to
\mathcal{L(K)}$ with $\|\pi(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes z_j)\| \leq
1$, $j=1,2$. Let $\{e_\alpha\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal H$. Define an operator $\eta_{\alpha\beta} :
\mathcal{L(H)} \to \mathbb C$ by $\eta_{\alpha\beta}(F) := {{
\left<
F
e_\alpha,e_\beta
\right>}}$. Note that $\eta(F) :=
{\left(\eta_{\alpha\beta}(F)\right)}_{\alpha\beta} = F$.
Let $\varphi \in A(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)})$ and define $\varphi_{\alpha\beta} \in A(\mathbb D^2)$ (the scalar valued bidisk algebra) by $\varphi_{\alpha\beta}(z) =
\eta_{\alpha\beta}(\varphi(z))$. By the standard form of Andô’s theorem, there is a pair of commuting unitary operators $U =
(U_1,U_2)$ on $\mathcal L(\tilde{\mathcal K})$ such that for all $\alpha, \beta$, $\varphi_{\alpha\beta}(T) = P_\mathcal{K}
\varphi_{\alpha\beta}(U) |_\mathcal{K}$. Thus $$\begin{split}
\varphi(T) = & \eta\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(K)}} (\varphi(T)) =
{\left(\varphi_{\alpha\beta}(T)\right)}_{\alpha\beta} \\
= & {\left(P_\mathcal{K} \varphi_{\alpha\beta}(U)
|_\mathcal{K} \right)}_{\alpha\beta} =
{\left(P_\mathcal{K} (\eta_{\alpha\beta}\otimes 1_{\mathcal
L(\tilde{\mathcal K})})(\varphi(U)) |_\mathcal{K}
\right)}_{\alpha\beta} \\
= & P_{\mathcal{K} \otimes \mathcal{H}} \varphi(U)
|_{\mathcal{K} \otimes \mathcal{H}}.
\end{split}$$ The easy direction of a result of Arveson’s [@MR1668582] or the spectral mapping theorem and a bit of work then shows that $\pi$ is completely contractive.
Next, suppose that $\pi: H^\infty(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)}) \to
\mathcal{L(K)}$ and $\|\pi(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes z_j)\| < 1$, $j=1,2$. Let $n\in\mathbb N$. Then $H^\infty(\mathbb
D^2,\mathcal{L(H)}) \otimes M_n(\mathbb C) = H^\infty(\mathbb
D^2,\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^n))$ and for $j=1,2$, $$\left\| \pi^{(n)}(1_{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^n)} \otimes z_j)
\right\| =
\left \| \bigoplus_1^n \pi (1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}) \right\| =
\left \| \pi (1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}) \right\| < 1.$$ It then follows from Theorem \[thm:Aglers-realization\] that $\pi^{(n)}$ is contractive, and so $\pi$ is completely contractive.
Another fundamental theorem is due to Brehmer [@MR0131169]. It states that a $d$-tuple of commuting contractions satisfying an extra positivity condition dilates to commuting unitary operators.
\[thm:Brehmers-theorem\] Let $T = (T_1,\dots,T_d)$ be a $d$-tuple of commuting contractions on a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ satisfying $$\prod_1^d (1-T_jT_j^*) \geq 0,$$ where the product is in the hereditary sense $($that is, adjoints on the right$)$. Then there is a Hilbert space $\tilde{\mathcal H}$ containing $\mathcal H$ and a $d$-tuple of commuting unitaries $U =
(U_1,\dots,U_d)$ such that for any polynomial $p$ over $\mathbb
C^d$, $p(T) = P_{\mathcal H} p(U) |_\mathcal H$.
Because polynomials in $p[\mathbb C^d]\otimes \mathcal{L(H)}$ are weakly dense in $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$, the same reasoning as in the operator generalization of Andô’s theorem, coupled with Arveson’s result, gives an alternate version of Brehmer’s theorem.
\[thm:Brehmers-theorem-II\] Let $\pi: A(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)}) \to \mathcal{L(K)}$ or $\pi:
H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)}) \to \mathcal{L(K)}$ be a unital representation with the property that $$\prod_{i=1}^d \left(1 -
\pi(z_i\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})\pi(z_i \otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})^*\right) \geq 0,$$ where the product is hereditary $($that is, adjoints on the right$)$, is either positive or strictly positive, respectively. Also assume that either $\|\pi(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes z_j)\| \leq
1$ or $\|\pi(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes z_j)\| < 1$, respectively. Then $\pi$ dilates to a representation $\tilde\pi$ with $\tilde\pi(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes z_j)$ unitary, and as a consequence, $\pi$ is completely contractive.
There is a version of Brehmer’s theorem for standard nearly ample preorderings, but this requires further developments.
Notice that Agler’s realization theorem (Theorem \[thm:Aglers-realization\]) with $d=2$ and Corollary \[cor:po\_for\_polydisk\] tell us that, at least over the bidisk with the coordinate functions as test functions, the ample preordering and the (in this case, unique) nearly standard ample preordering are equivalent; that is, they generate the same algebra and norm. As it happens, we can extend this idea to the polydisk, and as we will see later, to more general sets of test functions and domains. This will be used to prove a generalization of the main result of [@MR2502431] in Theorem \[thm:d-var-polydisk\_real\].
\[thm:ample-near-ample-equiv-polydsk\] Let $\Psi$ be the set of coordinate functions over the polydisk $\mathbb D^d$, $d\geq 2$, $\Lambda^a$ the standard ample preordering $($so with largest element $\lambda^m = (1,\dots,1)\,)$, and $\Lambda^{na}$ a standard nearly ample preordering under $\lambda^m$. Then $\Lambda^a$ and $\Lambda^{na}$ are equivalent preorderings.
When $d=2$ this has already been shown. Hence we assume $d>2$.
Fix a nearly ample preordering $\Lambda^{na}$ under $\lambda^m =
(1,\dots,1)$. Recall that by Corollary \[cor:po\_for\_polydisk\], with the standard ample preordering, all admissible kernels are subordinate to the Szegő kernel $k_s$. Since this kernel is also admissible for the standard nearly ample preordering, any $\varphi\in H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal
H})$ is in $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^a,\mathcal
H})$ and the norm in the first algebra $\|\varphi\|_{na}$ is greater than or equal to that in the second, $\|\varphi\|_a$.
We now show that the two norms are the same on $H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal H})$. First of all, recall that $\Lambda^{na}$ has two maximal elements $\lambda^m_1$ and $\lambda^m_2$, which are $\lambda^m$ with one of the $1$s changed to a zero in distinct places. By relabeling if necessary, we may assume that these are in the first two places. Let $k_3$ be the positive kernel defined by $k_3(z,w) = 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} \otimes
\prod_{j=3}^d (1-zw^*)^{-1}$. This has a Kolmogorov decomposition $k_3 = aa^*$, where $a: \mathbb D^d \to
\mathcal{L}(\tilde{\mathcal{H}} ,\mathcal{H})$. Any admissible kernel in $\mathcal K_{\Lambda^{na}}$ then has the form $k = k_3 *
k'$, where for fixed $z_3,\dots,z_d$ and $j=1,2$, $$\left([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}]\otimes (1-z_jw_j^*)k _3(z,w)
k'(z,w)\right) \geq 0.$$ This inequality is valid in particular for any positive kernel $k'$ which is a function only of the first two coordinates such that for $j=1,2$, $\left([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}]\otimes
(1-z_jw_j^*)k'(z,w)\right) \geq 0$; that is, by Theorems \[thm:Aglers-realization\] and \[thm:Andos-theorem-for-ALH\], the kernels for $H^\infty(\mathbb D^2, \mathcal{L(H)})$.
Let $\varphi \in H_1^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal H})$, and define $b:\mathbb D^d \to
\mathcal{L}(\tilde{\mathcal{H}} ,\mathcal{H})$ by the pointwise product $b = a\varphi$. Then for any admissible kernel $k = k_3*k'$ as above for the standard nearly ample preordering, $([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*k \geq 0$. For fixed $z_3,\dots,z_d$, $(aa^* - bb^*)*k' \geq 0$. By Theorem \[thm:Agler-Pick-interp-polydisk\], we can also write $b =
a \tilde\varphi$, where as a function of only the first two variables, $\tilde\varphi \in H_1^\infty(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)})$; that is, is analytic and has supremum norm less than or equal to $1$.
Fix $z_1,z_2\in\mathbb D$. Set the kernel $k'$ to be $$k'(z,w) =
\begin{cases}
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} & w_1 = z_1 \text{ and } w_2 = z_2\,;\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Then $k = k_3 * k'$ is admissible for the standard nearly ample preordering, and so $([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*k_3
\geq 0$. Hence for fixed $z_1,z_2$, the function $\varphi \in
H_1^\infty(\mathbb D^{d-2},\mathcal{L(H)})$; that is, as a function of $z_3,\dots ,z_d$, $\varphi$ is also analytic and bounded by $1$. Being separately analytic in all variables and bounded, we conclude from Hartog’s theorem that $\varphi \in H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$. Writing $k_s^d$ for the scalar Szegő kernel on $\mathbb D^d$, it follows that $$([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}
\otimes k^d_s)
= (aa^*-bb^*)*(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes k^2_s)
= aa^* * ([1_{\mathcal{L}(\tilde{\mathcal{H}})}] -
\tilde\varphi{\tilde\varphi}^*)*(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes k^2_s)
\geq 0;$$ that is, $\varphi \in H_1^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$. This shows that $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal
H})$ is a norm closed subalgebra of $H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$ (with the same norm).
To finish the proof, we note from the transfer function representation for $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^o,\mathcal H})$ from Theorem \[thm:Aglers-realization\] that polynomials in the coordinate functions are weakly dense in $H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^o,\mathcal H})$. Since they are also weakly dense in $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$ and by Lemma \[lem:preorderings\_order\_adm\_kers\], $$H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^o,\mathcal H})
\subseteq H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal
H}) \subseteq H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,{\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^a,\mathcal H}) = H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,\mathcal{L(H)}),$$ the result follows.
We finally mention an abstract version of the realization theorem for general domains and sets of test functions [@MR2389623] which is also part of the inspiration for the work that follows. The theorem was only stated and proved for scalar valued functions, though the generalization to operator valued functions is straightforward, as we shall see.
\[thm:classic-real-thm\] Let $X$ be a set, $\Psi = \{\psi_j\}$ a (not necessarily finite) collection of test functions on $X$, $\Lambda = \{e_j\}$, $\mathcal
K$ the set of $\mathcal{L(H)}$ valued admissible kernels, and ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ the unit ball of the algebra generated by the kernels in $\mathcal K$ in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. Let $\varphi: X\to \mathcal{L(H)}$. The following are equivalent:
1. $\varphi \in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$;
2. There exists a positive kernel $\Gamma: C_0(\Psi)
\to \mathcal{L(H)}$ so that $[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] -
\varphi\varphi^* = \Gamma*([1] - EE^*)$, where $E(x)(\psi_j) =
\psi_j(x)$;
3. There is a unitary colligation $(U,\mathcal E,
\rho)$, where $\mathcal E$ is a Hilbert space, $U =
\begin{pmatrix} A & B \\ C & D \end{pmatrix}$ a unitary operator on $\mathcal E \oplus \mathcal H$ and $\rho: C_0(\Psi) \to
\mathcal{L(E)}$ a unital representation such that $\varphi$ has a transfer function representation $$\varphi (x) = D + C Z(x)(1_{\mathcal L(E)} - AZ(x))^{-1} B,$$ with $Z(x) = \rho(E)(x)$;
4. $\varphi \in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and for every unital representation $\pi$ of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ satisfying $\|\pi(\psi_j)\|
< 1$ for all $j$, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$.
5. $\varphi \in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and for every weakly continuous unital representation $\pi$ of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ satisfying $\|\pi(\psi_j)\| \leq 1$ for all $j$, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\|
\leq 1$.
Note that the second item (the so-called Agler decomposition) has a more familiar form in this setting when the set of test functions is finite; namely, we can rewrite this as $[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] -
\varphi\varphi^* = \sum_j \Gamma_j*([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] -
\psi_j\psi_j^*)$, where each $\Gamma_j$ is a positive $\mathcal{L(H)}$ valued kernel, as in Theorem \[thm:Aglers-realization\]. A representation is **weakly continuous** if whenever $(\varphi_\alpha)$ is a bounded net in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ converging pointwise in norm to $\varphi \in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, $(\pi(\varphi_\alpha))$ converges weakly to $\pi(\varphi)$.
Recall that in this paper we are taking the set of test functions to be finite. Thus $Z$ has the simpler form $$Z(x) = \sum_j \psi_j(x)P_j,$$ where each $P_j$ is an orthogonal projection and $\sum_j P_j =
1_{\mathcal{L(E)}}$.
Topologizing $X$ {#subsec:topologising-x}
----------------
In the construction of kernels and function spaces, we did not assume that the underlying set $X$ has a topology, though even when it does have one, it will be convenient to take it to have the weakest topology making the test functions continuous. In most cases of interest the test functions are already continuous when $X$ has its native topology, so this assumption will make no substantial difference, at least when $\overline{X}$ is compact in the original topology and the test functions extend continuously to $\overline{X}$.
Write ${{{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*}_0$ for the vector space of continuous linear functionals on ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$. The set $\mathcal N = \{e\in{{{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*}_0:|e(\psi)|
=0 \text{ for all } \psi\in\Psi \}$ is a subspace, and we write ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*$ for the quotient space ${{{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*}_0/\mathcal N$. The test functions induce a topology on ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*$ with a subbase consisting of sets of the form $$U_{w,c} = \{\eta\in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^* : \sup_{\psi\in\Psi} |\eta(\psi)-w| < c \},
\qquad w\in\mathbb D,\ c\in(0,1).$$ By construction the map $\hat E: X \to {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*$ define by $\hat
E[x](\varphi) = \varphi(x)$ is an embedding by the point separation property of the test functions. With this topology ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*$ becomes a locally compact, convex topological vector space, and so is Hausdorff (in fact it has even stronger separation properties, which we will not need). We identify the closure of $X$, $\overline{X}$ with the closure of $\hat E[X]$ in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*$.
The space ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*$ induces a weak-$*$ topology on ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^{**}$ in which the norm closed unit ball of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^{**}$ is compact by the Banach-Alaoglu theorem. By dint of being finite $\Psi$ in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^{**}$ is also compact.
We also find that the test functions extend continuously to $\overline{X}$. However it is not *a priori* evident that the test functions will separate the points of $\overline{X}$. However, this can be achieved simply by identifying those points in $\overline{X}$ which are not distinguished by the test functions.
We could have carried out the same sort of construction replacing ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}^*$ by the space of bounded linear operators from ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ to $\mathcal{L(H)}$, once again modding out by those maps $\eta$ with the property that $\eta(\Psi) = \{0\}$. Since any $\eta' \in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}^*$ induces $\eta\in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}^*$ by $\eta(\varphi) = \eta'(\varphi \otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})$, this essentially adds nothing new.
By construction, ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is a norm closed subalgebra of $C_b(X,\mathcal{L(H)})$, the $C^*$-algebra of bounded continuous $\mathcal{L(H)}$ valued functions on $X$; that is, a subalgebra of $C(\beta X, \mathcal{L(H)})$, where $\beta X$ is the Stone-Čech compactification of $X$. However $\overline{X}$ generally tends to be quite a bit smaller than $\beta X$. For example, if $X = \mathbb D^d$ and the test functions are the coordinate functions, $\overline{X} =
{\overline{\mathbb D}}^d$, as one would expect.
Continuity and convergence in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ {#subsec:cont-conv-hlh}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With $X$ topologized as in the last subsection, we can now address the continuity of elements of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ (we show that they are all continuous) and connections between various topologies on ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, the subalgebra of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which in analogy with the disk algebra, consists of those (continuous) elements of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which extend continuously to $\overline{X}$. When dealing with ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ it is convenient to assume that the test functions are in this algebra.
\[lem:elts\_of\_HLH\_ctnuous\] Let $\Psi$ be a finite set and $\varphi\in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. Then $\varphi$ is continuous; that is, if $\,(x_\alpha)$ is a net in $X$ converging to $x\in X$, $\|\varphi(x_\alpha) - \varphi(x)\| \to 0$. Furthermore, given $\epsilon >0$ and $x\in X$, there is an open set $U_x\ni x$ such that for all $\varphi\in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, $\|\varphi(y)-\varphi(y')\| <
\epsilon \|\varphi\|$ for all $y,y'\in U_x$.
Fix $0 < \delta < 1$. By definition, for $x\in X$, $\sup_{\psi\in\Psi} |\psi(x)| = 1-\tilde\epsilon$ for some $\tilde\epsilon > 0$. In fact, for any $\epsilon >0$, it follows that since $\Psi$ is a finite set, $U_{x,\epsilon} := \{y\in X :
\sup_{\psi\in\Psi} |\psi(x)-\psi(y)| < \epsilon\}$ is a relatively open neighborhood of $x$.
We claim that for $\epsilon$ sufficiently small and $y\in
U_{x,\epsilon}$, the kernel defined by $$k_{x,y}(z,w) :=
\begin{cases}
1 & z=w=x \text{ or }z=w=y, \\
1-\delta & (z=x\text{ and }w=y)\text{ or }(z=y\text{ and }
w=x),\\
0 &\text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ is an admissible kernel for ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$, and hence $k_{x,y}\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is admissible for ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. We require that $$\left(
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
-
\begin{pmatrix}
\psi(x)\psi(x)^* & \psi(x)\psi(y)^* \\ \psi(y)\psi(x)^* &
\psi(y)\psi(y)^*
\end{pmatrix}
\right) *
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1-\delta \\ 1-\delta & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\geq 0.$$ This will be nonnegative as long as $(1-\delta)^2
|1-\psi(x)\psi(y)^*|^2 \leq (1-\psi(x)\psi(x)^*)
(1-\psi(y)\psi(y)^*)$.
Since $\psi(x)\psi(y)^* = \psi(x)(\psi(x)^* - (\psi(x)-\psi(y))^*)$ and $|\psi(x)| < 1$, $$\begin{split}
|1-\psi(x)\psi(y)^*|^2
= & |1-\psi(x)\psi(x)^* + \psi(x)(\psi(x)-\psi(y))^*)|^2 \\
\leq & (1-\psi(x)\psi(x)^*)^2 + 2\epsilon (1-\psi(x)\psi(x)^*)
+\epsilon^2 .
\end{split}$$ Also, $$1-\psi(y)\psi(y)^* \geq (1-\psi(x)\psi(x)^*) -
2\epsilon - \epsilon^2.$$ Hence it suffices to choose $\epsilon$ so that $$(1-\delta)^2\left(c^2 + 2\epsilon c +\epsilon^2\right) \leq
c^2 - 2\epsilon c - \epsilon^2 c,$$ where $c= 1-\psi(x)\psi(x)^*$, or equivalently, so that $$-(c+(1-\delta)^2)\epsilon^2 - 2c(1+(1-\delta)^2)\epsilon
+c^2(1-(1-\delta)^2) > 0.$$ This is a polynomial in $\epsilon$ which is positive when $\epsilon
= 0$, and so by continuity is positive for sufficiently small $\epsilon > 0$. In fact it is positive on the interval $\epsilon\in
(0,d)$, where $$\begin{split}
d &= \frac{-c(1+(1-\delta)^2)+\sqrt{c^2(1+(1-\delta)^2)^2 +
c^2(c+(1-\delta)^2)(1-(1-\delta)^2)}}{c+(1-\delta)^2} \\
&\geq c\frac{-(1+(1-\delta)^2)+\sqrt{(1+(1-\delta)^2)^2 +
(c+(1-\delta)^2)(1-(1-\delta)^2)}}{1+(1-\delta)^2} \\
& = c\left(\sqrt{1 +
\frac{(c+(1-\delta)^2)(1-(1-\delta)^2)}{(1+(1-\delta)^2)^2}} -
1 \right) \\
&\geq \frac{c(c+(1-\delta)^2)(1-(1-\delta)^2)}{2(1+(1-\delta)^2)^2} \\
&\geq c\delta \geq 2\tilde\epsilon\delta.
\end{split}$$
Fix $\varphi\in {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. We may assume without loss of generality that $\|\varphi\| = 1$. Since $k_{x,y}$ is admissible, $$\label{eq:6}
\begin{pmatrix}
1-\varphi(x)\varphi(x)^* & (1-\delta)(1-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*)
\\
(1-\delta)(1-\varphi(y)\varphi(x)^*) & 1-\varphi(y)\varphi(y)^*
\end{pmatrix}
\geq 0.$$
Let $h \in \mathcal H$ with $\|h\| = 1$, and set $$\begin{split}
c_1 &= {{
\left<
(1-\varphi(x)\varphi(x)^*)h,h
\right>}} \geq 0, \\
c_2 &= {{
\left<
\varphi(x)(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y))^*h,h
\right>}}, \\
c_3 &= \|(\varphi(x)-\varphi(y))^*h\|^2.
\end{split}$$ Then positivity of the matrix in implies the scalar matrix $$\label{eq:11}
\begin{pmatrix}
c_1 & (1-\delta)(c_1+c_2) \\ (1-\delta)(c_1+c_2^*) &
c_1+c_2+c_2^*-c_3
\end{pmatrix}
\geq 0,$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{eq:10}
(1-(1-\delta)^2)(c_1^2+c_1c_2^*+c_2c_1) -(1-\delta)^2|c_2|^2 \geq
c_1c_3.$$ Since $1\geq c_1$, $2\geq |c_2|$ and $1-(1-\delta)^2 \geq 2\delta$, it follows from that $$10\delta - (1-\delta)^2|c_2|^2 \geq c_1c_3,$$ and so $c_3 \leq 10\delta/c_1$ when $c_1\neq 0$. So if $c_1\geq
\sqrt{\delta}$, then $c_3 \leq 10\sqrt{\delta}$. On the other hand, if $c_1 < \sqrt{\delta}$, then $\|\varphi(x)h\|^2 \geq
1-\sqrt{\delta}$. Also, by $$0\leq
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{\delta} & (1-\delta)(c_1+c_2) \\ (1-\delta)(c_1+c_2^*) &
\sqrt{\delta}+c_2+c_2^*-c_3
\end{pmatrix}
\leq
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{\delta} & (1-\delta)(c_1+c_2) \\ (1-\delta)(c_1+c_2^*) & 5
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Consequently, $|c_1+c_2| \leq 5\sqrt{\delta}/(1-\delta)$, and so $|c_2| \leq 6\sqrt{\delta}/(1-\delta)$. Then $\sqrt{\delta}+c_2+c_2^*-c_3 \geq 0$ gives $c_3 \leq
13\sqrt{\delta}/(1-\delta)$. Thus $\|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)\| \leq
13\sqrt{\delta}/(1-\delta)$ whenever $y\in U_{x,\epsilon}$. Note that by construction the set $U_{x,\epsilon}$ is independent of the choice of $\varphi\in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
Suppose $(x_\alpha)$ is a net converging to $x \in X$. We saw that given $\delta > 0$, there is an $\epsilon > 0$ such that $k_{x,y}$ is an admissible kernel. Also, there is a $\alpha_\delta$ such that for all $\alpha > \alpha_\delta$, $x_\alpha \in U_{x,\epsilon}$. Hence by what we have shown, $\|\varphi(x)-\varphi(x_\alpha)\| \leq
13\sqrt{\delta}/(1-\delta)$. Since any open neighborhood of $x$ contains a $U_{x,\epsilon}$ for sufficiently small $\epsilon$, we conclude that $\varphi$ is norm continuous.
Lemma \[lem:elts\_of\_HLH\_ctnuous\] ensures that the definition of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ makes sense, though of course at this point we do not know if it consists of any more than the constant functions on $X$. In the concrete examples most commonly considered, it is also the case that the test functions are in ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, and we will generally assume this to be the case, as well as that they separate the points of $\overline{X}$.
\[lem:HLH-topologies\] The space ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is complete in the norm topology, and its norm closed unit ball ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is closed in both the topology of pointwise convergence and the topology of uniformly convergence on compact subsets of $X$.
Let $(\varphi_\alpha)$ be a Cauchy net in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. For fixed $x\in
X$ let $k_x$ be the kernel which equals $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ in the $(x,x)$ place and zero elsewhere. It is clear by definition of the test functions that this is an admissible kernel. By the assumption that $(\varphi_\alpha)$ is a Cauchy net, using the kernel $k_x$, we see that $(\varphi_\alpha(x))$ is a Cauchy net in $\mathcal{L(H)}$, and since this space is complete, $(\varphi_\alpha(x))$ converges in norm. We denote the limit by $\varphi(x)$.
We show that the function $\varphi: x \mapsto \varphi(x)$ is in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. Given $\epsilon > 0$, there is an $\alpha_0$ such that for all $\alpha,\beta > \alpha_0$ and any admissible kernel $k$, $(\epsilon[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - (\varphi_\alpha - \varphi_\beta)
(\varphi_\alpha - \varphi_\beta)^*)*k \geq 0$. From this we see that there is a constant $c>0$ such that for all $\alpha >
\alpha_0$, $\|\varphi_\alpha\| < c$
Let $F\subset X$ be a finite set. Given $\epsilon > 0$, choose $\alpha_0$ as above, and also so that for all $\alpha > \alpha_0$ and $x,y\in F$, $2c\|\varphi_\alpha(x) - \varphi(x)\| +
\|\varphi_\alpha(y) - \varphi(y)\|^2 \leq \epsilon/|F|^2$. Letting $I$ denote the kernel which is $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ on the main diagonal and zero elsewhere, we have on $F\times F$, $$\begin{split}
& (c[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] + \epsilon I - \varphi\varphi^*)*k \\
= \,& (c[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] + \epsilon I - (\varphi_\alpha +
(\varphi - \varphi_\alpha))(\varphi_\alpha^* + (\varphi -
\varphi_\alpha) ^*))*k \\
\geq \,& (c[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi_\alpha
\varphi_\alpha^*)*k + (\epsilon - (2c \|\varphi -
\varphi_\alpha\| - \|\varphi - \varphi_\alpha\|^2)I*k \\
\geq \,& 0.
\end{split}$$ Since $F$ and $\epsilon$ are arbitrary, this shows that $(c[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*k \geq 0$, and so $\varphi \in{{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
Suppose that $\varphi_\alpha \to \varphi$ pointwise, where $\|\varphi_\alpha\| \leq 1$. Let $k$ be any admissible kernel and $F$ a finite subset of $X$. Given $\epsilon > 0$, there is some $\alpha_0$ such that for all $\alpha > \alpha_0$ and all $x\in F$, $\|\varphi_\alpha(x) - \varphi(x)\| < \epsilon$. Then for $\kappa =
\max_{x,y\in F} \|k(x,y)\|$, $$\begin{split}
& \left((([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] +
\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*) k(x,y)\right) \\
= \, & \left(([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] +
\varphi_\alpha(x)\varphi_\alpha(y)^*) k(x,y) \right. \\
& \left. - 2 \left(\varphi_\alpha(x) (\varphi(y) -
\varphi_\alpha(y))^* + (\varphi(x) -
\varphi_\alpha(x))\varphi_\alpha(y)^* \right) k(x,y)
- (\varphi(x) - \varphi_\alpha(x))(\varphi(y) -
\varphi_\alpha(y))^* k(x,y)\right) \\
\geq \,& -\epsilon\kappa(1+ \epsilon)I_{F\times F}, \\
\end{split}$$ which goes to zero as we take $\epsilon$ to zero, showing that $\varphi \in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
Finally, if $\varphi_\alpha \to \varphi$ uniformly on compact subsets of ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, then in particular it converges pointwise to $\varphi$, and hence by what we have shown, $\varphi \in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
\[lem:ALH-is-norm-closed\] The algebra ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is closed in the norm topology, the topology of uniform convergence, and the topology of pointwise convergence.
Let $(\varphi_\alpha)_{\alpha\in A}$ be a net in ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ converging in norm in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ to $\varphi$. We show that $\varphi \in {{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
Let $(x_\beta)$ be a net in $X$ converging to $x\in\overline{X}$. By norm convergence, given any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $\alpha_0$ such that for all $\alpha_1,\alpha_2 > \alpha_0$ and all $\beta$, $\|\varphi_{\alpha_1}(x_\beta) -
\varphi_{\alpha_2}(x_\beta)\| < \epsilon$. By continuity, $\|\varphi_{\alpha_1}(x) - \varphi_{\alpha_2}(x)\| < \epsilon$, and so $(\varphi_{\alpha}(x))$ is a Cauchy net and hence has a limit, which we denote by $\varphi(x)$. By continuity, $\varphi(x)$ is independent of the choice of net $(x_\beta)$.
We show that the function $\varphi: x\mapsto \varphi(x)$ is continuous on $\overline{X}$. Given $\epsilon > 0$, let $V_x$ be an open ball in $\mathcal{L(H)}$ of radius $\epsilon/2$ about $\varphi(x)$, and set ${\tilde U}_x = \varphi^{-1}(V_x)\cap X$, an open set in $X$. Then let $U_x$ be an open set in $\overline{X}$ such that $U_x\cap X = {\tilde U}_x$ and note that $x\in U_x$. Let $y\in U_x$ and construct $U_y$ in an identical manner. Obviously, $U_x\cap U_y \cap X \neq \emptyset$, and so if we choose $w$ in this set, $\epsilon > \|\varphi(x) - \varphi(w)\| + \|\varphi(w) -
\varphi(y)\| \geq \|\varphi(x) - \varphi(y)\|$. It follows that $\varphi$ is continuous on $\overline{X}$.
The last two statements follow from the previous lemma.
Connections between ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and algebras over the polydisk {#subsec:conn-betw-hlh}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose either that $X$ has a topology in which $\overline{X}$ is compact (say for example, as a bounded subset of $\mathbb C^d$) or that $X$ is endowed with a topology as in Subsection \[subsec:topologising-x\] which then ensures the continuity of the test functions and compactness of $\overline{X}$. In either case, we also assume that the test functions are in ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ and that they separate the points of $\overline{X}$. Then there is a natural identification of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ with certain subalgebras of bounded analytic functions over subsets of the polydisk, which we give below.
Recall that by definition the test functions have the property that for $x\in X$, $$z = \xi(x) := (\psi_1(x),\dots,\psi_d(x)) \in \mathbb D^d,$$ and that the test functions separate the points of $X$, or equivalently, that $\xi$ is injective. By the assumption that the test functions are in ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ and that they separate the points of $\overline{X}$, which is compact, we have that $\xi(X) = \Omega
\subseteq \mathbb D^d$, and $\xi(\overline{X}) = \overline{\Omega}$ is a compact subset of ${\overline{\mathbb D}}^d$.
Write $\Psi^{\mathrm{pd}} = \{Z_1(z),\ldots,Z_d(z)\}$, $z\in\mathbb
D^d$, where $Z_j(z) =z_j$ are the coordinate functions, and take these as test functions over $\Omega$. Let $\mathcal H$ be a Hilbert space and write ${\mathcal K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ for the admissible kernels in this setting, and ${H_1^\infty({\mathcal
K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}$ for the associated algebra with unit ball $H_1^\infty({\mathcal
K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$. In analogy with the Serre-Swan theorem, we have the following.
\[lem:id\_HLH\_w\_pdisk\_subalg\] The map $\xi:\overline{X} \to \overline{\Omega}\subseteq
{\overline{\mathbb D}}^d$ defined above is a homeomorphism. Consequently, given a preordering $\Lambda$ and Hilbert space $\mathcal H$, there is an isometric unital algebra homomorphism from ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ onto $H^\infty(\Omega,{\mathcal
K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$ and from ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ onto $A(\Omega, {\mathcal K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$.
Since $\xi$ is a bijection from $\overline{X}$ to $\overline{\Omega}$, $\xi^{-1}$ is well-defined, and so it suffices to show that $\xi^{-1}$ is continuous. Suppose not. Then there is a net $(z_\alpha)_{\alpha\in A}$ converging to $z$ in $\overline{\Omega}$ such that $x_\alpha = \xi^{-1}(z_\alpha)$ does not converge to $x=\xi^{-1}(z)$. Hence there is an open set $U$ containing $x$ with the property that for all $\alpha$ in $A$, there exists $\beta \geq \alpha$ such that $x_\beta \notin U$. The set $B
= \{\beta\in A: x_\beta \notin U\}$ is thus a directed set. Since $\overline{X}$ is compact, there is a subnet $(x_\gamma)_{\gamma\in\Gamma}$ of $(x_\beta)_{\beta\in B}$ converging to some $\tilde x \neq x$. But the subnet $(z_\gamma)_{\gamma\in\Gamma}$ converges to $z$, and so $\xi(\tilde
x) = \xi(x)$, contradicting the injectivity of $\xi$.
It is then clear that for $k^{\mathrm{pd}}\in {\mathcal
K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, $k$ defined by $k(x,y) =
k^{\mathrm{pd}}(\xi(x),\xi(y))$ is in ${\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, and similarly, that for $k\in {\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, $k^{\mathrm{pd}}$ defined by $k^{\mathrm{pd}}(z,w) = k(\xi^{-1}(z),\xi^{-1}(w))$ is in ${\mathcal
K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, giving a bijective correspondence between the sets of admissible kernels. It follows easily that $\nu: {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}\to H^\infty(\Omega, {\mathcal
K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$ given by $\nu(\varphi)(z)
= \varphi(\xi^{-1}(z))$ is an isometric unital algebra homomorphism and that $\nu({{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}) = A(\Omega, {\mathcal
K}^{\mathrm{pd}}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$.
\[cor:Szego-ker-inv\] Let $\Lambda$ be an ample preordering and $F$ a finite subset of $X$. Then the Szegő kernel restricted to $F\times F$ has closed range.
Since the statement is true over the polydisk and the above map $\xi$ is injective, the result is immediate.
Auxiliary test functions {#subsec:auxil-test-funct}
------------------------
Let $0 < \lambda \in \Lambda$. Define two $\mathbb
C^{2^{|\lambda|-1}}$ valued functions by $$\psi_\lambda^+(x) = \mathrm{row}_{\lambda'\in\Lambda_+,\,
\lambda'\leq_\ell \lambda}\,\left(\psi^{\lambda'}\right)
\quad\text{and}\quad
\psi_\lambda^-(x) = \mathrm{row}_{\lambda'\in\Lambda_-,\,
\lambda'\leq_\ell \lambda}\,\left(\psi^{\lambda'}\right);$$ that is, $\psi_\lambda^+$ has entries consisting of products of even numbers of $\psi$s (counting multiplicity) taken from $\psi^\lambda$, while $\psi_\lambda^-$ has entries consisting of products of odd numbers of $\psi$s (counting multiplicity) taken from $\psi^\lambda$. We order these in increasing order, so that the first entry of $\psi_\lambda^+$ is $1$ (corresponding to $0 <_\ell \lambda$).
By construction, for $\lambda \in \Lambda$, $$\prod_{\lambda_i\in\lambda} ([1] -
\psi_i\psi_i^*)^{\lambda_i}(x,y)
= \psi_\lambda^+(x)\psi_\lambda^+(y)^* -
\psi_\lambda^-(x)\psi_\lambda^-(y)^*$$ and for each $x\in X$, $$\prod_{\lambda_i\in\lambda} ([1] -
\psi_i\psi_i^*)^{\lambda_i}(x,x)
> 0.$$ From this we see that $|\psi_\lambda^+(x)|^2 =
\psi_\lambda^+(x)\psi_\lambda^+(x)^* > 1$. For $\psi_\lambda^+(x) =
|\psi_\lambda^+(x)|\nu_\lambda(x)$ the polar decomposition of $\psi_\lambda^+(x)$, we set $$\omega_\lambda(x) := \nu_\lambda(x)^* |\psi_\lambda^+(x)|^{-1} =
\psi_\lambda^+(x)^* |\psi_\lambda^+(x)|^{-2}.$$ Then $\psi_\lambda^+(x) \omega_\lambda(x) = 1$. Note that $\|\omega_\lambda(x)\| = |\psi_\lambda^+(x)|^{-1} < 1$. Define $$\sigma_\lambda(x) := \omega_\lambda(x) \psi_\lambda^-(x) =
\psi_\lambda^+(x)^* |\psi_\lambda^+(x)|^{-2} \psi_\lambda^-(x) \in
M_{2^{|\lambda|-1}}(\mathbb C).$$ Obviously for all $x\in X$, $$\psi_\lambda^+(x)\sigma_\lambda(x) = \psi_\lambda^-(x)
\qquad\text{and} \qquad \|\sigma_\lambda(x)\| < 1.$$ As defined, $\sigma_\lambda(x)(\mathrm{ran\,}\psi_\lambda^{-*}(x))
\subseteq \psi_\lambda^{+*}(x)$ and $\sigma_\lambda(x)(\mathrm{ker\,}\psi_\lambda^{-}(x)) = \{0\}$. Additionally, if the test functions are in ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$, then $\sigma_\lambda
\in C(\overline{X}, M_n(\mathbb C))$ where $n = 2^{|\lambda|-1}$.
Let $n = 2^{|\lambda|-1}$ and $1_n$ be the identity matrix on $\mathbb
C^n$. Then $$\label{eq:5}
\begin{split}
&(\psi_\lambda^+\psi_\lambda^{+*}*([1_n] -
\sigma_\lambda\sigma_\lambda^*)*(k\otimes 1_n))(x,y) \\
= & \psi_\lambda^+(x)((k(x,y)\otimes 1_n)
- \sigma_\lambda(x) (k(x,y)\otimes 1_n) \sigma_\lambda(y)^*)
\psi_\lambda^+(y)^* \\
= & \psi_\lambda^+(x) (k(x,y)\otimes 1_n) \psi_\lambda^+(y)^*
- \psi_\lambda^-(x) (k(x,y)\otimes 1_n) \psi_\lambda^-(y)^* \\
= & \left(\textstyle\prod_{\lambda_i\in\lambda} ([1] -
\psi_i\psi_i^*)^{\lambda_i}*k\right)(x,y).
\end{split}$$ We call the functions $\sigma_\lambda$, $\lambda\in\Lambda$ **auxiliary test functions**. The last calculation shows that we apparently only have positivity of $([1_n] - \sigma_\lambda
\sigma_\lambda^*)*(k\otimes 1_n)$ after taking the Schur product with $\psi_\lambda^+\psi_\lambda^{+*}$, though clearly $\sigma_\lambda \in
{{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ if $\lambda = e_j$ for some $j$, since when $|\lambda| = 1$, the auxiliary test functions are just the ordinary test functions. We examine this point more closely in the next section.
Fixing $x,y \in X$, we use the above to construct certain continuous functions over $\Lambda$. In particular, define $$\begin{split}
E^\pm(x)(\lambda) &= \psi^\pm_\lambda(x) \\
D(x,y)(\lambda) &= \prod_{j=1}^d (1 - \psi_j(x)
\psi_j(y)^*)^{\lambda_j}.
\end{split}$$ Then $$\label{eq:7}
E^+(x)(\lambda)E^+(y)(\lambda)^* - E^-(x)(\lambda)E^-(y)(\lambda)^*
= D(x,y)(\lambda),$$ and $E^+(x)(\lambda)E^+(x)(\lambda)^* \geq 1$.
Auxiliary test functions for ample preorderings {#subsec:auxil-test-funct-ample}
-----------------------------------------------
We show in this subsection that when $\Lambda$ is an ample preordering, the auxiliary test function $\sigma_\lambda$ can be modified so as to obtain a matrix valued ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ function.
\[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\] Assume that $\Psi$ is a finite collection of test functions over a set $X$, $\Lambda$ an ample preordering with maximal element $\lambda^m$. Then for $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $n = 2^{|\lambda|-1}$, the auxiliary test function $\sigma_\lambda$ can be defined so that $([1_n] - \sigma_\lambda \sigma_\lambda^*)*(k_s\otimes 1_n) \geq 0$ and for all $x\in X$, $\|\sigma_\lambda(x)\| < 1$; that is, $\sigma_\lambda \in H_1^\infty({\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^n})$. If the test functions are in $A(X, \mathcal K_\Lambda)$, then we have $\sigma_\lambda \in A({\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^n})$. Furthermore, $k\in {\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ if and only if $\,([1_n] - \sigma_{\lambda^m} \sigma_{\lambda^m}^*)*(k\otimes 1_n)
\geq 0$, $n = 2^{|\lambda^m|-1}$. As a consequence, if we define a positive kernel $k_\Lambda$ by $k_\Lambda(x,y) =
(1-\sigma_{\lambda^m}(x) \sigma_{\lambda^m}(y)^*)^{-1}$, then $\varphi \in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ if and only if $([1_{n}\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - (1_{n}\otimes \varphi)(1_{n}\otimes
\varphi)^*)*(k_\Lambda \otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}) \geq 0$.
Fix $\lambda\in \Lambda$ and let $F$ be a finite subset of $X$. Let $n = 2^{|\lambda|-1}$. We have a Kolmogorov decomposition of the Szegő kernel $$k_s(x,y) = 1_n \otimes \prod_{j=1}^d
(1-\psi_j(x)\psi_j(y)^*)^{-1} = \kappa_s(x)\kappa_s(y)^*,$$ where $\kappa_s(x):\mathcal E \to \mathbb C^n$, and $\mathcal E$ is a Hilbert space equal to the closed span over $x\in X$ of the functions $\kappa_s(x)^*$.
Write $k_F$ for the restriction of $k$ to $F\times F$ and let ${\mathcal E}_F = \bigvee_{x\in F} \kappa_s(x)^* \subset \mathcal
E$. By Corollary \[cor:Szego-ker-inv\], $k_F$ has closed range isomorphic to $\mathbb C^{n|F|}$. Denote by $\kappa_F$ the column over $x\in F$ of $k_s(x)$ restricted to ${\mathcal E}_F$. Then $\mathrm{ran}\, \kappa_F^* = {\mathcal E}_F$ and $\kappa_F
\kappa_F^* = k_F$. Let $\Psi^+_F$ be a matrix with diagonal elements $\psi^+_\lambda(x)$, which maps from the range of $\kappa_F$, and let $P^+_F$ be the orthogonal projection onto the range of $\Psi^{+*}_F$. Also write $\sigma_F$ for the direct sum over $x\in F$ of $\sigma_\lambda(x)$. Define $$Q_F = \kappa_F^{-1} P^+_F \kappa_F \qquad\text{and}\qquad
G^o_F = P_{\mathrm{ran}\,Q_F^*} \kappa_F^{-1} \sigma_F \kappa_F.$$ Here $P_{\mathrm{ran}\,Q_F^*}$ is the orthogonal projection onto the range of $Q_F^*$.
It is clear that $Q_F$ is a (not necessarily orthogonal) projection. Also, $\Psi^+_F \kappa_F = \Psi^+_F P^+_F \kappa_F =
\Psi^+_F \kappa_F Q_F$ and $\kappa_F G^o_F = \sigma_F \kappa_F =
P^+_F \sigma_F \kappa_F = \kappa_F Q_F G^o_F$. Now, $$\begin{split}
0 & \leq \Psi^+_F (k_F - \sigma_F k_F \sigma_F^*)\Psi^{+*}_F \\
& = \Psi^+_F \kappa_F Q_F (1 - G^o_F G^{o*}_F)\kappa_F^* Q_F^*
\Psi^{+*}_F,
\end{split}$$ and so $P_{\mathrm{ran}\,Q_F^*} - G^o_F G^{o*}_F \geq 0$. Consequently, $\|G^o_F\| \leq 1$.
Let $${\mathcal G}_F = \left\{ G_F\in \mathcal{L}({\mathcal E}_F) :
\|G_F\| \leq 1 \text{ and } P_{\mathrm{ran}\,Q_F^*}G_F = G^o_F
\right\}.$$ This is a compact subset of the unit ball of $\mathcal{L}({\mathcal
E}_F)$, and for any $G_F \in {\mathcal G}_F$, $$\begin{split}
& \Psi^+_F \kappa_F (1 - G_F G^*_F)\kappa_F^* \Psi^{+*}_F
= \,\Psi^+_F \kappa_F Q_F (1 - G_F G^*_F)\kappa_F^* Q_F^*
\Psi^{+*}_F \\
& = \,\Psi^+_F (k_F - \sigma_F k_F \sigma_F^*)\Psi^{+*}_F
\geq 0.
\end{split}$$ If we define $${\mathcal S}_F = \left\{ S_F\in \mathcal{L}(\mathrm{ran}\, k_F) :
S_F = \kappa_F G_F \kappa_F^{-1} \text{ for some } G_F \in
{\mathcal G}_F \right\},$$ then by construction this set is nonempty, $k_F - S_F k_F S_F^* =
\kappa_F (1 - G_F G^*_F)\kappa_F^* \geq 0$, and $$\label{eq:8}
\begin{split}
\Psi^+_F (k_F - S_F k_F S_F^*)\Psi^{+*}_F & \,= \Psi^+_F (k_F -
\sigma_F k_F \sigma_F^*)\Psi^{+*}_F \\
& = \,{\left((\psi_\lambda^+\psi_\lambda^{+\,*} *
([1_n] - \sigma_\lambda\sigma_\lambda^*) * k_s)(x,y)
\right)}_{x,y\in F}.
\end{split}$$
The set ${\mathcal S}_F$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal G}_F$, and so is also compact. It is natural to define the norm of $S_F \in
{\mathcal S}_F$ to equal the norm of the associated $G_F \in
{\mathcal G}_F$. If $F' \supset F$ and $G_{F'} \in {\mathcal
G}_{F'}$, then since $\kappa_F$ is the restriction of $\kappa_{F'}$ to $\mathcal E_F$, $G_F := P_{\mathcal E_F}G_{F'} \in
{\mathcal G}_F$. Thus for $S_{F'} = \kappa_{F'} G_{F'}
\kappa_{F'}^{-1}$ and $S_F = \kappa_F G_F \kappa_F^{-1}$, the map $\pi_F^{F'} :\mathcal S_{F'} \to \mathcal S_F$ defined by $$\pi_F^{F'} (S_{F'}) = S_F$$ is contractive and so continuous. Let $\mathcal F$ be the collection of all finite subsets of $X$ partially ordered by inclusion. The triple $(\mathcal S_F,\pi_F^{F'},\mathcal F)$ is an inverse limit of nonempty compact spaces, and so by Kurosh’s Theorem [@MR1882259 p. 30], for each $F\in\mathcal F$ there is an $S_F \in \mathcal S_F$ so that whenever $F,F'\in\mathcal F$ and $F\subset F'$, $$\pi_F^{F'} ((S_{F'})) = (S_F).$$ We can thus define ${\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}$ on $X$ by $${\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x) = S_{\{x\}}.$$ By construction, $$\label{eq:16}
([1_n] - {\tilde\sigma}_\lambda {\tilde\sigma}_\lambda^* ) *
k_s \geq 0;$$ that is, ${\tilde\sigma}_\lambda \in H^\infty(X,{\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^n})$.
It follows in particular from that for any kernel $k$ subordinate to the Szegő kernel $k_s$ and $n =
2^{|\lambda^m|-1}$, $$\label{eq:15}
([1_n] - {\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda^m}
{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda^m}^*)*(k\otimes 1_n) \geq 0.$$ Also, by any kernel $k$ for which holds is subordinate to the Szegő kernel. Hence the collection of auxiliary test functions constructed gives the same set of admissible kernels, and so generates ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ with the same norm.
Let $\lambda = \lambda^m$, with ${\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}$ constructed as above. For the time being, we assume $\Lambda =
\{\lambda^m\}$. Suppose that $x\in X$ has the property that $\|{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x)\| = 1$. Since ${\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x) \in M_n(\mathbb C)$ for $n =
2^{|\lambda|-1} < \infty$, there is some $f\in {\mathbb C}^n$ such that $\|{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x)f\| = \|f\| = 1$.
The test functions all have absolute value less than one in $X$, so for $y\neq x\in X$, the Szegő kernel satisfies $k_s(x,y)\neq 0$ and $k_s(x,x)>0$, and by Corollary \[cor:Szego-ker-inv\] when restricted to the two point set $\{x,y\} \subset X$, $k_s$ is invertible. Consequently, $k_s(x,y) = k_s(x,x)^{1/2} g
k_s(y,y)^{1/2}$, where $|g| < 1$.
Let $k_s(x,y) = {{
\left<
k_x,k_y
\right>}}$ be the Kolmogorov decomposition of $k_s$. Since holds over the set $\{x,y\}$ and $${{
\left<
f\otimes k_x,f\otimes k_x
\right>}} -
{{
\left<
{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x)f\otimes
k_x,{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x)f\otimes k_x
\right>}} = 0,$$ it follows that $${{
\left<
f\otimes k_x,f\otimes k_y
\right>}} -
{{
\left<
{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x)f\otimes
k_x,{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(y)f\otimes k_y
\right>}} = 0.$$ Hence there is an isometry $V$ such that ${\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x)f = {\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(y)f = Vf$.
Define the $M_n(\mathbb C)$ valued kernel $\tilde k(z,w)$ to be equal to $P_f$, the projection onto the span of $f$ if $z,w\in
\{x,y\}$, and $0$ otherwise. Since $([1_n] -
{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda} {\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}^*)* \tilde k =0$, $\tilde k$ is admissible. On the other hand, to be admissible, it must also be the case that there is some positive kernel $F$ such that $\tilde k = k_s * F$. Obviously, $F(z,w)$ must be zero if $z,w\notin \{x,y\}$ and $F(z,z) = k_s(z,z)^{-1}\otimes P_f$ for $z
=x$ or $y$. Positivity then implies that $F(x,y) = (k_s(x,x)^{-1}
g'k_s(y,y)^{-1})\otimes P_f$ with $|g'| \leq 1$. Hence $(k_s*F)(x,y) = gg'P_f \neq P_f$, giving a contradiction. We conclude that for all $x$, $\|{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda^m}(x)\| < 1$.
Now suppose that $\Lambda$ is any ample preordering. If $\lambda
\in\Lambda$, $\lambda \neq \lambda^m$, has the property that at some $x$, $\|{\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(x)\| = 1$, then an identical argument shows that the norm is achieved on a subspace $\mathcal F$, and that there is an isometry $V$ such that for all $f\in \mathcal
F$ and all $y\in X$, ${\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(y)f = Vf$. Consequently, we can change ${\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}$ so that ${\tilde\sigma}_{\lambda}(y)f = 0$ for all $y\in X$. Testing against the Szegő kernel, it is clear that the resulting function is still in $H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb
C^n})$ for appropriate $n$ and now satisfies $\|{\tilde\sigma}_\lambda (x)\| < 1$.
\[cor:aux-test-fns-for-polydisk\] Let $d\in\mathbb N$ and $n = 2^{d-1}$. There is a function $\sigma
\in H_1^\infty(\mathbb D^d, M_n(\mathbb C))$ such that the set of positive kernels $\mathcal K$ with the property that $k\in \mathcal
K$ if and only if $([1_n] - \sigma\sigma^*)* k \geq 0$ are all subordinate to $1_n\otimes k_s$, where $k_s$ is the the Szegő kernel $\prod_{j=1}^d (1-z_jz_j^*)^{-1}$, and so $H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,\mathcal K_{\sigma, \mathcal H}) = H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,
\mathcal{L(H)})$.
This is a consequence of the last theorem and \[cor:po\_for\_polydisk\].
Representations of $C_b(\Lambda)$ {#subsec:representations}
---------------------------------
As noted previously, since $|\Lambda| < \infty$, a unital representation $\rho: C_b(\Lambda)\to \mathcal{L(E)}$, $\mathcal E$ a Hilbert space, will have the form $$\rho(f) = \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes f(\lambda),$$ where the $P_\lambda$s are orthogonal projections with orthogonal ranges and $\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} {{\mathrm{ran}\,}}P_\lambda \otimes \mathbb
C^{2|\lambda|-1} = \mathcal E$. We then naturally define $$Z^\pm(x) := \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes
E^\pm(x)(\lambda) = \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes
\psi^\pm_\lambda(x)$$ and $$R(x,y) = \rho(D(x,y)) := \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda
\otimes D(x,y)(\lambda).$$ It follows that $$Z^+(x)Z^+(y)^* - Z^-(x)Z^-(y)^* = R(x,y),$$ and $Z^+(x)Z^+(x)^* \geq 1$. In particular, $Z^+(x)Z^+(x)^*$ is invertible.
The operator $Z^+(x)$ has a right inverse given by $$Y(x) := \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes \omega_\lambda(x)
= \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes \psi^+_\lambda(x)^*
|\psi^+_\lambda(x)|^{-2},$$ and so $P(x) = Y(x) Z^+(x)$ is the orthogonal projection onto ${{\overline{\mathrm{ran}}\,}}Z^+(x)^*$.
Setting $$S(x) := Y(x) Z^-(x) = \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes
\sigma_\lambda(x),$$ we have $Z^-(x) = Z^+(x) S(x)$. Also, since $P(x) Y(x) = Y(x) Z^+(x)
Y(x) = Y(x)$, we have $P(x) S(x) = S(x)$. Thus $$\begin{split}
1 - S(x)S(x)^* &= 1 - Y(x)Z^-(x)Z^-(x)^*Y(x)^* \\
& = 1 - P(x)P(x) + P(x)P(x) - Y(x)Z^-(x)Z^-(x)^*Y(x)^* \\
& = 1 - P(x)P(x) + Y(x)Z^+(x)Z^+(x)^*Y(x)^* -
Y(x)Z^-(x)Z^-(x)^*Y(x)^* \\
& = 1 - P(x)P(x) + Y(x)\left( Z^+(x)Z^+(x)^* -
Z^-(x)Z^-(x)^*\right) Y(x)^* > 0. \\
\end{split}$$
In case the preordering is ample, in the definition of $S(x)$ we may use Theorem \[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\] to replace $\sigma_\lambda$ by a corresponding element of $H^\infty(X,{\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^{2^{|\lambda|-1}}})$.
We summarize in the following lemma.
\[lem:factoring\_Z-\] Let $x\in X$.
1. $Z^+(x)Z^+(x)^* - Z^-(x)Z^-(x)^* \geq 0$.
2. The operator $Y(x)$ is a right inverse of $Z^+(x)$ and $P(x) := Y(x) Z^+(x)$ is the orthogonal projection onto ${{\mathrm{ran}\,}}Z^+(x)^*$.
3. The operator $S(x) = Y(x) Z^-(x): {{\overline{\mathrm{ran}}\,}}Z^-(x)^* \to {{\mathrm{ran}\,}}Z^+(x)^*$ $($or a corresponding element of $H^\infty(X,{\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^{2^{|\lambda|-1}}})$ in case of an ample preordering$)$ satisfies $Z^-(x) = Z^+(x) S(x)$ and has the property that $\|S(x)\| < 1$.
Although it has not been explicitly indicated, it is worth bearing in mind that $Z^+$, $Z^-$, $S$ and so on, depend both on $\Lambda$ and the choice of representation, and we will at times make this dependence explicit by writing $Z^+_{\Lambda,\rho}$, $Z^-_{\Lambda,\rho}$, $S_{\Lambda,\rho}$, etc.
Transfer functions, Brehmer representations and dilations {#sec:brehm-repr-transf}
=========================================================
The transfer function algebra {#subsec:transfer-functions}
-----------------------------
In the standard manner, we define a **$C_b(\Lambda)$-unitary colligation** $\Sigma$ as a triple $(U,\mathcal E, \rho)$, where $\mathcal E$ is a Hilbert space, $U = \begin{pmatrix} A&B \\ C&D
\end{pmatrix} \in \mathcal B(\mathcal E \oplus \mathcal H)$ is a unitary operator, and $\rho: C_b(\Lambda) \to \mathcal{L}(\mathcal E)$ a unital $*$-representation.
Assume the notation from Lemma \[lem:factoring\_Z-\]. Given a $C_b(\Lambda)$-unitary colligation $\Sigma$, we define the **transfer function** $W_\Sigma:X \to \mathcal{L(H)}$ associated to $\Sigma$ as $$W_\Sigma(x) := D + C S(x) (1 - A S(x))^{-1} B,$$ where $S = S_{\Lambda,\rho}$. Write $$\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H) := \{W_\Sigma : \Sigma \text{
a unitary colligation }\},$$ and $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ for the scalar multiples of elements in $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$. It is clear that $W\in \mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ will not in general be uniquely represented as a multiple of a single element of $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$. For $W \in
\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, define a norm by $$\label{eq:12}
\|W\| := \inf\left\{c\geq 0 : W = c W_\Sigma \text{ for some
unitary colligation }\Sigma \right\}.$$ (We show in Theorem \[thm:trfr-fns-span-alg\] below that $\|\cdot\|$ on $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ really is a norm.) Finally, we write$\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$ for the set of those $W\in\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ which extend continuously to $\overline{X}$
The formula gives the standard form of the transfer function when $\Lambda = \Lambda_1 = \{e_\psi\}$. Again, one should bear in mind that $S$ depends on $\rho$.
More generally, we might also consider **$C_b(\Lambda)$-contractive colligations** by allowing $U$ to be contractive rather than unitary, and then likewise define a transfer function. As it happens, this does not enlarge the collection of functions we obtain through the apparently more restrictive unitary colligations, since any any contractive operator has a unitary dilation.
\[lem:contractive-to-unitary-transfer-fn\] Let $W_\Sigma: X\to \mathcal{L(H)}$ be a transfer function obtained via a contractive colligation $\Sigma = (U,\mathcal E, \rho)$. Then there is unitary colligation $\tilde\Sigma = (\tilde U,
\tilde{\mathcal E}, \tilde\rho)$ such that $W_\Sigma =
W_{\tilde\Sigma}$.
At least one of the projections, say $P_{\lambda_0}$ will be nonzero, so we take $g$ to be a unit vector from its range. Let $\{a_j\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $\mathbb C^{n_{\lambda_0}}$, where $n_{\lambda_0} = 2^{|\lambda_0|-1}$, and define $\mathcal Q =
\bigvee_j (g\otimes n_j)$. Elements of $\mathcal Q$ have the form $e = \sum_j \beta_j g\otimes a_j$, where $\beta = (\beta_j)\in
\mathbb C^{n_{\lambda_0}}$. In addition, if $e' = \sum_j {\beta'}_j
g\otimes a_j$, then ${{
\left<
e',e
\right>}} = \sum_j
{\beta'}_j\overline{\beta_j}$.
By assumption, $$U =
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\ C & D
\end{pmatrix}
: \mathcal E \oplus \mathcal H \to \mathcal E \oplus \mathcal H$$ is a contraction. Let $${\tilde D}_U =
\begin{pmatrix}
{\tilde D}_1 \\ {\tilde D}_2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
D_U =
\begin{pmatrix}
D_1 \\ D_2
\end{pmatrix}$$ be defect operators for $U$ and $U^*$, respectively (so $1-U^*U =
{\tilde D}_U{\tilde D}_U^*$ and $1-UU^* = D_UD_U^*$ with defect spaces ${\tilde{\mathcal D}}_U = {{\overline{\mathrm{ran}}\,}}{\tilde D}_U^*$ and ${\mathcal D}_U = {{\overline{\mathrm{ran}}\,}}D_U^*$), and $\begin{pmatrix} L^* & {\tilde
D}_U^* \\ D_U & U \end{pmatrix}$ the corresponding Julia operator, which is unitary from ${\tilde{\mathcal D}}_U \oplus
(\mathcal E \oplus \mathcal H)$ to ${\mathcal D}_U \oplus (\mathcal
E \oplus \mathcal H)$. Then there is a unitary dilation of $U$ of the form $$\begin{split}
U' =& \overbrace{S_2\oplus\cdots \oplus S_2}^{n_{\lambda_0} - 1}
\oplus \\
&\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc|c}
& \ddots &&&&&& \vdots \\
&& 1 &&&&& \\
&&& 0 &&&& \\
\ddots &&&& 1 &&& \\
& 1 &&&& 0 && \\
&& 0 &&& L^* & {\tilde D}_1^* & {\tilde D}_2^* \\
&&& 1 &&0&0&0 \\
&&&& 0 & D_1 & A & B \\\hline
\cdots &&&&& D_2 & C & D \\
\end{array}\right),
\end{split}$$ where unspecified entries are $0$ and the blocks act on $(\mathcal
K^{2n_{\lambda_0} - 1} \oplus \mathcal E)\oplus\mathcal H$, $\mathcal K = \cdots \oplus {\tilde{\mathcal D}}_U \oplus {\mathcal
D}_U \oplus {\tilde{\mathcal D}}_U \oplus {\mathcal D}_U$, a direct sum of defect spaces. The operator $S_2$ is a unitary operator on $\mathcal K \oplus \mathcal K$ defined as $$S_2 =
\left(\begin{array}{cccccc|cccccc}
&&& \ddots &&&&&&&& \\
\ddots &&&& 1 &&&&&&& \\
& 1 &&&& 0 &&&&&& \\
&& 0 &&&& 1 &&&&& \\
&&& 1 &&&& 0 &&&& \\\hline
&&&& 0 &&&& 1 &&& \\
&&&&& 1 &&&& 0 && \\
&&&&&& 0 &&&& 1 & \\
&&&&&&& 1 &&&& \ddots \\
&&&&&&&& \ddots &&& \\
\end{array}\right).$$ (Here we have made the obvious identification of the direct sum defining $\mathcal K$ written in the forward and backward direction with ${\tilde{\mathcal D}}_U$ and ${\mathcal D}_U$ reversed.)
Let $\tilde{\mathcal E} = (\mathcal K \otimes \mathcal E) \oplus
\mathcal E$. Define an isometry $Q : \mathcal K \otimes \mathcal Q
\to \mathcal K^{2n_{\lambda_0}-1}$ by $$Q(k\otimes e) = (\beta_1 k, 0 , \beta_2 k,0, \dots ,
\beta_{n_{\lambda_0} - 1}k, 0 ,\beta_{n_{\lambda_0}}k ), \quad
\text{where }e = \sum_j \beta_j g\otimes a_j,$$ extending linearly. Let $P$ to be the orthogonal projection onto $({{\mathrm{ran}\,}}Q^* \oplus \mathcal E \oplus \mathcal H)^\bot$ in $\tilde{\mathcal E}$, and set $$\tilde U = P \oplus (Q^* \oplus P_{\mathcal E} \oplus P_{\mathcal
H}) U' (Q\oplus P_{\mathcal E} \oplus P_{\mathcal H}),$$ where $P_{\mathcal E}$, $P_{\mathcal H}$ are the orthogonal projections from $\tilde{\mathcal E} \oplus \mathcal H$ onto $\mathcal E$ and $\mathcal H$. This is unitary on $\tilde{\mathcal
E} \oplus \mathcal H$. We view it as a colligation by setting $$\begin{split}
\tilde A &= P \oplus (Q^* \oplus P_{\mathcal E}) U' (Q\oplus
P_{\mathcal E}) \\
\tilde B &= (Q^* \oplus P_{\mathcal E}) U' P_{\mathcal H} \\
\tilde C &= P_{\mathcal H} U' (Q\oplus P_{\mathcal E}) \\
\tilde D &= P_{\mathcal H} U' P_{\mathcal H} = D.
\end{split}$$ Define a unital representation $$\tilde\rho = (1_{\mathcal K} \otimes \rho) \oplus \rho :
C_b(\Lambda) \to \tilde{\mathcal E}.$$ Recall that using $\rho(f) = \sum_\lambda P_\lambda \otimes f$, we defined $S(x) = \sum_\lambda P_\lambda \otimes \sigma(x)$. If we now set ${\tilde P}_\lambda = (1_{\mathcal K} \otimes P_\lambda)
\oplus P_\lambda$, we can likewise define $$\tilde S(x) = \sum_\lambda {\tilde P}_\lambda \otimes \sigma(x)
\in \mathcal L (\tilde{\mathcal E}),$$ and from this, a transfer function $$\tilde W(x) = \tilde D + \tilde C \tilde S(x) (1_{\tilde{\mathcal
E}} - \tilde A \tilde S(x))^{-1} \tilde B.$$
We verify that $\tilde W(x) = W(x)$ by showing $\tilde C \tilde S(x)
(\tilde A \tilde S(x))^n \tilde B = CS(x)(AS(x))^n B$ for $n=0,1,\dots$. Fix $h\in \mathcal H$. Then $$\tilde B h = (Q^* \oplus P_{\mathcal E})
\begin{pmatrix}
\vdots \\ 0 \\ {\tilde D}_2^* h \\ 0 \\ Bh
\end{pmatrix}
= (k^0 \otimes e^0) \oplus Bh,$$ where $k^0 = {\begin{pmatrix} \cdots & 0 & {\tilde D}_2^* h & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^t$ and $e^0 = g\otimes a_1$ (since in the column vector, $k^0$ occurs in the first copy of $\mathcal K$ in $\mathcal
K^{2n_{\lambda_0} - 1}$). Now $$S(x) e^0 = S(x) (g\otimes a_1) = \sum_j \beta_j^1 h\otimes a_j$$ for some $(\beta_1^1,\dots, \beta_{n_{\lambda_0}}) \in \mathbb
C^{n_{\lambda_0}}$. Setting $e^1 = \sum_j \beta_j^1 h\otimes a_j
\in \mathcal Q$, $$\tilde S(x)\tilde B h = (k^0\otimes e^1)\oplus S(x)Bh.$$ Then $$\tilde C \tilde S(x)\tilde B h =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \cdots & 0 &
\begin{pmatrix}
\cdots & 0 & D_2
\end{pmatrix}
& C
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^1_{n_{\lambda_0}} k^0 \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ \beta^1_1 k^0 \\
S(x)Bh
\end{pmatrix}
= CS(x)Bh,$$ proving the claim when $n=0$.
For $n=1$, $$\begin{split}
& S_2\oplus\cdots \oplus S_2 \oplus
\begin{pmatrix}
& \ddots &&&&& \\
&& 1 &&&& \\
&&& 0 &&& \\
\ddots &&&& 1 && \\
& 1 &&&& 0 & \\
&& 0 &&& L^* & {\tilde D}_1^* \\
&&& 1 &&0&0 \\
&&&& 0 & D_1 & A
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^1_{n_{\lambda_0}} k^0 \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ \beta^1_1 k^0 \\
S(x)Bh
\end{pmatrix}
\\
& =
\begin{pmatrix}
\beta^1_{n_{\lambda_0}} k^1 \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ \beta^1_1 k^1 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}
+
\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ {k'}^0 \\
AS(x)Bh
\end{pmatrix},
\end{split}$$ where $k^1 = {\begin{pmatrix} \cdots & 0 & {\tilde D}_2^* h & 0 & 0
& 0 \end{pmatrix}}^t$ (that is, $k^0$ with entries shifted up by two positions) and ${k'}^0 = {\begin{pmatrix} \cdots & 0 & {\tilde
D}_1^*S(x)B h & 0 \end{pmatrix}}^t$. Notice that in both cases, only even numbered entries in odd numbered spaces $\mathcal
K$ of $\mathcal K^{2n_{\lambda_0} - 1}$ are non-zero. Also, these vectors are in the kernel of $P$. From this, we conclude that $$\tilde A \tilde S(x)\tilde B h = (k^1 \otimes e^1 + {k'}^0 \otimes
{e'}^1) \oplus AS(x)Bh,$$ where ${e'}^1$ is likewise a vector in $\mathcal Q$. Applying $\tilde S(x)$, we get $$(k^1 \otimes e^2 + {k'}^0 \otimes {e'}^2) \oplus S(x)AS(x)Bh$$ for some vectors $e^2$ and ${e'}^2$ in $\mathcal Q$. Because $\begin{pmatrix} \cdots & 0 & D_2 \end{pmatrix}$ only acts nontrivially on odd labeled entries of $\mathcal K$ in the first $\mathcal K$ of $\mathcal K^{2n_{\lambda_0} - 1}$, we conclude that $\tilde C \tilde S(x) \tilde A \tilde S(x)\tilde B h =
CS(x)AS(x)Bh$, proving the case when $n=1$.
Repeated application of $\tilde A \tilde S(x)$ to vectors in $\mathcal Q \subset \mathcal K^{2n_{\lambda_0} - 1}$ where the only nonzero entries are in the odd labeled spaces and within those spaces, only in the even labeled entries, yields vectors of the same sort. An induction argument then finishes the proof.
While we only stated and proved the last result in the specific case we need later in the paper, minor alterations would allow for it to cover cases where the test functions are operator valued (rather than simply matrix valued) and where there are infinitely many of them.
With Lemma \[lem:contractive-to-unitary-transfer-fn\] in hand, we can show that $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ is a normed unital algebra.
\[thm:trfr-fns-span-alg\] With norm $\|\cdot\|$ defined as in , unit $1_X(x) =
1_\mathcal H$ and pointwise addition and multiplication, the set $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ is a normed unital algebra. Furthermore, any $W\in\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ can be approximated uniformly in norm on compact subsets of $X$ by elements of $\mathcal{L(H)} \otimes \mathcal P_\Psi$, the operator valued polynomials in the test functions, while elements of $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ can be approximated uniformly on $X$ by such polynomials. If $\mathcal H$ is finite dimensional, $\mathcal{L(H)} \otimes \mathcal P_\Psi$ is dense in $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ endowed with the supremum norm. Finally, if $W \in \mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, $W=c(D+CS(1-AS)^{-1}B)$, then $W$ can be approximated uniformly in norm on compact subsets of $X$ by polynomials in $S$ which are in $c\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$.
We first show that $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ is convex. Let $W_{\Sigma_1},W_{\Sigma_2} \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$ and $t\in[0,1]$. The operator $$\begin{split}
U' = &
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0&0 \\ 0&1&0&0 \\ 0&0&t^{1/2}&(1-t)^{1/2}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
A_1&0&B_1&0 \\ 0&A_2&0&B_2 \\ C_1&0&D_1&0 \\ 0&C_2&0&D_2
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0 \\ 0&1&0 \\ 0&0&t^{1/2} \\ 0&0&(1-t)^{1/2}
\end{pmatrix}
\\ & =
\begin{pmatrix}
A_1&0&t^{1/2}B_1 \\ 0&A_2&(1-t)^{1/2}B_2 \\
t^{1/2}C_1&(1-t)^{1/2}C_2&tD_1+(1-t)D_2
\end{pmatrix},
\end{split}$$ being the product of contractions is a contraction. If we set ${\mathcal{E}}' = \mathcal E_1 \oplus \mathcal E_2$ and $\rho' =
\rho_1\oplus\rho_2$, then $tW_{\Sigma_1}+(1-t)W_{\Sigma_2} =
W_{\Sigma'}$ where $\Sigma'$ is a contractive colligation. Hence by the last lemma equals $tW_{\Sigma_1}+(1-t)W_{\Sigma_2} = W_\Sigma$ where $\Sigma$ is some unitary colligation.
Clearly, by taking the contractive colligation with $U = 0$, the function which is identically $0$ is in $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda,
\mathcal H)$. Hence by convexity, $tW_\Sigma \in
\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ for all $t\in[0,1]$, showing that $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ is barreled.
Let $W_{\Sigma_1},W_{\Sigma_2} \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$ and define the unitary operator $$U =
\begin{pmatrix}
A_1&B_1C_2&B_1D_2 \\ 0&A_2&B_2 \\ C_1&D_1C_2&D_1D_2
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
A_1&0&B_1 \\ 0&1&0 \\ C_1&0&D_1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0&0 \\ 0&A_2&B_2 \\ 0&C_2&D_2
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Let $\mathcal{E} = \mathcal E_1 \oplus \mathcal E_2$ and $\rho =
\rho_1\oplus\rho_2$, it follows that $W_{\Sigma_1}W_{\Sigma_2} =
W_\Sigma$.
To see that what we defined in is a norm, first of all note that if $W\in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, then $\|W\| \leq 1$. It is also evident that $\|cW\| = |c|\|W\|$, and $\|W\| \geq 0$ with equality if and only if $W=0$. Since $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ is convex, if $W_1,W_2\in
\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ and $W_1 = c_1 W_{\Sigma_1}$, $W_2 =c_2 W_{\Sigma_2}$, then $$\frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}W_{\Sigma_1} + \frac{c_2}{c_1+c_2}W_{\Sigma_2}
\in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H).$$ Hence $$\begin{split}
\|W_1+W_2\| &= \|c_1W_{\Sigma_1}+c_2W_{\Sigma_2}\| \\
&= (c_1+c_2) \left\|\frac{c_1}{c_1+c_2}W_{\Sigma_1} +
\frac{c_2}{c_1+c_2}W_{\Sigma_2} \right\| \\
&\leq c_1+c_2.
\end{split}$$ Taking the infimum over $c_1$ and $c_2$ as $W_{\Sigma_1}$ and $W_{\Sigma_2}$ range over those elements of $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ such that $W_1 = c_1
W_{\Sigma_1}$ and $W_2 =c_2 W_{\Sigma_2}$ with $c_1,c_2 \geq 0$ yields the triangle inequality.
For any choice of representation $\rho: C_b(\Lambda) \to
\mathcal{L(E)}$, and $U$ the identity operator, we get $W_\Sigma =
1_X$, the function which is identically $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ on $X$. More generally, if $D \in \mathcal{L(H)}$ is a contraction operator, and $U = \begin{pmatrix} 0&0\\0&D \end{pmatrix}$ for the same choice of $\mathcal E$ and $\rho$, $W_\Sigma = D$.
If $\psi\in\Psi$ and we choose $\mathcal E = \mathcal{L(H)}$, $Z^+ =
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ and $Z^- = \psi\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, then $S = \psi \otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$. So with $A=D=0$ and $B= C =
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, we get $W_\Sigma = \psi \otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$. Then since $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$ is closed under products, we also have for any $n \in \mathbb
N^{|\Psi|}$, $\psi^n \otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} \in
\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$. This also then gives that $\psi^n T$ for any contraction $T\in \mathcal{L(H)}$. Scaling and closure under addition yields that any operator valued polynomial in the test functions is in $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$.
The topology with which $X$ is endowed ensures that all test functions are continuous. Hence for all $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $\psi^\pm_\lambda$ is also continuous, and thus $\psi^+_\lambda\psi^{+*}_\lambda$ is a continuous function bounded below by $1$, and so has a continuous inverse. Consequently, any auxiliary test function $\sigma_\lambda$ is continuous. (In the case that $\Lambda$ is an ample preordering, this was automatic, since $\sigma_\lambda \in H^\infty_1(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb
C^n})$ for some $n$, and all functions in this space are continuous.) Since for any $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $\|\sigma_\lambda(x)\|<1$ for all $x\in X$, it follows that for any unitary colligation $\Sigma$, the associated function $S(x)$ is also continuous and has norm less than $1$. Hence when $\mathcal{L(H)}$ is given the norm topology, $W_\Sigma \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda,
\mathcal H)$ is continuous, and so $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H) \subset C(X,\mathcal{L(H)})$.
By definition, the test functions separate the points of $X$, and so by the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, the space of polynomials in the test functions, $\mathcal P_\Psi$, is dense in $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda,
\mathbb C)$ with the supremum norm. Hence if $\mathcal H$ is finite dimensional with orthonormal basis $(e_j)$ and $W\in
\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, then $W_{j\ell}:={{
\left<
We_j,e_\ell
\right>}} \in \mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathbb C)$. Let $\epsilon >0$. For each $1\leq j,\ell \leq \dim\mathcal H$, find a polynomial $p_{j\ell}$ such that $\|W_{j\ell}-p_{j\ell}\|_\infty < \epsilon/(\dim\mathcal H)^2$. Then $\|W - (p_{j\ell})\|_\infty < \epsilon$, showing that $\mathcal{L(H)} \otimes \mathcal P_\Psi$ is norm dense in $W\in\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$. From this argument, we see that $\mathcal{L(H)} \otimes \mathcal P_\Psi$ is weakly dense in $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ if $\dim\mathcal H$ is not finite.
Now suppose that $W\in \mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ where the dimension of $\mathcal H$ is not necessarily finite. Fix $\epsilon
> 0$ and let $C$ be a compact subset of $X$. Then $W(C)$ is compact, and a cover of $W(C)$ by open balls in $\mathcal{L(H)}$ by balls of radius less than $\epsilon/12$ has a finite subcover $\{U_j\}$. For each $j$ choose $x_j\in W^{-1}(U_j)$. Then for all $x\in X$, $\max_j\|W(x)-W(x_j)\| < \epsilon/6$.
For each $j$ choose a finite dimensional subspace $\mathcal H_j
\subset \mathcal H$ such that $\|W(x_j) - P_{\mathcal H_j} W(x_j)
|_{\mathcal H_j}\| < \epsilon/6$. Set ${\mathcal H}' = \bigvee_j
\mathcal H_j$. This is finite dimensional and for all $x\in X$, $$\begin{split}
&\|W(x) - P_{{\mathcal H}'} W(x) |_{{\mathcal H}'}\| \\
\leq & \max_j \|W(x)-W(x_j)\| +\max_j \|P_{{\mathcal
H}'}(W(x)-W(x_j)|_{{\mathcal H}'}\| + \max_j \|W(x_j) -
P_{{\mathcal H}'} W(x_j) |_{{\mathcal H}'}\| \\
< & \epsilon/2.
\end{split}$$ As we have seen, we can find $p\in \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}') \otimes
\mathcal P_\Psi$ such that $\|p- P_{{\mathcal H}'} W(x) |_{{\mathcal
H}'}\| < \epsilon/2$. Extending $p$ to $\mathcal{L(H)} \otimes
\mathcal P_\Psi$ by padding with $0$s, we then have that $\|W-p\| <
\epsilon$, showing that we can approximate elements of $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ pointwise, and hence uniformly in norm on compact subsets of $X$, by polynomials in $\mathcal{L(H)}
\otimes \mathcal P_\Psi$. If we know that $W\in
\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, then by weak-$*$ compactness of $\overline{X}$, we claim that we can approximate elements of $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ uniformly in norm on $X$.
It suffices to prove the last claim in the case $c=1$; that is, when $W = W_\Sigma$ for some colligation $\Sigma$. Let $\tilde
U = \begin{pmatrix} \tilde A & \tilde B\\ \tilde C & \tilde D
\end{pmatrix}$, where $\tilde D = D$, $\tilde A$ is an $(M+2)\times
(M+2)$ operator matrix with the first super-diagonal having all entries equal to $A$ and all other entries $0$, $\tilde B$ is an $M+2$ operator column with the first $M+1$ entries equal to $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{M+1}}B$ and the last entry $0$, and $\tilde C$ is an $M+2$ operator row with the first entry $0$ and the remaining entries equal to $\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{M+1}}C$. It is easily verified that $\tilde U$ is a contraction. Set $\tilde S$ to the $(M+2)\times(M+2)$ diagonal matrix with diagonal entries equal to $S$. Then $$W_M := \tilde D +\tilde C\tilde S(1-\tilde A \tilde
S)^{-1} \tilde B \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$$ and $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:17}
W_M &= D + CS\left(\tfrac{M}{M+1}1+\tfrac{M-1}{M+1}AS+\cdots +
\tfrac{1}{M+1}(AS)^M\right)B \\
& = D+CS(1-AS)^{-1}\left(1 - \tfrac{1}{m+1} (1-(AS)^{M+2})
(1-AS)^{-1} \right)B.
\end{split}$$ Since by Lemma \[lem:factoring\_Z-\] $S(x)$ is a strict contraction, we see that $W_M$ converges pointwise with $M$ to $W$. Arguing as above, we then get $W_M$ converging uniformly on compact subsets of $X$ to $W$.
We write $\overline{\mathcal{T}}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ for the completion of $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ in the norm from , and $\overline{\mathcal{T}}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$ for the closure of $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ in $\overline{\mathcal{T}}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$.
\[cor:tr\_fns\_are\_op\_alg\] The spaces $\{\overline{\mathcal{T}}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H \otimes
M_n(\mathbb C))\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ and $\{\overline{\mathcal{T}}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H \otimes
M_n(\mathbb C))\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ define unital operator algebra structures for $\overline{\mathcal{T}}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ and $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, respectively.
Let $W\in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathbb C^n \otimes \mathcal H)$ with unitary colligation $\Sigma = (U,\mathcal H,\rho)$, $U=
\begin{pmatrix} A&B \\ C&D \end{pmatrix}$, and let , $X\in
M_{mn}(\mathbb C)$, $Y\in M_{nm}(\mathbb C)$ with $\|X\|,\|Y\| \leq
1$. Then $$XWY = XDY + XC(1-AS)^{-1}BY = \tilde W$$ where $\tilde W \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H \otimes
\mathbb C^m)$ has contractive colligation $\tilde\Sigma = (\tilde
U,\mathcal H, \rho)$ with $\tilde U = \begin{pmatrix} A&BY \\
XC&XDY \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1&0 \\ 0&X
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} A&B \\ C&D \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
1&0 \\ 0&Y \end{pmatrix}$. Hence $\overline{\mathcal{T}}(X,\Lambda,
\mathcal H)$ is an abstract operator space. Since for all $n$, $W_1, W_2\in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H \otimes \mathbb C^n)$ implies $W_1W_2 \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H \otimes
\mathbb C^n)$, it follows that $\overline{\mathcal{T}}(X,\Lambda,
\mathcal H)$ is an operator algebra.
The case for $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ is proved similarly.
The above provides something of a converse to the main result of Jury [@MR2945207] in a special case.
We close this subsection with a lemma which will be useful when we want to construct representations on algebras of transfer functions.
\[lem:tensor-collig-sp-by-H\] Let $W_\Sigma: X\to \mathcal{L(H)}$ be a transfer function obtained via a unitary colligation $\Sigma = (U,\mathcal E, \rho)$. Then there is another unitary colligation $\tilde\Sigma = (\tilde U,
\tilde{\mathcal E} = \mathcal E \otimes \mathcal H, \tilde\rho)$ such that $W_{\tilde\Sigma} = W_\Sigma$.
Recall that by construction, there are orthogonal projections $P_\lambda$ with orthogonal ranges such that $\mathcal E =
\bigoplus_\lambda {{\mathrm{ran}\,}}P_\lambda \otimes \mathbb C^{n_\lambda}$, $n_\lambda = 2^{|\lambda|-1}$, and $S(x) = \sum_\lambda
P_\lambda \otimes \sigma_\lambda(x)$. We construct the new colligation from the old by taking $$\tilde{\mathcal E} = \bigoplus_\lambda {{\mathrm{ran}\,}}P_\lambda \otimes
(\mathbb C^{n_\lambda} \otimes \mathcal H),$$ and setting $$\tilde S(x) = \sum_\lambda P_\lambda \otimes (\sigma_\lambda(x)
\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}).$$ Fix $e\in \mathcal H$ with $\|e\|=1$. Define an operator $\tilde U
= \begin{pmatrix} \tilde A & \tilde B \\ \tilde C & \tilde D
\end{pmatrix}$ on $\tilde{\mathcal E} \oplus \mathcal H$ as follows. For $f\in \mathcal E$, $h,g \in \mathcal H$ decomposed as $g =
\alpha e + e^\bot$ where ${{
\left<
e,e^\bot
\right>}} = 0$. Then set $$\begin{split}
\tilde A (f\otimes \alpha e + f \otimes e^\bot) &:= Af \otimes
\alpha e + f \otimes e^\bot, \\
\tilde B h &:= Bh \otimes e, \\
\tilde C (f\otimes \alpha e + f \otimes e^\bot) &:= \alpha Cf \\
\tilde D h &:= Dh,
\end{split}$$ extending by linearity where necessary. One easily checks that the adjoints of these operators are given by $$\begin{split}
{\tilde A}^* (f\otimes \alpha e + f \otimes e^\bot) &= Af
\otimes \alpha e + f \otimes e^\bot, \\
{\tilde B}^* (f\otimes \alpha e + f \otimes e^\bot) &= \alpha
B^*f, \\
{\tilde C}^* h &= C^*h \otimes e \\
{\tilde D}^* h &= D^*h,
\end{split}$$ again extending by linearity as needed. A straightforward calculation gives $$\begin{split}
({\tilde A}^*\tilde A + {\tilde C}^*\tilde C) (f\otimes \alpha e
+ f \otimes e^\bot) &= (A^*A+C^*C)f \otimes \alpha e + f \otimes
e^\bot = f\otimes \alpha e + f \otimes e^\bot, \\
({\tilde B}^*\tilde B + {\tilde D}^*\tilde D)h &= (B^*B+D^*D) h,
\end{split}$$ showing that the operators so defined are bounded. The other equations needed to show that $\tilde U$ is unitary are likewise checked.
We find that $\tilde C \tilde S(x) \tilde B h = \tilde C \tilde S(x)
(Bh \otimes e) = \tilde C ((S(x)Bh) \otimes e) = CS(x)Bh$. Also, $\tilde C (\tilde A\tilde S(x))^n \tilde B h = C(AS(x))^nBh$. We conclude that $W_{\tilde\Sigma} = W_\Sigma$.
Contractivity and complete contractivity of representations of transfer function algebras {#subsec:contr-compl-contr}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[def:contr-on-aux-test-fns\] We write that a representation $\pi:\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda,
\mathcal H) \to \mathcal{L(G)}$ or $\pi:\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda,
\mathcal H) \to \mathcal{L(G)}$ is **contractive on auxiliary test functions** if for each $\lambda \in \Lambda$, an appropriate ampliation of $\pi$ (also denoted by $\pi$) has the property that $\pi(\sigma_\lambda \otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}) \leq 1$. It is said to be strictly contractive in case this is a strict inequality. A representation is **strongly / weakly continuous** if whenever a bounded net $(\varphi_\alpha)$ converges pointwise in norm to $\varphi$ (in other words, $\sup_\alpha \|\varphi_\alpha\| < \infty$ and for each $x\in X$, $\|\varphi_\alpha(x) - \varphi(x)\| \to 0$), then $\pi(\varphi_\alpha)$ converges strongly / weakly to $\pi(\varphi)$.
Given a bounded unital representation $\pi$ of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, we define $\pi(\psi^\pm_\lambda)$ by applying $\pi$ entrywise. Then $\pi$ is a Brehmer representation if and only if $\pi$ is contractive on the test functions and for any maximal element $\lambda$ of the preordering $\Lambda$, $$\pi(\psi_\lambda^+)\pi(\psi_\lambda^+)^* -
\pi(\psi_\lambda^-)\pi(\psi_\lambda^-)^*
\geq 0.$$ In this case, for each $\lambda$ in the maximal preordering associated to $\Lambda$, there is a contraction $G: {{\mathrm{ran}\,}}\pi(\psi_\lambda^+)^* \to
\pi(\psi_\lambda^-)^*$ such that $\pi(\psi_\lambda^+)G_\lambda =
\pi(\psi_\lambda^-)$. The following is then well defined: $$\pi(\sigma_\lambda) = G_\lambda,$$ though properly speaking, this should be viewed as an ampliation of the representation $\pi$. As we saw in Theorem \[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\], when $\Lambda$ is an ample preordering, we can extend $\sigma_\lambda$ to a function in $H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^n})$ where $n =
2^{|\lambda|-1}$, and so $\pi$ (or rather $\pi^{(n)}$) is already defined on $\sigma_\lambda$, and potentially may not be equal to $G_\lambda$. Nevertheless, it is the case that once $\pi$ is given on test functions, it induces a well defined map which is contractive on auxiliary test functions, and so on the algebra of transfer functions, as we shall see.
The next theorem is a version of the von Neumann inequality for the algebra $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$.
\[thm:vN-for-transfer-fns\] Let $\pi:\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H) \to \mathcal{L(G)}$ be a unital representation which is contractive on auxiliary test functions, or $\pi:\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H) \to
\mathcal{L(G)}$ be a weakly continuous unital representation which is contractive on auxiliary test functions. For all $W_\Sigma$ in $\mathcal{T}^A_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ $($respectively, $\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)\,)$, $\|\pi(W_\Sigma)\| \leq 1$; that is $\pi$ is contractive.
We begin by observing that in either case, the representation $\pi_0: \mathcal{L(H)} \to \mathcal{L(G)}$ obtained by restricting $\pi$ to constant functions is a unital representation of the $C^*$-algebra $\mathcal{L(H)}$, and so is contractive. The same is true of the ampliations of $\pi_0$, so it is in fact completely contractive.
Let $W = W_\Sigma \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, where $\Sigma = (U,\mathcal E, \rho)$, $U = \begin{pmatrix} A&B\\ C&D
\end{pmatrix}$, is a unitary colligation. For $r\in (0,1)$, define $W_r= W_{\Sigma_r}$, where $\Sigma_r = (U_r,\mathcal H,\rho)$ is a contractive colligation with $$U_r = U \begin{pmatrix} r1&0 \\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix} rA&B\\ rC&D \end{pmatrix}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:contractive-to-unitary-transfer-fn\], $W_r \in
\mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, and $$W_r = D +C(rS)(1-A(rS))^{-1}B$$
We now follow the line of proof in Lemma 3.1 of [@MR2389623]. Since $rAS(x)$ is a strict contraction, $\tfrac{M}{M+1}\sum_1^M
\tfrac{M-n}{M}(rAS(x))^n$ converges uniformly in norm to $(1-rAS(x))^{-1}$, and by the proof of the last statement in Theorem \[thm:trfr-fns-span-alg\], for all $M$, $W_{r,M}:= D +
CS\left(\tfrac{M}{M+1}1+\tfrac{M-1}{M+1}AS+\cdots +
\tfrac{1}{M+1}(AS)^M\right)B \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$ and converges pointwise in norm with $M$ to $W_r$. By assumption then, $\pi(W_{r,M})$ converges weakly to $\pi(W_r)$.
As in the proof of Lemma 3.1 of [@MR2389623], we see that $\pi(W_r) = W_{{\tilde\Sigma}_r} \in \mathcal{T}_1(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
G)$ with ${\tilde\Sigma}_r = ({\tilde U}_r,\mathcal E \otimes
\mathcal G, \rho\otimes \pi)$, where ${\tilde U}_r = \begin{pmatrix}
r\tilde A\otimes 1&\tilde B\otimes 1\\ r\tilde C\otimes 1&\tilde
D\otimes 1 \end{pmatrix}$. We have $\tilde D = \pi(D)$ and $\tilde A$, $\tilde B$ and $\tilde C$ are obtained by applying $\pi$ component-wise. Since $\pi_0 = \pi|_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is completely contractive, ${\tilde U}_r$ is a contraction. Hence $\|\pi(\varphi_r)\| \leq 1$. Now $(\varphi_r)_r$ is a bounded net converging pointwise in norm to $\varphi$, so by assumption $(\pi(\varphi_r))_r$ converges weakly to $\pi(\varphi)$, meaning that $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$.
For $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, the same argument applies when $\pi$ is simply assumed to be contractive on auxiliary test functions, since $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ is the norm closure of polynomials in test functions.
\[cor:weakly-ctns\_B\_reps\_are\_cc\] Let $\pi$ be a representation of $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$, respectively, a weakly continuous representation of $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, which is contractive on auxiliary test functions. Then $\pi$ is completely contractive.
If $\pi$ is a representation of either $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda,
\mathcal H)$ or $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ which is contractive on auxiliary test functions, then the same is true for $\pi^{(n)}$ for all $n$. Hence the result follows from the previous theorem applied to the auxiliary test functions tensored with $1_n$.
Brehmer representations and spectral sets {#subsec:brehm-repr}
-----------------------------------------
Let $\pi$ be a bounded unital representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. Call $\pi$ a **Brehmer representation** (associated to the preordering $\Lambda$) if for any test function $\psi$, $\|\pi(\psi\otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})\| \leq 1$ and for all $\lambda\in \Lambda$, $$\label{eq:1}
\prod_{\lambda\ni\lambda_i\neq 0} \left(1 -
\pi(\psi_i\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})\pi(\psi_i \otimes
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}})^*\right)^{\lambda_i} \geq 0.$$
Note since $\mathcal{L(H)}$ is a $C^*$-algebra, it is automatic that $\pi_0 = \pi|_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ with $\pi_0(T) = \pi(1\otimes T)$ is completely contractive.
A representation $\pi$ of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is a **strict Brehmer representation** if the inequalities in are strict. It is a **strongly / weakly continuous Brehmer representation** if it is a Brehmer representation and which is either strongly or weakly continuous in the sense defined in the last subsection.
We say that $X$ is a **spectral set** for the representation $\pi$ (equivalently, that the **von Neumann inequality** holds) if $\pi$ is a contractive representation of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. It is a **complete spectral set** if $\pi$ is a completely contractive representation of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
A representation $\tilde\pi$ **dilates** a representation $\pi$ (equivalently, $\pi$ **dilates to** $\tilde\pi$) if $\pi$ is the restriction of $\tilde\pi$ to a semi-invariant subspace; that is, the difference of two invariant subspaces. The **$H^\infty$ dilation property** is said to hold for a domain $X$ if whenever $\pi$ is a representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ for which $X$ is a spectral set, then $X$ is a complete spectral set for $\pi$.
While Brehmer representations induce representations which are contractive on test functions, the converse is also true.
\[lem:contr-aux-t-fns-are-B-reps\] If a representation $\pi$ of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is contractive on auxiliary test functions then it is a Brehmer representation.
This follows from .
Clearly, a strict Brehmer representation is norm continuous, a norm continuous one is strongly continuous, and a strongly continuous one is weakly continuous. The $H^\infty$ dilation property is akin to the better known **rational dilation property**, where ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is replaced by the algebra of functions generated by the rational functions over a compact subset of $\mathbb C^d$ with poles off of the set.
The connection of the von Neumann inequality as defined above with the usual von Neumann inequality is as follows. Suppose that $X = \mathbb
D^d$ and $\Psi$ is the set of coordinate functions in $\mathbb C^d$ (so $\psi_j(z) = z_j$ for $j=1,\dots, d$), and assume that $\Lambda =
\{e_j\}_{j=1,\dots ,d}$. Then Agler’s realization theorem for the polydisk (Theorem \[thm:Aglers-realization\] above) implies that any representation $\pi$ of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ for which $T_j = \pi(\psi_j)$ is strictly contractive for all $j$ (so $(T_1,\dots,T_d)$ is a tuple of commuting strict contractions) is contractive on ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$. Note that in this case $S(z) = Z^-(z) = \sum_j P_j z_j$, where $P_j$s are orthogonal projections summing to the identity. We therefore naturally take $\pi(S(z)) = \sum_j P_j \otimes T_j$, which then, via the transfer function representation, allows us to interpret $\pi(\varphi)$ for $\varphi\in{{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ in the natural way. So in other words, for a tuple $T$ of commuting operators with $\|T_j\| < 1$ for all $j$, $\|\varphi(T)\| \leq 1$ for all $\varphi$ in the Schur-Agler class of the polydisk.
The name for the rational dilation property derives from a theorem of Arveson [@MR1668582], which states in the example from the previous paragraph, a tuple $T$ of commuting contractions has a commuting unitary dilation $U$ if and only if for all $n\in\mathbb N$, $T$ induces a completely contractive representation $\pi$ on the algebra $\mathcal P$ of polynomials over $\mathbb C^d$, the norm closure of which is the polydisk analogue of the disk algebra. Write $\tilde\pi$ for the representation induced by $U$. By the spectral theorem for normal operators, $\tilde\pi$ is completely contractive. The converse direction is an application of the Arveson extension theorem and Stinespring dilation theorem. Of course there would be no hope of dilating $T$ to $U$ if it were the case that the representation induced by $T$ is not contractive, which the example due to Kaijser and Varopoulos [@MR0355642] demonstrates can happen when $d\geq 3$ in $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d)$.
Because $\mathbb D^d$ is polynomially convex, the polynomial algebra suffices when considering rational dilation in this setting. For more complex domains $X\subset \mathbb C^d$ such as for example an annulus in $\mathbb C$, one needs to consider $M_n(\mathbb C)$ valued rational functions over $\mathbb C^d$ with poles off of $\overline{X}$, and the commuting tuple of unitary operators is replaced by a commuting tuple of normal operators with spectrum supported on $\partial X$ (or more precisely, the distinguished boundary of $X$).
It becomes evident then that one can view Arveson’s theorem as describing when a contractive representation of the analogue of the disk algebra is completely contractive. An example due to Parrott [@MR0268710] shows that when $d\geq 3$, there are contractive representations which are not completely contractive. Further examples when $d=3$ are given by Bagchi, Bhattacharyya and Misra in [@MR1873633], and they show that these examples are not even $2$-contractive. As we shall see, this is no accident — in fact any representation which is contractive but not completely contractive must fail to be $2$-contractive.
When $d=1$ or $2$, contractive representations are automatically completely contractive by the Sz.-Nagy dilation theorem and Andô’s theorem, respectively. Agler showed that over an annulus $\mathbb A$, it is again the case that contractive representations of the algebra of functions analytic in a neighborhood of $\mathbb A$ are completely contractive. This was later shown to fail for domains of higher connectivity [@MR2375060; @MR2163865; @MR2643788].
It is a consequence of the Arveson extension theorem and the Stinespring dilation theorem that any completely contractive representation of either ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ or ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ extends to a completely contractive representation of $C^*({{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}})$ or $C^*({{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}})$, respectively.
We have the following dilation theorem, generalizing Arveson’s dilation result for the polydisk.
\[thm:dilation-theorem\] Let $\pi$ be a representation of $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$, or a weakly continuous representation of $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda,
\mathcal H)$, which is contractive on auxiliary test functions. Then $\pi$ dilates to a completely contractive representation $\tilde\pi$ of $C^*(\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H))$ $($respectively, $C^*(\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H))\,)$, with the property that the only completely positive map agreeing with $\tilde\pi$ on $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ $($respectively, $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)\,)$ is $\tilde\pi$ itself.
This is a corollary of Corollary \[cor:weakly-ctns\_B\_reps\_are\_cc\] and Theorem 1.1 of [@MR2132691].
A representation with the properties of $\tilde\pi$ (ie, that $\tilde\pi$ extends uniquely as a completely positive map to the $C^*$-envelope) is called a **boundary representation** if, in addition, it is irreducible. We use an alternative, equivalent description of boundary representations due Muhly and Solel [@MR1639657] below.
An analogue of the rational dilation problem ask whether every contractive representation of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is completely contractive. Likewise, one might ask if every contractive representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ (or more generally, of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$) is automatically completely contractive; that is, whether the $H^\infty$ dilation property holds. Perhaps surprisingly, even for $H^\infty(\mathbb D)$ this is unknown. The problem is that in many cases the boundary of $X$ is rather complicated, since it is the difference between the Stone-Čech compactification of $X$ and $X$ in the appropriate topology, and this can be very complex. There will be representations corresponding to point evaluations in the boundary. In general, these may not be weak-$*$ continuous, and so there is no obvious characterization of contractive representations of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ in terms of its action on test functions, which is generally what is used in the showing the contractivity of ampliations of a representation.
As an alternative, one might ask if there are any simply described subclasses of the contractive representations which are completely contractive. For example, we will prove that representations of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which are Brehmer representations and which are weakly continuous are completely contractive. We should note that for general $\Lambda$, it is easy to find examples where not all contractive representations are Brehmer representations.
Over $\mathbb D^d$ when $d \geq 3$, Parrott’s example implies that rational dilation fails for $A(\mathbb D^3)$, though as we saw in Corollary \[cor:tr\_fns\_are\_op\_alg\], with the Agler algebra and Schur-Agler matrix norm structure, this is not the case. We prove that in general any representation of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which is contractive on the auxiliary test functions is completely contractive. When the preordering is ample over $d$ test functions, this will imply that any representation which is $2^{d-1}$-contractive is completely contractive. As we will show, there is an improvement which can be made to this when $d>1$ using the so-called nearly ample preorderings, and giving that $2^{d-2}$-contractive representations are completely contractive. In particular, this will imply that for $d\geq 3$, $2^{d-2}$-contractive representations of $A(\mathbb D^d)$ are completely contractive, and that such representations of $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d)$ which are at least weakly continuous are also completely contractive. When $d=3$ then, $2$ contractivity will imply complete contractivity, and so any example like Parrott’s of a contractive representation of $A(\mathbb D^3)$ which is contractive but not completely contractive must fail to be $2$-contractive.
Some boundary representations for the classical Agler algebra {#subsec:some-bound-repr-Agler-alg}
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since in the classical setting the auxiliary test functions are simply the test functions, it follows from Theorem \[thm:classic-real-thm\] that any representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which is contractive is completely contractive. At first this may seem to contradict the examples of Parrott [@MR0268710] and Varopoulos and Kaiser [@MR0355642] when $X=\mathbb D^3$, which both give commuting tuples of contractions on $H^\infty(\mathbb D^3)$ which do not dilate to commuting unitary operators (indeed, the Kaijser-Varopoulos example is not even a contractive representation of $H^\infty(\mathbb D^3)$). The reason that there is no difficulty is that the Schur-Agler norm of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ (and more generally, the corresponding matrix norm structure) is not the same as the supremum norm in this case.
Let us consider more closely the classical Agler algebra over the tridisk. We examine the representations generated by commuting triples of contractions from several particularly interesting examples: first that of Parrott, then a Kaijser-Varopoulos type example due to Grinshpan, Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi and Woerdeman from [@MR3057417], and finally the Kaijser-Varopoulos example itself. We show that these give rise to nontrivial non-scalar boundary representations for the disk algebra analogue for the classical Agler algebra. Of course such representations are expected since, as has been noted [@MR1049839], this is not a uniform algebra, but these are explicit. According to a result of Muhly and Solel [@MR1639657], a **boundary representation** in the sense of Arveson is an irreducible completely contractive unital representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ with the property that any completely contractive dilation of this representation must contain it as a direct summand (see also [@MR2132691]).
We begin by considering the Parrott example.
\[lem:Parrott-boundary-repn\] Let $X = \mathbb D^3$, $\Psi = \{z_1,z_2,z_3\}$ a collection of test functions on $X$, $\Lambda = \{e_1,e_2,e_3\}$, and $\mathcal K$ the corresponding set of admissible kernels. Let $U,V\in
\mathcal{L(K)}$ be unitary operators with the property that $UV =
-VU$ $($for example, we might choose $U = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0
& -1 \end{pmatrix}$ and $V = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\,)$. Then on $\mathcal K \oplus \mathcal K$, $$\pi(z_1) := T_1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
\pi(z_2) := T_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & U \\ 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
\pi(z_3) := T_3 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & V \\ 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad$$ defines a $($completely contractive$)$ boundary representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$.
It is obvious that the operators in the statement of the lemma commute. By Theorem \[thm:classic-real-thm\], this gives a contractive representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$, and so by Corollary \[cor:tr\_fns\_are\_op\_alg\] a completely contractive representation. It is clearly irreducible. As noted in the discussion preceding the statement of the lemma, it suffices to prove that any contractive dilation of this representation contains it as a direct summand.
Assume that $$\tilde\pi(z_1) =
\begin{pmatrix}
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 \\ 0 & T_1 & A_4 \\ 0 & 0 & A_5
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
\tilde\pi(z_2) =
\begin{pmatrix}
B_1 & B_2 & B_3 \\ 0 & T_2 & B_4 \\ 0 & 0 & B_5
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
\tilde\pi(z_3) =
\begin{pmatrix}
C_1 & C_2 & C_3 \\ 0 & T_3 & C_4 \\ 0 & 0 & C_5
\end{pmatrix}$$ are commuting contractions. We show that $A_2$, $B_2$ $C_2$, $A_4$, $B_4$ and $C_4$ are zero. Since $1$, $U$ and $V$ are unitary, it follows that $$A_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
B_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
b & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad
C_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
c & 0
\end{pmatrix}$$ on $\mathcal K \oplus \mathcal K$. Commutativity then gives $$\begin{split}
A_1B_2 + A_2T_2 &= B_1A_2 + B_2T_1 \\
A_1C_2 + A_2T_3 &= C_1A_2 + C_2T_1 \\
B_1C_2 + B_2T_3 &= C_1B_2 + C_2T_2.
\end{split}$$ Right multiplication of the first of these by $T_1$ yields $A_1b =
B_1a$, and so $A_1B_2 = B_1A_2$. Hence $A_2T_2 = B_2T_1$, and so $aU = b$. Similar calculations with the other two equations give $aV = c$ and $bV = cU$. Thus $aUV = bV = cU = aVU = -aUV$, and since $UV$ is unitary, $a=0$. We then also have $b=c=0$. A similar calculation shows that $A_4$, $B_4$ and $C_4$ are zero.
We next turn to the example of Grinshpan, Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi and Woerdeman from [@MR3057417], which again as in the Parrott example is nilpotent, but this time of order $2$.
\[thm:GKVW-boundary-repn\] Let $X = \mathbb D^3$, $\Psi = \{z_1,z_2,z_3\}$ a collection of test functions on $X$, $\Lambda = \{e_1,e_2,e_3\}$, and $\mathcal K$ the corresponding set of admissible kernels. Let $u_1, u_2, u_3 \in
\mathbb R^2$ be unit vectors with the property that $u_1+u_2+u_3 =
0$ (without loss of generality, we may assume $u_1 =
\begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$, $u_2 = \begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{3}/2 & -1/2 \end{pmatrix}$, $u_3 = \begin{pmatrix}
-\sqrt{3}/2 & -1/2 \end{pmatrix}$). Define a representation $\pi
: {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}\to M_4(\mathbb C)$ by $$\pi(z_j) := T_j =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & u_j & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & u_j^* \\ 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad j = 1,2,3.$$ Then this is a $($completely contractive$)$ boundary representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$.
We assume that we have made the explicit choice of $u_j$s mentioned in the statement of the theorem. Consider a commuting contractive dilation $$V_j =
\begin{pmatrix}
a_j & b_j & v_j & c_j & d_j \\
0 & 0 & u_j & 0 & e_j \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & u_j^* & {v'}^*_j \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & f_j \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & g_j \\
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad j = 1,2,3,$$ of the $T_j$s. Because each $u_j$ is a unit vector, $c_j = 0$ and $e_j = 0$ for each $j$. We also have that $u_jv_j^* = u_j {v'}_j^*
= 0$, so $$\begin{split}
v_1 = \alpha_1 \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\qquad
v_2 &= \alpha_2 \begin{pmatrix} -1/2 & -\sqrt{3}/2 \end{pmatrix}
\qquad
v_3 = \alpha_3 \begin{pmatrix} -1/2 & \sqrt{3}/2 \end{pmatrix}
\\
{v'}_1 = {\alpha'}_1 \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}
\qquad
{v'}_2 &= {\alpha'}_2 \begin{pmatrix} -1/2 & -\sqrt{3}/2
\end{pmatrix}
\qquad
{v'}_3 = {\alpha'}_3 \begin{pmatrix} -1/2 & \sqrt{3}/2
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}$$
By commutativity, $$u_j {v'}^*_k = u_k {v'}_j^* \qquad\text{and} \qquad
v_j u_k^* = v_k u_j^*.$$ Using the explicit form of these vectors, it is easy to check that the first of these equations gives ${\alpha'}_2 = {\alpha'}_3 =
-{\alpha'}_1$ and ${\alpha'}_2 = -{\alpha'}_3$, and so ${\alpha'}_j
= 0$ for all $j$. Similar calculations with the second equation yields $\alpha_j = 0$ for all $j$ as well. Thus $v_j = {v'}_j = 0$ for all $j$.
It also follows from commutativity that $b_j u_k = b_k u_j$, and since the $u_k$s are pairwise linearly independent, it follows that $b_j = 0$ for all $j$. Likewise, $f_j = 0$ for all $j$, and so we conclude that each $V_j$ contains $T_j$ as a direct summand.
Finally, we show that the representation is irreducible. If $\mathcal G \subset \mathbb R^4$ is a reducing subspace, then it is invariant for $T_j^*T_j$ and $T_jT_j^*$ for each $j$. From this we see that $\mathcal G \neq \mathbb C^4$, any vector in $\mathcal G$ must be of the form $v_1 = {\begin{pmatrix} c_1 & 0 & 0 & c_2
\end{pmatrix}}^t$, $v_2 = {\begin{pmatrix} c_1 & c_2 & c_3 & 0
\end{pmatrix}}^t$, $v_3 = {\begin{pmatrix} 0 & c_1 & c_2 & c_3
\end{pmatrix}}^t$, where $c_j\in \mathbb C$ for all $j$. Multiplying $v_1$ by $T_j$ we get $c_2 = 0$, and by $T_j^*$ we get $c_1 = 0$; that is, $\mathcal G = \{0\}$. Similarly, since the $u_j$s span $\mathbb R^2$, we conclude after considering $T_j^*v_2$ and $T_jv_3$ that $c_2=c_3 =0$ in the first case and $c_1=c_2=0$ in the second, and from this that $c_1=0$ in $v_2$ and $c_3 = 0$ in $v_3$, finishing the proof.
Finally, we turn to the Kaijser-Varopoulos example. As it happens, the operators there can be dilated to other commuting contractions which can only be further dilated by means of a direct sum. The proof is similar to the above, and we leave it as an exercise for the interested reader.
\[thm:KV-boundary-repn\] Let $X = \mathbb D^3$, $\Psi = \{z_1,z_2,z_3\}$ a collection of test functions on $X$, $\Lambda = \{e_1,e_2,e_3\}$, and $\mathcal K$ the corresponding set of admissible kernels. Then the representation $\pi : {{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}\to M_6(\mathbb C)$ defined by $$\begin{split}
\pi(z_1) &:= T_1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 &0&0&0&0&0 \\ 1&0&0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0&0&0
\\[2pt] 0 &
\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & -\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
-\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 & 0 \\[5pt] 0 & \tfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}}
& \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}} &0 &0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\pi(z_2) &:= T_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 &0&0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0&0&0 \\ 1&0&0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0&0&0
\\[2pt] 0 &
-\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
-\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 & 0 \\[5pt] 0 & \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}
& \tfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}} & \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}} &0 &0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\pi(z_3) &:= T_3 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 &0&0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0&0&0 \\ 0&0&0&0&0&0 \\ 1&0&0&0&0&0
\\[2pt] 0 &
-\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & -\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} &
\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} & 0 & 0 \\[5pt] 0 & \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}}
& \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{6}} & \tfrac{2}{\sqrt{6}} &0 &0
\end{pmatrix}.\\
\end{split}$$ is a $($completely contractive$)$ boundary representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$.
We finally mention that the Crabb-Davie example [@MR0365179] gives a boundary representation of the Agler algebra consisting of nilpotent operators of order 3, and presumably examples with any degree of nilpotency can be constructed in a similar manner. Using results of [@MR1169882] and [@MR3160536], one can show that there will be boundary representations of the Agler algebra which are neither commuting unitaries nor commuting nilpotents.
Realization theorems {#sec:realization}
====================
The first realization theorem {#subsec:first-realization}
-----------------------------
As usual, we assume all test functions are in ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$.
Fix a finite set $F\subset X$. Define a cone in $M_{|F|}(\mathbb C)$ by $$\mathcal C_F := \left\{\left(\Gamma(x,y) \left( E^+(x)E^+(y)^* -
E^-(x)E^-(y)^*\right)\right) : \Gamma \in \mathbb
K^+_X(C_b(\Lambda), \mathbb C) \right\}.$$ This is a cone rather than simply a wedge since $E^+(x)E^+(x)^* -
E^-(x)E^-(x)^* >0$, and so if $\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2 \geq 0$ with $\left(\Gamma_1(x,y) \left( E^+(x)E^+(y)^* -
E^-(x)E^-(y)^*\right)\right) = -\left(\Gamma_2(x,y) \left(
E^+(x)E^+(y)^* - E^-(x)E^-(y)^*\right)\right)$ for all $x,y \in
F$, then for all $x$, $\Gamma_1(x,x) = \Gamma_2(x,x) = 0$, and hence by positivity, $\Gamma_1(x,y) = \Gamma_2(x,y) = 0$ for all $x,y\in F$.
More generally, there is an operator version of this. For a fixed Hilbert space $\mathcal H$, define a cone in $M_{|F|}(\mathcal{L(H)})$ by $$\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H} := \left\{\left(\Gamma(x,y) \left(
E^+(x)E^+(y)^* - E^-(x)E^-(y)^*\right)\right) : \Gamma
\in \mathbb K^+_X(C_b(\Lambda), \mathcal{L(H)}) \right\}.$$
The proof of the first realization theorem relies on the following lemma of independent interest.
\[lem:cone\_closed\] The cone $\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$ is closed and has non-empty interior. Furthermore, for each $\lambda \in\Lambda$, $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} \otimes
{\left(\textstyle\prod_{\lambda_i\in\lambda}
(1 - \psi_i(x)\psi_i(y)^*)^{\lambda_i} \right)}_{x,y\in F} \in
\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$.
Fix $F\subset X$ finite and a Hilbert space $\mathcal H$, and define the cones $\mathcal C_F$ and $\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$ as above. Following the proof of Lemma 3.4 of [@MR2389623], we first show that $\mathcal C_F$ is closed.
By assumption, for all $x\in X$, there exists $\epsilon_x > 0$ such that $\sup_{\psi\in\Psi} (1-\psi(x)\psi(x)^*) > \epsilon_x$. Also, for $n := \sup_{\lambda\in\Lambda} |\lambda| < \infty$, $$E^+(x)E^+(x)^* - E^-(x)E^-(x)^* \geq \epsilon_x^n.$$ Setting $\epsilon = \min_{x\in F} \epsilon_x^n > 0$, we have then that for all $x\in F$, $E^+(x)E^+(x)^* - E^-(x)E^-(x)^* \geq
\epsilon$. Therefore, for any $M = \Gamma * (E^+E^{+*}-E^-E^{-*})
\in \mathcal C_F$ and any $x\in F$, $$\|\Gamma(x,x)\| \leq \tfrac{1}{\epsilon} \max_{x\in F}\|M(x,x)\|
\leq \tfrac{1}{\epsilon} \|M\|.$$ Positivity of $\Gamma$ then gives $\|\Gamma(x,y)\| \leq
\tfrac{1}{\epsilon} \|M\|$ for all $x,y\in F$. Thus for any Cauchy sequence $(M_n) \subset \mathcal C_F$, the corresponding sequence of positive operators $(\Gamma_n)$ has $(\Gamma_n(x,y))$ in a norm closed ball of $C_b(\Lambda)^*$ and so has a weak-$*$ convergent subsequence. Applying this idea to each pair of points in $F$, we eventually end up with a subsequence $\Gamma_{\ell_n}$ such that for any $x,y\in F$, $\Gamma_{\ell_n}(x,y)$ converges weak-$*$ to $\Gamma(x,y)$. It is not difficult to see that $\Gamma$ is positive, and so $(M_n)$ converges to some $M = \Gamma *
(E^+E^{+*}-E^-E^{-*}) \in \mathcal C_F$; that is, $\mathcal C_F$ is closed.
Next consider $\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$. Arguing as above, there exists $\epsilon > 0$ such that for any $M = \Gamma *
(E^+E^{+*}-E^-E^{-*}) \in \mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$, $\|\Gamma(x,y)\| \leq \tfrac{1}{\epsilon} \|M\|$ for all $x,y\in F$. Suppose $(M_n)\subset \mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$ with $\sup_n
\|M_n\| = C < \infty$ converging to $M$. Note that the corresponding sequence $(\Gamma_n)$ is bounded by $C/\epsilon$. For $h = (h_x)
\in \mathcal H^{|F|}$ with $\|h\| = 1$, define $M_{h,n}$ by $M_{h,n}(x,y) = {{
\left<
M_n(x,y) h_x,h_y
\right>}}$ and $\Gamma_{h,n}$ by $\Gamma_{h,n}(x,y)(f) = {{
\left<
\Gamma_n(x,y) (f) h_x,h_y
\right>}}$. Then $(M_{h,n}) \subset \mathcal C_F$ is a Cauchy sequence, and since $\mathcal C_F$ is closed, $\lim_n M_{h,n} = M_h = \Gamma_h *
(E^+E^{+*}-E^-E^{-*})$, where $\Gamma_h \geq 0$ and $\|\Gamma_h\|
\leq C/\epsilon$. Thus $\Gamma$ defined via polarization from ${{
\left<
\Gamma (f) h,h
\right>}} = \Gamma_h(f)$ is positive and bounded in norm by $C/\epsilon$, and $M = \Gamma * (E^+E^{+*}-E^-E^{-*})$. Hence the cone $\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$ is also closed.
We next show that $\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$ (and as a consequence, $\mathcal C_F$) has non-empty interior. Let $P:X\times X \to
\mathcal{L(H)}$ be a positive kernel with Kolmogorov decomposition $P(x,y) = Q(x)Q(y)^*$. A straightforward argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.5 of [@MR2389623] shows that the kernel $\Gamma_{P,\lambda}$ mapping $X\times X$ to $\mathcal{L}(C_b(\Lambda),\mathcal{L(H)})$ by $$\Gamma_{P,\lambda}(x,y)(f) =
{\left((Q(x)\otimes\psi^+_\lambda(x))
(Q(y)\otimes\psi^+_\lambda(y))^* -
(Q(x)\otimes\psi^-_\lambda(x))
(Q(y)\otimes\psi^-_\lambda(y))^*\right)}^{-1}
f(\lambda)$$ is positive. Thus $$\left(\Gamma_{P,\lambda}(x,y)\left( E^+(x)E^+(y)^* -
E^-(x)E^-(y)^*\right)\right) = P(x,y),$$ and so $\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$ has nonempty interior since it contains all elements of $(\mathcal{L(H)}\otimes M_{|F|}(\mathbb
C))^+$.
Finally, the kernel $\Gamma(f) := [1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] f(\lambda)$ is obviously positive, and $$\Gamma*(E^+E^{+*}-E^-E^{-*}) = 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} \otimes
(\psi^+\psi^{+*} - \psi^-\psi^{-*})
= 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} \otimes \prod_{\lambda_i\in\lambda}
(1 - \psi_i \psi_i^*)^{\lambda_i},$$ so restricting to $F\times F$ we have the last statement.
We now state and prove our first realization theorem.
\[thm:realization\_I\] Let $\varphi:X\to \mathcal{L(H)}$. The following are equivalent:
1. $\varphi \in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$;
2. There is a positive kernel $\Gamma \in \mathbb
K^+_X(C_b(\Lambda), \mathcal{L(H)})$ such that for all $x,y\in X$, $$1-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^* = \Gamma(x,y) \left( E^+(x)E^+(y)^* -
E^-(x)E^-(y)^* \right).$$
In this situation, $\varphi$ has a transfer function representation.
Assume that ($AD$) does not hold. This is equivalent to the statement that for some finite set $F$, $[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] -
\varphi\varphi^* \notin \mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}$. A Hahn-Banach separation argument gives linear functional $\nu :
\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}^{|F|}) \to \mathbb C$ such that $\nu(\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H}) \geq 0$, $\nu([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}])
= 1$ and $\nu([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*) < 0$. Note that $\nu \geq 0$ since $\mathcal C_{F,\mathcal H} \supseteq
(\mathcal{L(H)}\otimes M_{|F|}(\mathbb C))^+$, and so in particular, $\nu$ is continuous.
By the Riesz representation theorem, there exists $h = (h(x)) \in
\mathcal H^{|F|}$ such that $\nu(M) = {{
\left<
Mh,h
\right>}}$. If $F' = \{x\in
F : h(x) \neq 0\}$, then $\nu'(M) := {{
\left<
Mh|_{F'},h|_{F'}
\right>}}$ defines a linear functional separating $[1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] -
\varphi|_{F'}\varphi|_{F'}^*$ from $\mathcal C_{F',\mathcal H}$. So without loss of generality we assume that for all $x\in F$, $h(x)
\neq 0$. We use this to define Hilbert spaces $\mathcal H_x$ as the quotient completion of $\mathcal{L(H)}$ under the inner product $${{
\left<
f(x),g(x)
\right>}} := \tfrac{1}{\|h(x)\|^2}{{
\left<
f(x)h(x),g(x)h(x)
\right>}},
\quad f(x),g(x) \in \mathcal{L(H)}.$$ Since $h(x) \neq 0$, $\mathcal H_x$ is isomorphic to $\mathcal H$.
on $F$. Write $1_\mathcal F$ for the function which equals $1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ at every $x\in F$. If $p\in \mathcal F$, $p^*$ stands for the element of $\mathcal F$ with $x$th entry $p(x)^*$. Also, let $\chi_x(p)$ denote the element of $\mathcal F$ with all entries $0$ except the $x$th, which equals $p(x)$. In this way $\mathcal F$ is a unital algebra with addition and multiplication (written as $f\cdot g$) defined entry-wise, and unit $1_\mathcal F$.
We can also view the (quotient completion of) $\mathcal F$ as a Hilbert space $\mathcal H_\mathcal F = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{|F|} \mathcal
H_j$ with inner product $${{
\left<
f,g
\right>}} = \sum_{x\in F}
\tfrac{1}{\|h(x)\|^2}{{
\left<
f(x)h(x),g(x)h(x)
\right>}}.$$
For each $x,y\in F$, $${{
\left<
k(x,y) f(x),g(y)
\right>}} = {{
\left<
g(y)^*f(x)h(x),h(y)
\right>}} =
\nu((g^*(y)f(x))_{x,y\in F})$$ defines a bounded linear operator $k(x,y) \in \mathcal L(\mathcal
H_x,\mathcal H_y)$. For each $x\in F$, identifying $\mathcal H_x$ with $\mathcal H$, we have $k = (k(x,y))_{x,y\in F} \in \mathcal
L(\mathcal H^{|F|})$ with $${{
\left<
kf,g
\right>}} = {{
\left<
(g^*f)h,h
\right>}}.$$ Extend $k$ to a kernel from $X\times X$ to $\mathcal{L(H)}$ by setting $k(x,y) = 0$ if either $x$ or $y$ is not in $F$.
Since $\nu \geq 0$ if follows that $k \geq 0$, and so has a Kolmogorov decomposition $k(x,y) = k_y^*k_x$, where $k_x: X \to
\mathcal E$ for some Hilbert space $\mathcal E$. We therefore can view $\mathcal E \otimes \mathcal H_{\mathcal F}$ as a Hilbert space with the inner product on elementary tensors given by $${{
\left<
k_x\otimes f,k_y\otimes g
\right>}} =
{{
\left<
k(x,y) f(x),g(y)
\right>}}.$$
For any $f\in \mathcal F$, $$\begin{split}
0 & \leq \nu\left({\left(f(y)^*((1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda(x))(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda(y)^*) - (1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda(x))(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda(y)^*))f(x)\right)}_{x,y\in F}\right)\\
& = {{
\left<
{\left(f(y)^*((1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda(x))(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda(y)^*) - (1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda(x))(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda(y)^*))f(x)\right)}_{x,y\in F}h,h
\right>}} \\
& = \sum_{x,y} {{
\left<
((1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda(x))(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda(y)^*) - (1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda(x)*)(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda(y)^*))f(x)h(x),f(y)h(y)
\right>}} \\
& = \sum_{x,y} {{
\left<
((1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda(x))k(x,y)(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda(y)^*) - (1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda(x))k(x,y)(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda(y)^*)f(x),f(y)
\right>}} \\
& = {{
\left<
\left(\left((1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^+_\lambda)(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^{+*}_\lambda) - (1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^-_\lambda)(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}\otimes
\psi^{-*}_\lambda)\right)*k\right) f,f
\right>}}.
\end{split}$$ Since $k(x,y)$ is $0$ when $x$ or $y$ is not in $F$, this suffices to show that $k$ is an admissible kernel.
The calculation $$\label{eq:9}
\begin{split}
0 & \geq \nu\left((1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}- \varphi(x)
\varphi(y)^*)_{x,y\in F}\right)\\
& = {{
\left<
(1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*)_{x,y\in
F} h,h
\right>}} \\
& = \sum_{x,y} \left[{{
\left<
h(x),h(y)
\right>}} - {{
\left<
\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*
h(x),h(y)
\right>}} \right] \\
& = \sum_{x,y} {{
\left<
(k(x,y) - \varphi(x) k(x,y) \varphi(y)^*)
1_{\mathcal{L(H)}},1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}
\right>}} \\
& = {{
\left<
\left(([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*k\right)
1_\mathcal F,1_\mathcal F
\right>}}, \\
\end{split}$$ then implies that $\varphi \notin {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
So far we have shown that $\varphi\in{{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ implies the Agler decomposition holds when restricted to any finite set $F$. A standard application of Kurosh’s theorem (see, for example, [@MR2389623]) then gives the existence of the Agler decomposition on the whole of $X$.
Now suppose that $\varphi:X \to \mathcal{L(H)}$ and that ($AD$) holds; that is there is a positive kernel $\Gamma
\in \mathbb K^+_X(C_b(\Lambda),\mathcal{L(H)})$ such that for all $x,y\in X$, $$1-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^* = \Gamma(x,y) \left( E^+(x)E^+(y)^* -
E^-(x)E^-(y)^* \right).$$ Fix a finite set $F \subset X$ and an admissible kernel $k\in\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$. Then on $F\times F$, $$\begin{split}
&(1-\varphi(x)^*\varphi(y))*(k(x,y)) \\
=& \left((\Gamma(x,y))* \left( E^+(x)E^+(y)^* - E^-(x)E^-(y)^*
\right)\right)*(k(x,y))) \\
=& \left(\gamma(x)(Z^+(x)Z^+(y)^* - Z^-(x)Z^-(y)^*)
\gamma(y)^*\right)*(k(x,y)) \\
=& \left(\gamma(x)\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes
\left(E^+(x)(\lambda)E^+(x)(\lambda)^* -
E^-(x)(\lambda)E^-(x)(\lambda)^*\right)\gamma(y)^*
\right)*(k(x,y)) \\
=& \left(\gamma(x)\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes
\left(\psi_\lambda^+(x)k(x,y)\psi_\lambda^+(x)^* -
\psi_\lambda^-(x)k(x,y)\psi_\lambda^-(x)^*\right)\gamma(y)^*
\right), \\
\end{split}$$ which is positive, since for each $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $$\left(\psi_\lambda^+(x)k(x,y)\psi_\lambda^+(x)^* -
\psi_\lambda^-(x)k(x,y)\psi_\lambda^-(x)^*\right)
= \left( \psi_\lambda^+\psi_\lambda^{+*} -
\psi_\lambda^-\psi_\lambda^{-*} \right)*k
\geq 0.$$ Thus $\varphi \in{{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, and so ($SC$) and ($AD$) are equivalent.
Assuming ($AD$), we show that $\varphi$ has a transfer function representation by employing a standard lurking isometry argument. To begin with, we have a Kolmogorov decomposition $\Gamma
= \gamma^*\gamma$, and by Proposition \[prop:factorization\], for all $\lambda\in\Lambda$, the entries of $Z^\pm$ satisfy $Z^\pm_\lambda(x) = \rho(E^\pm_\lambda(x))$ entry-wise (that is, for all $\lambda$). Hence $$\label{eq:14}
1-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^* = \gamma(x)Z^+(x)Z^+(y)^*\gamma(y)^* -
\gamma(x)Z^-(x)Z^-(y)^*\gamma(y)^*,$$ and so bringing negative terms over to opposite sides of the equation, we have by the usual arguments the existence of a unitary $U = \begin{pmatrix} A&B \\ C&D \end{pmatrix} \in \mathcal
L(\mathcal E \oplus \mathcal H)$ such that $$\begin{pmatrix}
Z^+(x)^* \gamma(x)^* \\ \varphi(x)^*
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
A^* & C^* \\ B^* & D^*
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
Z^-(x)^* \gamma(x)^* \\ 1
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
A^* & C^* \\ B^* & D^*
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
S(x)^* Z^+(x)^* \gamma(x)^* \\ 1
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $S(x) = Y(x)Z^-(x)$. Hence $C = \gamma(x)Z^+(x)(1 - S(x)A)$, and so $$\label{eq:13}
\gamma(x) = C(1 - S(x)A)^{-1}Y(x).$$ Plugging this into the second equation, $$\begin{split}
\varphi(x) &= D + \gamma(x)Z^+(x)S(x)B \\
&= D + C(1 - S(x)A)^{-1}Y(x)Z^+(x)S(x)B \\
&= D + C(1 - S(x)A)^{-1}P(x)S(x)B \\
&= D + C(1 - S(x)A)^{-1}S(x)B \\
&= D + CS(x)(1 - AS(x))^{-1}B; \\
\end{split}$$ that is, $\varphi$ has a transfer function representation.
Realizations for ample preorderings {#subsec:real-ample-preord}
-----------------------------------
The realization theorem Theorem \[thm:realization\_I\] has the drawback that having a transfer function representation is not enough to ensure that a function is in ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. There are circumstances in which this difficulty can be circumvented. For example, if $\Psi$ contains $d$ test functions over a set $X$ and $\Lambda =
\{e_j\}_{j=1}^d$ (which is the classical setting), we have the result presented in Theorem \[thm:classic-real-thm\].
The reason we get so much more with the classical realization theorems is that the auxiliary test functions are the same as the test functions and these are by construction in our algebra. As it happens, with ample preorderings, something similar occurs (Theorem \[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\]). One consequence of the next theorem is that in the setting of ample preorderings, ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ inherits its norm from the transfer function algebra $\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$, and in fact the two are equal, thus strengthening Lemma \[lem:contr-aux-t-fns-are-B-reps\] in this context.
\[thm:realization\_II\] Suppose $\Psi = \{\psi_1,\ldots \psi_d\}$ is a collection of test functions and $\Lambda$ is an ample preordering. The following are equivalent:
1. $\varphi\in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$;
2. There exist positive kernels $\Gamma_\lambda:X\times X\to \mathcal{L(H)}$ so that for all $x,y\in X$ $$1_{\mathcal H} - \varphi(x)\varphi(y)^* =
\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\Gamma_\lambda(x,y)
\prod_{\ell_j\in\lambda} ([1] - \psi_{\ell_j}(x)\psi_{\ell_j}(y)^*)$$
3. There exist positive kernels ${\tilde\Gamma}_\lambda : X\times X\to \mathcal{L}({\mathbb
C}^{|\lambda|},\mathcal H)$ so that for all $x,y\in X$ $$1_{\mathcal H} - \varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*=
\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\tilde\Gamma}_\lambda(x,y)
([1_{\mathbb C^{|\lambda|}}] -
\sigma_\lambda(x)\sigma_\lambda(y)^*)$$
4. There is a colligation $\Sigma = (U,\rho,\mathcal
E)$ so that $\varphi=W_\Sigma$;
5. For every representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which is strictly contractive on auxiliary test functions or which is contractive on auxiliary test functions and either strongly or weakly continuous, $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$.
The proof that (*SC*)$\Leftrightarrow$(*AD1*) follows directly from Theorem \[thm:realization\_I\]. A straightforward factorization shows that (*AD1*)$\Rightarrow$(*AD2*). The standard lurking isometry argument as in that theorem then gives (*AD2*)$\Rightarrow$(*TF*). That the weak form of (*vN-a*) implies the strong form which then implies the strict form is also immediate.
By Theorem \[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\], the auxiliary test functions are in $H_1^\infty({\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^n})$ for appropriate $n$ and these functions generates the same collection of admissible kernels. Using the fact that the operator in the colligation for $\varphi$ is unitary, the usual sort of calculation shows that if $\varphi$ has a transfer function representation, then for $G = C(1-SA)^{-1}$, $$\left((1-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*k(x,y)\right)
= \left(G(x)\left((1-S(x)S(y)^*)k(x,y)\right)G(y)^*\right) \geq
0,$$ and so (*TF*)$\Rightarrow$(*SC*).
If $\pi$ is a representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which is strictly contractive on auxiliary test functions, and if we interpret $$\pi(\varphi) = D\otimes 1 + C \otimes \pi(S) (1\otimes 1 - A\otimes
\pi(S))^{-1} B\otimes 1,\qquad
\pi(S) = \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda} P_\lambda \otimes
\pi(\sigma_\lambda),$$ then a nearly identical argument to that of the last paragraph shows that $1-\pi(\varphi)\pi(\varphi)^* \geq 0$; that is, $\pi$ is a contractive representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. Hence (*TF*) implies the strict form of (*VN-a*). On the other hand, if $\pi$ is only assumed to be weakly continuous, then we argue as in [@MR2389623], first scaling $A$ and $C$ to $rA$ and $rC$ for $r<1$ and calling the resulting functions $\varphi_r$, then approximating $\varphi_r$ by polynomials in $S$ as at the end of the proof Theorem \[thm:trfr-fns-span-alg\]. The representation is easily seen to be contractive on these polynomials. Since these can be chosen to converge pointwise to $\varphi_r$, the representation is contractive on $\varphi_r$ for all $r$. Taking $r$ to $1$ we have pointwise convergence to $\varphi$, and so once again, $1-\pi(\varphi)\pi(\varphi)^* \geq 0$.
Finally, suppose that the strict form of (*vN-a*) holds. Fix $\varphi\in{{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. We show that for $k\in \mathcal
K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, $([1_{\mathcal H}]- \varphi\varphi^*)*k
\geq 0$, and so (*SC*) holds as well. For this, it suffices to prove that for fixed $k\in \mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, $([1_{\mathcal H}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*k \geq 0$ when we restrict to a finite subset $F\subset X$. So fix a finite set $F\subset X$. On $F$ replace the test functions $\Psi$ by $\Psi_r = \{\psi_r = r\psi
: \psi\in\Psi\}$, where $r>1$ is sufficiently close to $1$ so that $\sup_{\psi_r\in\Psi_r} |\psi_r(x)| < 1$ for all $x\in F$ (this is possible since $F$ is finite). Define in the same way as before, $\mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ on $F$ with these test functions, as well as $H^\infty(F,\mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$.
Since for $k_r\in \mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ and $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $$\label{eq:2}
\prod_{\ell\in\lambda} ([1_{\mathcal H}]-\psi_\ell\psi_\ell^*)*k_r
= \tfrac{1}{r^2} \left((r^2-1)[1_{\mathcal H}] + [1_{\mathcal H}]
- \psi_{r,\ell}\psi_{r,\ell}^*\right)*k_r \geq 0,$$ so it follows that $\mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H} \subseteq
\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ on $F$. Hence $H^\infty(F,\mathcal
K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}):= H^\infty(X,\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal
H})|_F \subseteq H^\infty(F,\mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$. Hence, we view $H^\infty(F,\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$ as a subalgebra of $H^\infty(F,\mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$ endowed with the $H^\infty(F,\mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal
H})$-norm, which we write as $\|\cdot\|_r$. For $k_r\in \mathcal
K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, the map $\pi$ taking $f\in
H^\infty(F,\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$ to $M_f$ on $H^2(k_r)$ defines a strictly contractive representation of $H^\infty(F,\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$, since implies that for $\psi\in\Psi$, $\|\psi\|_r \leq 1/r$. It follows then that under the assumption that the strict form of (*vN-a*) holds for $\varphi$, $$\label{eq:4}
([1_{\mathcal H}] - \varphi^*\varphi)*k_r \geq 0, \qquad k_r\in
\mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}.$$
Fix $k\in\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$. For any $r>1$ as above, the kernel $k_0$ defined by $$k_0(x,y) =
\begin{cases}
k(x,x) & y=x;\\
0 & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ defines a kernel in $\mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$. Fix $t\in(0,1)$. We show that $tk-(1-t)k_0 \in \mathcal
K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ for any $r>1$ and sufficiently close to $1$. It will follow then that for such $r$ and for all $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $$\label{eq:3}
\begin{split}
& \prod_{\ell\in\lambda} ([1]-\psi_{r,\ell}\psi_{r,\ell}^*)*[tk
- (1-t)k_0] \\
= & \prod_{\ell\in\lambda} \left[t([1]-\psi_\ell^*\psi_\ell)*k +
(1-t)([1]-\psi_{r,\ell}\psi_{r,\ell}^*)*k_0 - t(r^2-1)
\psi_\ell\psi_\ell^* * k\right] \geq 0.
\end{split}$$ We do this by proving that in this case, $$(1-t)\prod_{\ell\in\lambda} ([1]-\psi_{r,\ell}\psi_{r,\ell}^*)*k_0
\geq t(r^2-1)\prod_{\ell\in\lambda} \psi_\ell\psi_\ell^* * k.$$
Assume that $k(x,x) > 0$ for all $x\in F$. We can do this since if $k(x,x) = 0$ for some $x$, then $k(x,y)=k(y,x) = 0$ for all $y$. So without loss of generality we restrict to $F'\subset F$ with the property that the diagonal entries of $k$ are strictly positive. Since $F$ is finite $(1-t)\prod_{\ell\in\lambda}
([1]-\psi_{r,\ell}^*\psi_{r,\ell})*k_0$ is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries of the form $(1-t)\prod_{\ell\in\lambda}
(1-r^2|\psi_\ell(x)|)k(x,x) \geq (1-t)\prod_{\ell\in\lambda}
(1-r^2|\psi_\ell(x)|)\epsilon > 0$ for some $\epsilon > 0$.
Hence it suffices to show that for $1_F$ the usual identity matrix over $\mathbb C^{|F|}$, $$\frac{\epsilon(1-t)}{t} \prod_{\ell\in\lambda}
\frac{1-r^2|\psi(x)|}{r^2-1} 1_F\otimes 1_{\mathcal H} \geq
\prod_{\ell\in\lambda} \psi_\ell\psi_\ell*k.$$ However, as $r\searrow 1$, $\dfrac{1-r^2|\psi(x)|}{r^2-1} \nearrow
\infty$. Thus for $r$ sufficiently close to $1$, is satisfied.
Since holds for all sufficiently small $r > 1$ and $k_r\in \mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$, it follows that for all all such $r$ and $k \in \mathcal K^r_{\Lambda,\mathcal H}$ and $t\in(0,1)$, $$([1_{\mathcal H}] - \varphi\varphi^*)*[tk + (1-t)k_0] \geq 0,$$ and so taking $t\nearrow 1$, we have $([1_{\mathcal H}] -
\varphi\varphi^*)*k \geq 0$ on $F\times F$. The set $F\subset X$ was arbitrary, and so we conclude that $\varphi\in H^\infty(X,\mathcal
K_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})$.
\[cor:HLH\_equals\_TLH\_w\_ample\_po\] With $\Lambda$ an ample preordering, ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is isometrically isomorphic to$\mathcal{T}(X,\Lambda, \mathcal H)$ and ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is isometrically isomorphic to $\mathcal{T}^A(X,\Lambda, \mathcal
H)$.
\[cor:n-contr-gives-cc-for-ample\] Let $\Lambda$ be an ample preordering over $d$ test functions. Then any strictly contractive or weakly continuous contractive representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which is $2^{d-1}$-contractive is completely contractive. Likewise, any $2^{d-1}$-contractive representation of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is completely contractive.
This follows from the last two theorems since a representation which is $2^{d-1}$-contractive is contractive on auxiliary test functions.
Agler-Pick interpolation {#subsec:agler-pick-interp}
------------------------
It is now standard practice to apply the realization theorem to Pick type interpolation problems.
\[thm:agler-pick\_interpolation\] Let $\Lambda$ be an ample preordering, $X_0 \subseteq X$. For each $x\in X_0$, let $a_x, b_x \in \mathcal{L(H)}$. The following are equivalent:
1. There exists $\varphi\in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ such that for all $x\in X_0$, $b_x = \varphi(x) a_x$;
2. There exists a positive kernel $\,\Gamma:X_0\times X_0\to
C_b(\Lambda,\mathcal{L(H)})$ so that for all $x,y\in X_0$ $$\left(((a_x a_y^* - b_x b_y^*)\otimes 1_n)*k_\sigma(x,y)\right)
\geq 0,$$ where $k_\sigma = 1_\mathcal{L(H)} \otimes (1 -
\sigma_{\lambda^m}(x) \sigma_{\lambda^m}(y)^*)^{-1}$ and $n =
2^{|\lambda|-1}$.
The proof follows the first part of the proof of the realization theorem, giving a transfer function $W$ such that $b_x = W(x) a_x$ for all $x\in X_0$. This transfer function is well defined for all $x \in X$, and hence $W$ extends to $\varphi\in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
In the case of the bidisk, the function $\sigma$ will be a $2\times 2$ matrix valued inner function, and though heavily constrained, it will not be uniquely determined. For practical purposes it would be very interesting to know a concrete example of a choice of $\sigma$.
Taking $b_x = \sqrt{\delta}$ for all $x\in X_0=X$ in Theorem \[thm:agler-pick\_interpolation\] gives the so-called *Toeplitz-corona theorem*. We need a special case of this, stated in the following lemma.
\[lem:Z+inv\_in\_Hinf\] Let $\Lambda$ be an ample preordering. For $\lambda\in\Lambda$, there exist $\omega_\lambda$ with entries in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ such that for all $x\in X$, $\psi^+_\lambda(x) \omega_\lambda(x) = 1$. Consequently, given a unitary colligation $(U,\mathcal E,\rho)$, there exists $Y$ with entries in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ such that for all $x$, $Z^+(x)Y(x) = 1$.
Recall from the definition in subsection \[subsec:auxil-test-funct\], $\psi^+_\lambda : X \to
\mathbb C^{2^{|\lambda|-1}}$ with entries which are products of test functions and hence in ${{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ and the first entry equal to $1$. If we replace this $1$ by $0$ and call the resulting function ${\tilde\psi}^+_\lambda$, then we see that for any admissible kernel $k$, $$(\psi^+_\lambda\psi^{+*}_\lambda - [1])*k_\sigma =
({\tilde\psi}^+_\lambda{\tilde\psi}^{+*}_\lambda) * k_\sigma \geq
0,$$ where $k_\sigma$ is as in the statement of Theorem \[thm:agler-pick\_interpolation\].
Now apply Theorem \[thm:agler-pick\_interpolation\] to get a function in $\omega_\lambda \in H^\infty_1(X,\mathcal K_{\Lambda,
\mathbb C^{2^{|\lambda|-1}}})$. It might be objected that the $\psi^\pm_\lambda$s are not square matrices, but this can be rectified by padding with rows of zeros. The definition of $Y$ in terms of the $\omega_\lambda$s then yields the final statement of the theorem.
\[cor:gamma\_limit\_of\_HLH\_fns\] Let $\Lambda$ be an ample preordering, $(U,\mathcal E,\rho)$ a unitary colligation. Then for $S$ and $Y$ chosen as in Theorem \[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\] and Lemma \[lem:Z+inv\_in\_Hinf\], $$\gamma(x):= C(1-S(x)A)^{-1}Y(x)$$ is the pointwise limit functions in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
By the now standard arguments whereby we scale $A$ and $C$ to $rA$ and $rC$, $0<r<1$, approximate $rC(1-S(x)rA)^{-1}$ by polynomials in $S$ and then take limits, the result follows since the entries of $S$ and $Y$ are in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$.
Brehmer representations again {#subsec:brehm-repr-again}
-----------------------------
Using the last corollary, we can now include a statement concerning Brehmer representations to the realization theorem for ample preorderings.
\[thm:realization\_III\] Suppose $\Psi = \{\psi_1,\ldots \psi_d\}$ is a collection of test functions and $\Lambda$ is an ample preordering. The following are equivalent:
1. $\varphi\in {{H_1^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$;
2. There exist positive kernels $\Gamma_\lambda:X\times X\to \mathcal{L(H)}$ so that for all $x,y\in X$ $$1-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*=
\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\Gamma_\lambda(x,y)
\prod_{\ell_j\in\lambda} ([1] - \psi_{\ell_j}(x)\psi_{\ell_j}(y)^*)$$
3. There exist positive kernels ${\tilde\Gamma}_\lambda : X\times X\to \mathcal{L}({\mathbb
C}^{|\lambda|},\mathcal H)$ so that for all $x,y\in X$ $$1-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*=
\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}{\tilde\Gamma}_\lambda(x,y)
([1_{\mathbb C^{|\lambda|}}] -
\sigma_\lambda(x)\sigma_\lambda(y)^*)$$
4. There is a unitary colligation $\Sigma =
(U,\rho,\mathcal E)$ so that $\varphi=W_\Sigma$;
5. For every strict / strongly continuous / weakly continuous Brehmer representation $\pi$ of${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$;
6. For every representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ which is strictly contractive on auxiliary test functions or which is contractive on auxiliary test functions and either strongly or weakly continuous, $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$.
The equivalence of all parts except for (*vN-B*) are the content of Theorem \[thm:realization\_II\]. Since by Lemma \[lem:contr-aux-t-fns-are-B-reps\], representations which are strictly contractive on auxiliary test functions are strictly contractive Brehmer representations, to finish the proof it suffices to prove that if (*AD1*) holds, then any weakly contractive Brehmer representation is contractive.
We can rewrite the statement of (*AD1*) as being that that there exists a positive kernel $\Gamma$ with Kolmogorov decomposition $\Gamma = \gamma\gamma^*$ such that for all $x,y$, $$1-\varphi(x)\varphi(y)^*= \gamma(x)(Z^+(x)Z^{+*}(y) -
Z^-(x)Z^{-*}(y))\gamma^*.$$ A lurking isometry argument then gives that there is a unitary operator $U = \begin{pmatrix} A & B \\ C & D \end{pmatrix}$, so that $$C = \gamma(x) (Z^+(x) - Z^-(x)A).$$ According to Lemma \[lem:Z+inv\_in\_Hinf\], we can choose $S$ with entries in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ to be strictly contractive for all $x$, and so $\gamma(x)Z^+(x) = C(1-S(x)A)^{-1}$. Applying Lemma \[lem:Z+inv\_in\_Hinf\], we can choose $Y$ with entries in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ such that for all $x$, $Z^+(x) Y(x) = 1$, and hence $$\gamma(x) = C(1-S(x)A)^{-1}Y(x),$$ which by Corollary \[cor:gamma\_limit\_of\_HLH\_fns\] as a limit of functions in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. The lurking isometry argument also gives that $$\varphi(x) = D + \gamma(x) Z^-(x) B.$$
Let $\pi$ be a weakly continuous Brehmer representation. If $\gamma$ has entries in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$, then $$\pi(\varphi) = 1\otimes D + (\pi(\gamma)\pi(Z^-))\otimes B,$$ where we are using the shorthand notation of “$\pi(\gamma)$” and “$\pi(Z^-)$” for the entrywise application of $\pi$ to these functions. A straightforward calculation using the fact that $U$ in the colligation is unitary gives $$1-\pi(\varphi)\pi(\varphi)^* = \pi(\gamma)(\pi(Z^+)\pi(Z^+)^* -
\pi(Z^-)\pi(Z^-)^*)\pi(\gamma)^* \geq 0.$$ More generally, we approximate $\gamma$ by function with entries in ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$. Taking limits, we still find that $1-\pi(\varphi)\pi(\varphi)^* \geq 0$; that is, $\pi$ is contractive.
We close this section with an analogue of Brehmer’s theorem.
\[prop:dilating\_Brehmer\_reps\] Let $\pi$ be a Brehmer representation of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ or weakly continuous Brehmer representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}\subset C_b(X,\mathcal{L(H)})$. Then $\pi$ dilates to a $($weakly continuous$)$ Brehmer $*$-representation $\tilde\pi$ of $C_b(X,\mathcal{L(H)})$.
This follows from Corollary \[cor:HLH\_equals\_TLH\_w\_ample\_po\] and Theorem \[thm:dilation-theorem\].
Algebras generated by two test functions {#subsec:algebr-gener-two}
----------------------------------------
Brehmer’s original theorem is a dilation theorem which works over the polydisk, but requires a special class of representations. On the other hand, for the $\mathbb D^2$, Andô’s theorem shows that such dilation results hold for a broader class of representations. We first state a bidisk version of the realization theorem. The emphasis here is on the equivalence of the two versions of von Neumann’s inequality, since by Lemma \[lem:contr-aux-t-fns-are-B-reps\], the collection of representations which are strictly contractive on auxiliary test functions is the smallest set of representations we consider, while the weakly continuous Brehmer representations form the largest set.
\[thm:2-var-polydisk\_real\] Let $\varphi: \mathbb D^2 \to \mathcal{L(H)}$. The following are equivalent:
1. $([1]-\varphi\varphi^*)*k_s \geq 0$, $k_s(z,w) =
(1-z_1w_1)^{-1}(1-z_2w_2)^{-1}$, or equivalently $\varphi \in
H^\infty_1(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)})$;
2. For every admissible kernel $k\in \{k\geq 0:
(1-Z_jZ_j^*)*k \geq 0,\ j=1,2\}$, we have $(1-\varphi\varphi^*)*k
\geq 0$;
3. There exist positive kernels $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ such that $[1]-\varphi\varphi^* = \Gamma_1*([1]-Z_1Z_1^*)+
\Gamma_2*([1]-Z_2Z_2^*)$, where $Z_j(z) = z_j$;
4. $\varphi \in H^\infty(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)})$ and for every weakly continuous Brehmer representation $\pi$ $($so$1-\pi(z_1)\pi(z_1)^*-\pi(z_2)\pi(z_2)^*+
\pi(z_1)\pi(z_2)\pi(z_1)^*\pi(z_2)^* \geq 0)$, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$;
5. $\varphi \in H^\infty(\mathbb D^2,\mathcal{L(H)})$ and for every strictly contractive representation $\pi$ $($so $\|\pi(z_i)\| < 1)$, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$.
We next show how to generalize this to algebras over general domains generated by a pair of test functions.
Let us assume that $\Psi = \{\psi_1,\psi_2\}$ is a collection of test functions on a set $X$ and $\Lambda$ be the standard ample preordering with maximal element $(1,1)$, while $\Lambda_0 = \{(1,0),(0,1)\}$, the nearly ample preordering used for the standard realization theorem. Write $\mathcal K_0$ for the set of admissible kernels associated to $\Lambda_0$; so $k\in\mathcal K_0$ means that $k\geq 0$ and $([1]-\psi_j\psi_j^*)*k \geq 0$, $j=1,2$.
By assumption, for each $x\in X$, $\max\{|\psi_1(x)|,|\psi_2(x)|\} <
1$ and the elements of $\Psi$ separate the points of $X$. Hence by Lemma \[lem:id\_HLH\_w\_pdisk\_subalg\], there is an injective mapping $\xi$ of $X$ onto a subset $\Omega$ of $\mathbb D^2$ given by $\xi:x\mapsto z = (z_1,z_2) = (\psi_1(x),\psi_2(x))$.
\[thm:2-var-realization\] Let $\Psi = \{\psi_1,\psi_2\}$ be a collection of test functions on a set $X$. Let $\Lambda$ be the ample preordering with maximal element $(1,1)$, $\Lambda_0$ the preordering $\{(1,0),(0,1)\}$. For $\varphi: \mathbb D^2 \to \mathcal{L(H)}$, the following are equivalent:
1. $\varphi \in H^\infty_1(X, \mathcal
K_{\Lambda,\mathcal{L(H)}})$, the closed unit ball of $H^\infty(X,\mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal{L(H)}})$;
2. $\varphi \in H^\infty_1(X, \mathcal
K_{\Lambda_0,\mathcal{L(H)}})$, the closed unit ball of $H^\infty(X, \mathcal K_{\Lambda_0,\mathcal{L(H)}})$;
3. $\varphi \in H^\infty(X, \mathcal
K_{\Lambda,\mathcal{L(H)}})$ and for every weakly continuous Brehmer representation $\pi$, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$;
4. $\varphi \in H^\infty(X, \mathcal
K_{\Lambda_0,\mathcal{L(H)}})$ and for every strictly contractive representation $\pi$ $($so $\|\pi(\psi_i)\| < 1)$, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$.
In particular, $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda_0$ are equivalent preorderings; that is, $H^\infty(X, \mathcal
K_{\Lambda_0,\mathcal{L(H)}}) = H^\infty(X, \mathcal
K_{\Lambda,\mathcal{L(H)}})$.
The implication ($SC2$) implies ($SC1$) is trivial, while ($vN1$) is equivalent to ($SC1$) and ($vN2$) is equivalent to ($SC2$) by Theorem \[thm:realization\_II\]. We therefore only need to show that ($SC1$) implies ($SC2$).
Assume $\varphi \in H^\infty_1(X, \mathcal K_{\Lambda,
\mathcal{L(H)}})$. Using the embedding of $X$ in the polydisk given in Lemma \[lem:id\_HLH\_w\_pdisk\_subalg\], we let $\tilde\varphi = \varphi\circ\xi^{-1}$. Fix $\lambda = (1,1)$. We suppress the dependence on $\lambda$ in the following, writing $\psi^+ = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \psi_1\psi_2 \end{pmatrix}$, $\psi^- =
\begin{pmatrix} \psi_1 & \psi_2 \end{pmatrix}$, and $\sigma_0 =
\psi^{+\,*} |\psi^+|^{-2} \psi^-$. When composed with $\xi^{-1}$ these become ${\tilde\psi}^+ = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & z_1z_2
\end{pmatrix}$, ${\tilde\psi}^- = \begin{pmatrix} z_1 & z_2
\end{pmatrix}$, and ${\tilde\sigma}_0 = {\tilde\psi}^{+\,*}
|{\tilde\psi}^+|^{-2} {\tilde\psi}^-$ on $\Omega = \xi(X) \subset
\mathbb D^2$.
By Theorem \[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\], ${\tilde\sigma}_0$ extends to an auxiliary test function $\tilde\sigma \in
H^\infty(\mathbb D^2,M_2(\mathbb C))$ corresponding to $\lambda$. Set $\sigma = (\tilde\sigma | \Omega)\circ \xi$. Easy calculations show that $\psi^+ \sigma = \psi^-$ and $([1_2] - \sigma\sigma^*) *
(k_s\otimes 1_2) \geq 0$, where $k_s(x,y) =
(1-\psi_1(x)\psi_1(y))^{-1} (1-\psi_2(x)\psi_2(y))^{-1}$. In other words, $\sigma$ is an auxiliary test function corresponding to $\lambda = (1,1)$, this time over $X$.
Also by Theorem \[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\], $\varphi \in
H^\infty_1(X, \mathcal K_{\Lambda,\mathcal{L(H)}})$ if and only if $(1_2\otimes ([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] - \varphi\varphi^*)) * k_\sigma
\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} \geq 0$, where $k_\sigma(x,y) = (1_2 -
\sigma(x)\sigma(y))^{-1}$. Translating over to $\Omega$, this becomes $$(1_2\otimes ([1_{\mathcal{L(H)}}] -
{\tilde\varphi}{\tilde\varphi}^*)) * k_{\tilde\sigma}
\otimes 1_{\mathcal{L(H)}} \geq 0,$$ on $\Omega\times\Omega$, where $k_{\tilde\sigma}$ is defined analogously to $k_\sigma$. By Theorem \[thm:agler-pick\_interpolation\], $\tilde\varphi$ extends to a function in $H^\infty(\mathbb D^2, \mathcal{L(H)})$, and so by Agler’s realization theorem in the case of the bidisk (Theorem \[thm:Aglers-realization\]), $\tilde\varphi \in
H^\infty_1(\mathbb D^2, \mathcal K_{\Lambda_0,\mathcal{L(H)}})$. Restricting to $\Omega$ and mapping back to $X$, it follows that $\varphi \in H^\infty_1(X, \mathcal K_{\Lambda_0,\mathcal{L(H)}})$.
Realizations with nearly ample preorderings {#subsec:real-nearly-ample-preord}
-------------------------------------------
It is now possible to extend the results of the previous section to more than two test functions. Following the template set there, we first do this over the polydisk, thus obtaining a generalization of the results in [@MR2502431], and then to general algebras obtained with a finite collection of test functions. We begin with a $d$-variable version of Theorem \[thm:2-var-polydisk\_real\].
Throughout this section we assume that we have the standard ample preordering $\Lambda^a = \{1\}$ over the collection of test functions is $\Psi = \{\psi_1,\dots,\psi_d\}$, where here $1$ stands for the $d$-tuple with all values $1$, and a standard nearly ample preordering $\Lambda^{na} = \{\lambda_1, \lambda_2\}$, where $\lambda_i$ is a $d$-tuple with the $j_i$th entry equal to $0$ and all others equal to $1$, and $\lambda_1 \neq \lambda_2$. In the first case, the collection of kernels is particularly simple. By Lemma \[lem:adm\_kernels\_for\_ample\_po\] they are all subordinate to the so-called Szegő kernel, $k_s$. In the nearly ample case the set is more complex, since then $$k\in \mathcal K_{\Lambda^{na}} :=
\{k\geq 0: \prod_{j\neq j_1} (1-\psi_j \psi_j^*)*k \geq 0 \text{ and }
\prod_{j\neq j_1} (1-Z_j Z_j^*)*k \geq 0,\ j=1,2\}.$$ Recall from Theorem \[thm:ample-near-ample-equiv-polydsk\] that over the polydisk with test functions equal to the coordinate functions, the algebras we get from these two collections of kernels are the same, with equal norms. Also, since by Lemma \[lem:preorderings\_are\_equivalent\] $\{1, \lambda_1,
\lambda_2\}$ is also an ample preordering equivalent to $\Lambda^a$, by Theorem \[thm:ext-aux-test-fns-ample-case\], for any collection of $d$ test functions over a set $X$, we have that the auxiliary test functions $\sigma_1 \in H^\infty(X, {\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb
C^{2^{d-1}}})$ and $\sigma_{\lambda_1}, \sigma_{\lambda_2} \in
H^\infty(X, {\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^{2^{d-2}}})$. Thus we have the following generalization of the main theorem of [@MR2502431].
\[thm:d-var-polydisk\_real\] Let $\varphi: \mathbb D^d \to \mathcal{L(H)}$. The following are equivalent:
1. $([1]-\varphi\varphi^*)*k_s \geq 0$, or equivalently, $\varphi \in H^\infty_1(\mathbb
D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$;
2. For every admissible kernel $k\in \mathcal
K_{\Lambda^{na}}$, $([1]-\varphi\varphi^*)*k \geq 0$;
3. There exists a positive kernels $\Gamma$, $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ such that $$[1]-\varphi\varphi^* = \Gamma*\prod_{j=1}^d ([1]-Z_jZ_j^*)
= \Gamma_1*\prod_{j\neq j_1}
([1]-Z_jZ_j^*) + \Gamma_2*\prod_{j\neq j_2} ([1]-Z_jZ_j^*),$$ where $Z_j(z) = z_j$;
4. There are unitary colligations $\Sigma_a$ and $\Sigma_{na}$ in the ample and nearly ample setting respectively, such that $\varphi$ has transfer function representations $$\varphi = W_{\Sigma_a} = W_{\Sigma_{na}};$$
5. $\varphi \in H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal H) =
H^\infty(\mathbb D^d, {\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^a,\mathcal H}) =
H^\infty(\mathbb D^d, {\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal H})$ and for every representation $\pi$ which is strictly contractive on the auxiliary test function $\sigma_1$ $($respectively, the auxiliary test functions $\sigma_{\lambda_1},
\sigma_{\lambda_2})$, or contractive on these and either strongly or weakly continuous, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$;
6. $\varphi \in H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal H) =
H^\infty(\mathbb D^d, {\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^a,\mathcal H}) =
H^\infty(\mathbb D^d, {\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal H})$ and for every representation $\pi$ which is a strict / strongly continuous/ weakly continuous Brehmer representation with respect to $\Lambda^a$ $($respectively, $\Lambda^{na})$, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$.
There are also statements regarding transfer function representations which we have not included here.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:ample-near-ample-equiv-polydsk\] and an application of the realization theorem to the two equivalent preorderings $\Lambda^a$ and $\Lambda^{na}$.
We now state a $d$-variable version of Theorem \[thm:2-var-realization\]. As usual, $k_s$ stands for the Szegő kernel $\prod_1^d ([1]-\psi_j\psi_j^*)^{-1}$.
\[thm:realization\_IV\] Suppose $\Psi = \{\psi_1,\ldots \psi_d\}$ is a collection of test functions over a set $X$, $\Lambda^{na}$ is a standard nearly ample preordering under the standard ample preordering $\Lambda^{a} =
\{1\}$. The following are equivalent:
1. $([1]-\varphi\varphi^*)*k_s \geq 0$, or equivalently, $\varphi \in H_1^\infty({\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^a,\mathcal H})$;
2. For every admissible kernel $k\in \mathcal
K_{\Lambda^{na}}$, $([1]-\varphi\varphi^*)*k \geq 0$, or equivalently, $\varphi \in H_1^\infty({\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal H})$;
3. There exists a positive kernels $\Gamma$, $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ such that $$\begin{split}
[1]-\varphi\varphi^* &= \Gamma*\prod_{j=1}^d ([1]-Z_jZ_j^*) \\
& = \Gamma_1*\prod_{j\neq j_1}
([1]-Z_jZ_j^*) + \Gamma_2*\prod_{j\neq j_2} ([1]-Z_jZ_j^*),
\end{split}$$ where $Z_j(x) = \psi_j(x)$;
4. There are unitary colligations $\Sigma_a$ and $\Sigma_{na}$ in the ample and nearly ample setting respectively, such that $\varphi$ has transfer function representations $$\varphi = W_{\Sigma_a} = W_{\Sigma_{na}};$$
5. $\varphi \in H^\infty(X, {\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^a,\mathcal H}) = H^\infty(X, {\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal H})$ and for every representation $\pi$ which is strictly contractive on the auxiliary test function $\sigma_1$ $($respectively, the auxiliary test functions $\sigma_{\lambda_1}, \sigma_{\lambda_2})$, or contractive on these and either strongly or weakly continuous, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq 1$;
6. $\varphi \in H^\infty(X, {\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^a,\mathcal H}) = H^\infty(X, {\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal H})$ and for every representation $\pi$ which is a strict / strongly continuous / weakly continuous Brehmer representation with respect to $\Lambda^a$ $($respectively, $\Lambda^{na})$, we have $\|\pi(\varphi)\| \leq
1$.
In particular, the theorem implies that $\Lambda^a$ and $\Lambda^{na}$ are always equivalent preorderings.
The idea is very much like that in the proof of Theorem \[thm:2-var-realization\]. As we did there, we use the embedding $\xi$ of $X$ in the polydisk given in Lemma \[lem:id\_HLH\_w\_pdisk\_subalg\] and Theorem \[thm:agler-pick\_interpolation\] to get a function $\tilde\varphi$ in $H^\infty_1(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$, which when restricted to the image of $X$ under $\xi$ pulls back to $\varphi$. Applying the polydisk realization theorem (Theorem \[thm:d-var-polydisk\_real\]) to $\tilde\varphi$, we obtain the equivalence of the various statements in the theorem over the polydisk, and then pulling back to $X$ the result follows.
The Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ is arbitrary in the last theorem, so we get the following corollary, generalizing Brehmer’s theorem and a result in [@MR2502431], via its obvious specialization to $H^\infty(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$. Compare with Theorem \[thm:dilation-theorem\].
\[cor:generalized-Brehmers-theorem\] Suppose $\Psi = \{\psi_1,\ldots \psi_d\}$ is a collection of test functions, $\Lambda^{na}$ is a standard nearly ample preordering with maximal elements $\lambda^m_1$ and $\lambda^m_2$. Let $\pi:
A({\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal{L(H)}}) \to \mathcal{L(K)}$ be a Brehmer representation. Then $\pi$ is completely contractive and so dilates to a completely contractive representation $\tilde\pi$ of the $C^*$-envelope of $A({\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal{L(H)}})$ with the property that it is the only completely positive agreeing with $\tilde\pi| A({\mathcal K}_{\Lambda^{na},\mathcal{L(H)}})$.
Some applications {#sec:some-applications}
=================
We give some more or less immediate applications of the material presented. For example, the following, which is the main result of [@MR2502431], is the last corollary applied to the polydisk.
\[cor:generalized-Brehmers-theorem-for-polydisk\] Let $\Psi = \{z_1,\ldots z_d\}$ be the coordinate functions on $\mathbb D^d$, $\Lambda^{na}$ a standard nearly ample preordering with maximal elements $\lambda^m_1$ and $\lambda^m_2$. Let $\pi:
A(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)}) \to \mathcal{L(K)}$ be a Brehmer representation. Then the contractions $\pi(z_j)$ dilate to a commuting unitary operators.
Another interesting corollary of the realization theorem is a sort of weak form of the rational dilation property.
\[cor:n-contr-implies-cc\] Let $\Psi = \{\psi_1,\ldots \psi_d\}$, $d\geq 2$, is a collection of test functions, $\Lambda$ a standard ample preordering. Then any $2^{d-2}$-contractive representation of ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ or weakly continuous $2^{d-2}$-contractive representation of ${{H^\infty(X,{\mathcal K}_{\Lambda,\mathcal H})}}$ is completely contractive.
This follows from Lemma \[lem:contr-aux-t-fns-are-B-reps\], the last corollary and the fact that the auxiliary test functions with a standard nearly ample preordering are in $H^\infty(X, {\mathcal
K}_{\Lambda,\mathbb C^{2^n}})$, $n\leq d-2$.
On the polydisk, we then get the following.
\[cor:n-contr-implies-cc-improved\] For the polydisk $\mathbb D^d$, $d\geq 2$, any $2^{d-2}$-contractive representation of $A(\mathbb D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$ or weakly continuous $2^{d-2}$-contractive representation of $H^\infty(\mathbb
D^d,\mathcal{L(H)})$ is completely contractive.
This implies that $2$-contractive representations of the tridisk algebra are completely contractive. In particular, examples like that due to Parrott of contractive representations of this algebra which are not completely contractive can only fail to be so by failing to be $2$-contractive.
\[cor:3disk-not-cc=not-2-contr\] Any representation of $A(\mathbb D^3,\mathcal{L(H)})$ or weakly continuous representation of$H^\infty(\mathbb
D^3,\mathcal{L(H)})$ which is $2$-contractive is completely contractive. Equivalently, any such representation which is not completely contractive must fail to be $2$-contractive.
Here are a couple of other examples involving two test functions. Let $X$ be an annulus $\mathbb A$ with out boundary the unit circle $\mathbb T$ and inner boundary $r\mathbb T$ for some $0< r < 1$. Choose for test functions the set $\Psi = \{\psi_1(z) = z, \psi_2(z) =
r/z\}$. By what we have shown (see also [@MR2595740]), contractive representations of this algebra are automatically completely contractive, and so the rational dilation property holds. The rational dilation problem for the annulus was originally solved by Agler in [@MR794373] (see [@2013arXiv1305.4272D] for an alternate proof). It can be shown that although ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ and $A(\mathbb
A)$ have different norms, they are the same algebra, and in fact as operator algebras they are completely boundedly equivalent [@MR862189] (see also [@MR2449098]). One might naively expect that this would give yet another approach to solving this problem, but unfortunately it does not. Indeed, the same phenomenon occurs for multiply connected planar domains [@MR862189].
To perhaps better illustrate what might happen, consider instead the disk $\mathbb D$ with test functions $\Psi = \{\psi_1(z) = z^2,
\psi_2(z) = z^3\}$. This is an example of a constrained algebra, since ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$ consists of functions with first derivative equal to $0$ at the origin. This algebra differs from the subalgebra of the disk algebra of functions with derivative $0$ at the origin (that is, $\mathbb C + z^2 A(\mathbb D)$). For the latter, one can find examples of contractive representations which are not completely contractive (ie, rational dilation fails) [@2013arXiv1305.4272D], while for ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$, by what we have shown, it holds. Indeed, for ${{A(X,{\mathcal K}_\Lambda)}}$, a representation which maps the two test functions to contractions (satisfying the obvious constraint that $\pi(\psi_1)^3 =
\pi(\psi_2)^2$) is completely contractive by Theorem \[thm:2-var-realization\] and Corollary \[cor:n-contr-implies-cc-improved\], while there are examples of such representations of the constrained subalgebra of the disk algebra which are not even contractive (much as in the Kaijser-Varopoulos example) [@2013arXiv1305.4272D].
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
When we have more than two test functions over some set $X$, there will be preorderings with their associated algebras for which we cannot say much beyond what is in our initial realization theorem, Theorem \[thm:realization\_I\]. In particular, we do not know if the auxiliary test functions can be extended to matrix valued functions in our algebra, as we have in either the classical case or the cases of ample and nearly ample preorderings. We also wonder if there are other types of preorderings other than the ample and nearly ample ones which are equivalent.
It would be nice to know more concretely what the auxiliary test functions are, particularly over polydisks. The knowledge of this could provide a key tool in resolving a number of questions regarding the connection between Schur-Agler class in the classical sense and $H^\infty$ over these domains, and hence resolving some of the mysteries surrounding these algebras. One immediate question is whether for $d>3$ there are $(2^{d-2}-1)$-contractive representations which are not completely contractive (that is, are the bounds in Corollary \[cor:n-contr-implies-cc-improved\] sharp?). Another is whether contractive representations of the polydisk algebras $A(\mathbb D^d)$ with $d \geq 3$ are necessarily completely bounded.
It would also be useful to know a norming set of boundary representations for the Agler algebra in the classical setting. Over the tridisk any representation sending the coordinate functions to a commuting tuples of unitaries are included (if we ignore irreducibility), but as we also saw in §\[subsec:some-bound-repr-Agler-alg\], other sorts of representations are also there. In the concrete examples given, these all send the coordinate functions to nilpotent partial isometries. As was mentioned, there will be examples of boundary representations which come from neither tuples of commuting unitaries, nor commuting tuples of nilpotent operators, but these in between cases are somewhat mysterious. Perhaps, up to unitary conjugation, they always send the coordinate functions to tuples of commuting partial isometries? However, from Kaijser-Varopoulos example, one sees that this alone is not enough. Note that the boundary representations coming from commuting unitaries are $1$ dimensional, and our examples of nilpotent boundary representations are all finite dimensional. Is it the case that there is an upper bound to the dimension of all boundary representations? Though this seems unlikely, there is no obvious proof. There will be Schur-Agler class functions which peak on the boundary representations. Are they related to the polynomials from which these examples are initially drawn? In any case, for the nilpotent representations, these will presumably be polynomials of the same degree as the order of nilpotency.
What happens with the unit ball in $\mathbb C^d$, $d>1$? It is well known that the unit ball of the Drury-Arveson algebra does not coincide with the unit ball of $H^\infty$ of this space [@MR1866874]. While one must be careful applying the results here in this setting since the test function is vector valued, it is still intriguing to speculate what algebras one might obtain with powers of the Drury-Arveson kernel.
Finally, the resemblance of results from real algebra to those presented here is striking. Are there some deeper connections? For example, could one use the techniques here to find, at least in some circumstances, a proof of such results as Schmüdgen’s theorem?
[10]{}
Jim Agler. Rational dilation on an annulus. , 121(3):537–563, 1985.
Jim Agler. On the representation of certain holomorphic functions defined on a polydisc. In [*Topics in operator theory: Ernst D. Hellinger memorial volume*]{}, volume 48 of [*Oper. Theory Adv. Appl.*]{}, pages 47–66. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1990.
Jim Agler, John Harland, and Benjamin J. Raphael. Classical function theory, operator dilation theory, and machine computation on multiply-connected domains. , 191(892):viii+159, 2008.
Jim Agler and John E. McCarthy. , volume 44 of [*Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002.
Jim Alger, John E. McCarthy, and N. J. Young. On the representation of holomorphic functions on polyhedra. , 62(4):675–689, 2013.
Daniel Alpay and H. Turgay Kaptano[ğ]{}lu. Some finite-dimensional backward-shift-invariant subspaces in the ball and a related interpolation problem. , 42(1):1–21, 2002.
C.-G. Ambrozie and D. Timotin. A von [N]{}eumann type inequality for certain domains in [$\bold C^n$]{}. , 131(3):859–869 (electronic), 2003.
T. And[ô]{}. On a pair of commutative contractions. , 24:88–90, 1963.
J. Robert Archer. Positivity and the existence of unitary dilations of commuting contractions. In [*The extended field of operator theory*]{}, volume 171 of [ *Oper. Theory Adv. Appl.*]{}, pages 17–35. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2007.
William Arveson. Subalgebras of [$C\sp *$]{}-algebras. [III]{}. [M]{}ultivariable operator theory. , 181(2):159–228, 1998.
Catalin Badea, Bernhard Beckermann, and Michel Crouzeix. Intersections of several disks of the [R]{}iemann sphere as [$K$]{}-spectral sets. , 8(1):37–54, 2009.
Bhaskar Bagchi, Tirthankar Bhattacharyya, and Gadadhar Misra. Some thoughts on [A]{}ndo’s theorem and [P]{}arrott’s example. , 341:357–367, 2002. Special issue dedicated to Professor T. Ando.
Sriram Balasubramanian. Non-commutative [C]{}arathéodory interpolation. , 68(4):529–550, 2010.
J. A. Ball, W. S. Li, D. Timotin, and T. T. Trent. A commutant lifting theorem on the polydisc. , 48(2):653–675, 1999.
Joseph A. Ball, Animikh Biswas, Quanlei Fang, and Sanne ter Horst. Multivariable generalizations of the [S]{}chur class: positive kernel characterization and transfer function realization. In [*Recent advances in operator theory and applications*]{}, volume 187 of [*Oper. Theory Adv. Appl.*]{}, pages 17–79. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2009.
Joseph A. Ball and Vladimir Bolotnikov. Realization and interpolation for [S]{}chur-[A]{}gler-class functions on domains with matrix polynomial defining function in [$\Bbb C\sp n$]{}. , 213(1):45–87, 2004.
Joseph A. Ball and Mois[é]{}s D. Guerra Huam[á]{}n. Test functions, [S]{}chur-[A]{}gler classes and transfer-function realizations: the matrix-valued setting. , 7(3):529–575, 2013.
Joseph A. Ball and Dmitry S. Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi. Rational [C]{}ayley inner [H]{}erglotz-[A]{}gler functions: positive-kernel decompositions and transfer-function realizations. , 456:138–156, 2014.
Joseph A. Ball and Tavan T. Trent. Unitary colligations, reproducing kernel [H]{}ilbert spaces, and [N]{}evanlinna-[P]{}ick interpolation in several variables. , 157(1):1–61, 1998.
Stephen D. Barreto, B. V. Rajarama Bhat, Volkmar Liebscher, and Michael Skeide. Type [I]{} product systems of [H]{}ilbert modules. , 212(1):121–181, 2004.
David P. Blecher and Vern I. Paulsen. Explicit construction of universal operator algebras and applications to polynomial factorization. , 112(3):839–850, 1991.
S. Brehmer. Über vetauschbare [K]{}ontraktionen des [H]{}ilbertschen [R]{}aumes. , 22:106–111, 1961.
M. J. Crabb and A. M. Davie. von [N]{}eumann’s inequality for [H]{}ilbert space operators. , 7:49–50, 1975.
R. G. Douglas and V. I. Paulsen. Completely bounded maps and hypo-[D]{}irichlet algebras. , 50(1-2):143–157, 1986.
Michael A. [Dritschel]{}, Michael T. [Jury]{}, and Scott [McCullough]{}. . , 2016. to appear, arXiv:1305.4272.
Michael A. Dritschel, Stefania Marcantognini, and Scott McCullough. Interpolation in semigroupoid algebras. , 606:1–40, 2007.
Michael A. Dritschel and Scott McCullough. The failure of rational dilation on a triply connected domain. , 18(4):873–918, 2005.
Michael A. Dritschel and Scott McCullough. Test functions, kernels, realizations and interpolation. In [*Operator theory, structured matrices, and dilations*]{}, volume 7 of [*Theta Ser. Adv. Math.*]{}, pages 153–179. Theta, Bucharest, 2007.
Michael A. Dritschel and Scott A. McCullough. Boundary representations for families of representations of operator algebras and spaces. , 53(1):159–167, 2005.
Anatolii Grinshpan, Dmitry S. Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi, Victor Vinnikov, and Hugo J. Woerdeman. Classes of tuples of commuting contractions satisfying the multivariable von [N]{}eumann inequality. , 256(9):3035–3054, 2009.
Anatolii Grinshpan, Dmitry S. Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi, and Hugo J. Woerdeman. Norm-constrained determinantal representations of multivariable polynomials. , 7(3):635–654, 2013.
Michael T. Jury. Universal commutative operator algebras and transfer function realizations of polynomials. , 73(3):305–329, 2012.
Michael T. Jury, Greg Knese, and Scott McCullough. Agler interpolation families of kernels. , 3(4):571–587, 2009.
Michael T. Jury, Greg Knese, and Scott McCullough. Nevanlinna-[P]{}ick interpolation on distinguished varieties in the bidisk. , 262(9):3812–3838, 2012.
Greg Knese. Kernel decompositions for [S]{}chur functions on the polydisk. , 5(4):1093–1111, 2011.
B. A. Lotto and T. Steger. von [N]{}eumann’s inequality for commuting, diagonalizable contractions. [II]{}. , 120(3):897–901, 1994.
Meghna Mittal and Vern I. Paulsen. Operator algebras of functions. , 258(9):3195–3225, 2010.
W. Mlak. Positive definite contraction valued functions. , 15:509–512, 1967.
Paul S. Muhly and Baruch Solel. An algebraic characterization of boundary representations. In [*Nonselfadjoint operator algebras, operator theory, and related topics*]{}, volume 104 of [*Oper. Theory Adv. Appl.*]{}, pages 189–196. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1998.
Stephen Parrott. Unitary dilations for commuting contractions. , 34:481–490, 1970.
James Pickering. Counterexamples to rational dilation on symmetric multiply connected domains. , 4(1):55–95, 2010.
Alexander Prestel and Charles N. Delzell. . Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. From Hilbert’s 17th problem to real algebra.
Mihai Putinar. Positive polynomials on compact semi-algebraic sets. , 42(3):969–984, 1993.
Konrad Schm[ü]{}dgen. The [$K$]{}-moment problem for compact semi-algebraic sets. , 289(2):203–206, 1991.
Andrew T. Tomerlin. Products of [N]{}evanlinna-[P]{}ick kernels and operator colligations. , 38(3):350–356, 2000.
N. Th. Varopoulos. On an inequality of von [N]{}eumann and an application of the metric theory of tensor products to operators theory. , 16:83–100, 1974.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper explores Noether and Noether gauge symmetries of anisotropic universe model in $f(R,T)$ gravity. We consider two particular models of this gravity and evaluate their symmetry generators as well as associated conserved quantities. We also find exact solution by using cyclic variable and investigate its behavior via cosmological parameters. The behavior of cosmological parameters turns out to be consistent with recent observations which indicates accelerated expansion of the universe. Next we study Noether gauge symmetry and corresponding conserved quantities for both isotropic and anisotropic universe models. We conclude that symmetry generators and the associated conserved quantities appear in all cases.'
author:
- |
M. Sharif [^1] and Iqra Nawazish [^2]\
Department of Mathematics, University of the Punjab,\
Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore-54590, Pakistan.
title: '**Exact Solutions and Conserved Quantities in $f(R,T)$ Gravity**'
---
[**Keywords:**]{} Noether symmetry; Conserved quantity; $f(R,T)$ gravity.\
[**PACS:**]{} 04.20.Jb; 04.50.Kd; 95.36.+x.
Introduction
============
In the last century, the crucial observational discoveries established revolutionary advancements in modern cosmology that introduced a new vision of the current accelerated expanding universe. The accelerated epoch of the universe known as “dark energy” (DE) possesses a huge amount of negative pressure. At theoretical level, the conclusive evidences about accelerated expansion of the universe and enigmatic behavior of DE lead to introduce modified theories of gravity. The $f(R)$ gravity is the simplest proposal ($R$ represents Ricci scalar) developed by replacing $R$ with a generic function independent of any non-minimal curvature and matter coupling in the Einstein-Hilbert action.
Different researchers established basic review of $f(R)$ gravity [@2] and also discussed stability of its different models [@3]. The idea of coupling between curvature and matter was initially presented by Nojiri and Odintsov [@4] who explored explicit and implicit couplings in $f(R)$ gravity. Harko et al. [@5] developed a gravitational theory involving both curvature as well as matter components known as $f(R,T)$ gravity ($T$ denotes trace of the energy-momentum tensor). Sharif and Zubair [@10] discussed universe evolution via energy conditions along with stability criteria, reconstructed different DE models, exact solutions of anisotropic universe and thermodynamical picture in $f(R,T)$ gravity.
The discovery of CMBR reveals that the early universe was spatially homogeneous but largely anisotropic while this anisotropy still exists in terms of CMB temperature in the present universe. We consider Bianchi type models which measure the effect of anisotropy in the early universe through current observations [@6]. The anisotropic universe model indicates that the initial anisotropy determines the fate of rapid expansion of the early universe which will continue for initially large values of anisotropy. If the initial anisotropy is small then the rapid expansion will end leading to a highly isotropic universe [@7]. Akarsu and Kilinc [@8] studied Bianchi type I (BI) model that corresponds to de Sitter universe for different equation of state (EoS) models. Sharif and Zubair [@9] formulated exact solutions of BI universe model for power-law and exponential expansions in $f(R,T)$ gravity. Shamir [@a5] discussed exact solutions of locally rotationally symmetric (LRS) BI universe model and investigated physical behavior of cosmological parameters in this gravity. Kanakavalli and Ananda [@i] obtained exact solutions of LRS BI model in the presence of cosmic string source and curvature-matter coupling.
Symmetry approximation plays a crucial role to determine exact solutions or elegantly reduces complexity of a non-linear system of equations. Noether symmetry is a useful approach to evaluate unknown parameters of differential equations. Sharif and Waheed explored Bardeen model [@12] as well as stringy charged black holes [@13] via approximate symmetry. They also evaluated Noether symmetries of FRW and LRS BI models by including an inverse curvature term in the action of Brans-Dicke theory [@14]. Kucukakca et al. [@19] established exact solutions of LRS BI universe model through Noether symmetry approach in the same gravity. Jamil et al. [@11] discussed Noether symmetry in $f(\mathcal{T})$ gravity ($\mathcal{T}$ denotes torsion) that involves matter as well as scalar field contributions and determined explicit form of $f(\mathcal{T})$ for quintessence and phantom models. Kucukakca [@16] found exact solutions of flat FRW universe model via Noether symmetry in scalar-tensor theory incorporating non-minimal coupling with torsion scalar. Sharif and Shafique [@a1] discussed Noether and Noether gauge symmetries in this gravity. Sharif and Fatima [@a2] explored Noether symmetry of flat FRW model through vacuum and non-vacuum cases in $f(G)$ gravity.
Capozziello et al. [@20] explored Noether symmetry to determine exact solutions of spherically symmetric spacetime in $f(R)$ gravity. Vakili [@21] obtained Noether symmetry of flat FRW metric and analyzed the behavior of effective EoS parameter in quintessence phase. Jamil et al. [@22] studied Noether symmetry of flat FRW universe using tachyon model in this gravity. Hussain et al. [@23] studied Noether gauge symmetry of flat FRW universe model for $f(R)$ power-law model which generates zero gauge term. Shamir et al. [@24] analyzed Noether gauge symmetry for the same model as well as for static spherically symmetric spacetime and found non-zero gauge term. Kucukakca and Camci [@25] established Noether gauge symmetry of FRW universe model in Palatini formalism of $f(R)$ gravity. Momeni et al. [@a3] investigated the existence of Noether symmetry and discussed stability of solutions for flat FRW universe model in $f(R,T)$ and mimetic $f(R)$ gravity. They also explored a class of solutions with future singularities.
In this paper, we discuss Noether and Noether gauge symmetries of BI universe model in $f(R,T)$ gravity. We formulate exact solution of the field equations to discuss cosmic evolution via cosmological parameters. The format of this paper is as follows. In section **2**, we discuss a basic formalism of $f(R,T)$ gravity, Noether and Noether gauge symmetries. Section **3** explores Noether symmetry of BI model for two theoretical models of $f(R,T)$ gravity and also establish exact solution via cyclic variables. In section **4**, we obtain symmetry generator and corresponding conserved quantities through Noether gauge symmetry for flat FRW and BI models. In the last section, we summarize the results.
Basic Framework
===============
The current cosmic expansion successfully discusses not only from the contribution of the scalar-curvature part but also describes from a non-minimal coupling between curvature and matter components as well. This non-minimal coupling yields non-zero divergence of the energy-momentum tensor due to which an extra force appears that deviates massive test particles from geodesic trajectories. The action of such modified gravity is given by [@5] $$\label{1}
\mathcal{I}=\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}[\frac{f(R,T)}{2\kappa^2}+
\mathcal{L}_m],$$ where $f$ describes a simple coupling of geometry and matter whereas $\mathcal{L}_m$ denotes the matter Lagrangian. The variation of action (\[1\]) with respect to $g_{\mu\nu}$ yields non-linear partial differential equation of the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&f_R(R,T)
R_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}f(R,T)g_{\mu\nu}+(g_{\mu\nu}\Box-\nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu)
f_R(R,T)+f_T(R,T)T_{\mu\nu}\\\label{2}&&+f_T(R,T)\Theta_{\mu\nu}=\kappa^2T_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ where $\nabla_{\mu}$ shows covariant derivative and $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Box&=&\nabla_{\mu}\nabla^{\mu},\quad f_R(R,T)=\frac{\partial
f(R,T)}{\partial R},\quad f_T(R,T)=\frac{\partial f(R,T)}{\partial
T},\\\nonumber\Theta_{\mu\nu}&=&\frac{g^{\alpha\beta}\delta
T_{\alpha\beta}}{\delta
g^{\mu\nu}}=g_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{L}_m-2T_{\mu\nu}-2g^{\alpha\beta}
\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{L}_m}{\partial g^{\alpha\beta}\partial
g^{\mu\nu}}.\end{aligned}$$ The trace of Eq.(\[2\]) provides a significant relationship between geometric and matter parts as follows $$\nonumber
Rf_R(R,T)+3\Box f_R(R,T)-2f(R,T)+Tf_T(R,T)+\Theta
f_T(R,T)=\kappa^2T.$$ Harko et al [@5] introduced some theoretical models for different choices of matter as
- $f(R,T)$=$R+2f(T)$,
- $f(R,T)$=$f_1(R)+f_2(T)$,
- $f(R,T)$=$f_1(R)+f_2(R)f_3(T)$.
Noether symmetry is the most significant approach to deal with non-linear partial differential equations. The existence of Noether symmetry is possible only if Lie derivative of Lagrangian vanishes, i.e., the vector field is unique on the tangent space. In such situation, the vector field behaves as a symmetry generator which further generates conserved quantity. Noether gauge symmetry being generaliztion of Noether symmetry preserves some extra symmetries along a non-vanishing gauge term. The vector field and its first order prolongation are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
K&=&\xi(t,q^i)\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\eta^j(t,q^i)\frac{\partial}{\partial q^j},\\\nonumber
K^{[1]}&=&K+(\eta^j,_t+\eta^j,_i\dot{q}^i-\xi,_t\dot{q}^j
-\xi,_i\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^j)\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}^i},\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ identifies as affine parameter, $\xi,~\eta$ are symmetry generator coefficients, $q^i$ represents $n$ generalized positions and dot denotes time derivative. The vector field $K$ generates Noether gauge symmetry if Lagrangian preserves the following condition $$\nonumber
K^{[1]}\mathcal{L}+(D\xi)\mathcal{L}=DG(t,q^i).$$ Here $G(t,q^i)$ represents the gauge term and $D$ denotes the total derivative operator defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
D&=&\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\dot{q}^i\frac{\partial}{\partial
q^i}.\end{aligned}$$ According to Noether theorem, there exists a conserved quantity corresponding to each symmetry of a system. In case of Noether gauge symmetry, the conserved quantity for vector field $K$ takes the form $$\nonumber
\Sigma=G-\xi\mathcal{L}-(\eta^j-\dot{q}^j\xi)
\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{q}^j}.$$ For the existence of Noether symmetry, the following condition must holds $$L_K\mathcal{L}=K\mathcal{L}=0,$$ where $L$ represents Lie derivative while the vector field $K$ and conserved quantity corresponding to symmetry generator turn out to be $$\label{a}
K=\beta^i(q^i)\frac{\partial}{\partial
q^i}+\left[\frac{d}{dt}(\beta^i(q^i))\right]\frac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}^i},
\quad \Sigma=-\eta^j\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{q}^j}.$$ The equation of motion and associated Hamiltonian equation of a dynamical system are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial
q^i}-\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial
\dot{q}^i}\right)=0,\quad
\Sigma_i\dot{q}^ip_i-\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{H},\quad
p_i=\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial q^i},\end{aligned}$$ where $p_i$ represents conjugate momenta of configuration space.
Noether Symmetry for BI Universe Model
======================================
Here we apply Noether symmetry approach to deal with non-linear partial differential equation (\[2\]) and evaluate symmetry generators as well as corresponding conserved quantities of BI universe model given by $$\label{3}
ds^2=-dt^2+a^2(t)dx^2+b^2(t)(dy^2+dz^2),$$ where $t$ denotes cosmic time, scale factors $a$ and $b$ measure expansion of the universe in $x$ and $y,~z$-directions, respectively. We consider the perfect fluid distribution given by $$T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)u_\mu u_\nu+pg_{\mu\nu},$$ where $p,~\rho$ and $u_\mu$ represent pressure, energy density and four-velocity of the fluid, respectively. To evaluate the Lagrangian, we rewrite the action (\[1\]) as $$\label{4}
\mathcal{I}=\int\sqrt{-g}[f(R,T)-\lambda(R-\bar{R})-\chi(T-\bar{T})
+\mathcal{L}_m]dt,$$ where $\sqrt{-g}=ab^2$, $\bar{R},~\bar{T}$ are dynamical constraints while $\lambda,~\chi$ are Lagrange multipliers given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\bar{R}=\frac{2}{ab^2}(\ddot{a}b^2+2ab\ddot{b}
+2b\dot{a}\dot{b}+a\dot{b^2}),\quad
\bar{T}=3p(a,b)-\rho(a,b),\\\nonumber &&\lambda=f_R(R,T),\quad
\chi=f_T(R,T).\end{aligned}$$ The field equation (\[2\]) is not easy to tackle with perfect fluid configuration and also there is no unique definition of matter Lagrangian. In order to construct Lagrangian, we consider $\mathcal{L}_m=p(a,b)$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\mathcal{L}(a,b,R,T,\dot{a},\dot{b},\dot{R},\dot{T})=ab^2[f(R,T)-Rf_R(R,T)
-Tf_T(R,T)\\\nonumber&&+f_T(R,T)(3p(a,b)-\rho(a,b))+p(a,b)]
-(4b\dot{a}\dot{b}+2a\dot{b}^2)f_R(R,T)
\\\label{5}&&-(2b^2\dot{a}\dot{R}+4ab\dot{b}\dot{R})
f_{RR}(R,T)-(2b^2\dot{a}\dot{T}+4ab\dot{b}\dot{T})f_{RT}(R,T).\end{aligned}$$
The corresponding equations of motion and energy function of dynamical system become $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\frac{\dot{b^2}}{b^2}+\frac{2\ddot{b}}{b}=-\frac{1}{2f_R(R,T)}
[f(R,T)-Rf_R(R,T)-Tf_T(R,T)+f_T(R,T)\\\nonumber&&
\times(3p(a,b)-\rho(a,b))+p(a,b)
+a\{f_T(3p,_{_a}-\rho,_{_a})+p,_{_a}\}+\frac{4\dot{b}\dot{R}f_{RR}(R,T)}
{b}\\\nonumber&&+2\ddot{R}f_{RR}(R,T)+2\dot{R}^2f_{RRR}(R,T)
+4\dot{R}\dot{T}f_{RRT}(R,T)+2\ddot{T}f_{RT}(R,T)\\\label{24}
&&+2\dot{T}^2f_{RTT}(R,T)],
\\\nonumber&&\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{\dot{a}\dot{b}}{ab}+\frac{\ddot{b}}{b}
=-\frac{1}{4f_R(R,T)}[2(f(R,T)-Rf_R(R,T)-Tf_T(R,T)\\\nonumber&&+f_T(R,T)
(3p(a,b)-\rho(a,b))+p(a,b))+b\{f_T(3p,_{_b}-\rho,_{_b})+p,_{_b}\}]\\\nonumber&&+2(a^{-1}\dot{a}
\dot{R}+\ddot{R})f_{RR}+2\dot{R}^2f_{RRR}+2(a^{-1}\dot{a}
\dot{T}+\ddot{T})f_{RT}+2(b^{-1}\dot{b}\dot{R}+2\dot{R}\dot{T}\\\label{25}&&+\dot{T}^2)f_{RRT}
+2b^{-1}\dot{b}\dot{T}f_{RTT}=0,
\\\nonumber&&\frac{\dot{b^2}}{b^2}+\frac{2\dot{a}\dot{b}}{ab}=-\frac{1}{f_R(R,T)}
\left[\left(\frac{2\dot{b}\dot{R}}{b}+\frac{\dot{a}\dot{R}}{a}\right)f_{RR}(R,T)
+\left(\frac{2\dot{b}\dot{T}}{b}+\frac{\dot{a}\dot{T}}{a}\right)\right.
\\\nonumber&&\times\left.f_{RT}(R,T)
+\frac{1}{2}(f(R,T)-Rf_R(R,T)-Tf_T(R,T)+f_T(R,T)(3p(a,b)\right.
\\\label{26}&&\left.-\rho(a,b))+p(a,b))\right].\end{aligned}$$ The conjugate momenta corresponding to configuration space ($a,~b,~R,~T$) are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9}
p_a&=&\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{a}}=-4b\dot{b}f_R(R,T)
-2b^2(\dot{R}f_{RR}(R,T)+\dot{T}f_{RT}(R,T)),\\\label{10}
p_b&=&\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}{\partial\dot{b}}=-4f_R(R,T)(a\dot{b}+b\dot{a}
-4ab(\dot{R}f_{RR}(R,T)+\dot{T}f_{RT}(R,T)),\\\label{11}p_R&=&\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}}
{\partial\dot{R}}= -(4ab\dot{b}+2b^2\dot{a})f_{RR}(R,T),\\\label{12}
p_T&=&\frac{\partial\mathcal{L}} {\partial\dot{T}}=
-(4ab\dot{b}+2b^2\dot{a})f_{RT}(R,T).\end{aligned}$$ For Noether symmetry, the vector field (\[a\]) takes the following form $$\label{6}
K=\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial a}+\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial
b}+\gamma\frac{\partial}{\partial R}+\delta\frac{\partial}{\partial
T}+\dot{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\dot{a}}+\dot{\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\dot{b}}+\dot{\gamma}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\dot{R}}+\dot{\delta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{T}},$$ where $\alpha,~\beta,~\gamma$ and $\delta$ are unknown coefficients of generator which depend on variables $a,~b,~R$ and $T$ while the time derivatives of these coefficients are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\dot{\alpha}&=&\dot{a}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial
a}+\dot{b}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial
b}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial
R}+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial T},\quad
\dot{\beta}=\dot{a}\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial
a}+\dot{b}\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial
b}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial
R}+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial
T},\\\label{7}\\\label{8}\dot{\gamma}&=&\dot{a}\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial
a}+\dot{b}\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial
b}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial
R}+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial
T},\quad\dot{\delta}=\dot{a}\frac{\partial\delta}{\partial
a}+\dot{b}\frac{\partial\delta}{\partial
b}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\delta}{\partial
R}+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\delta}{\partial T}.\end{aligned}$$ Taking Lie derivative of Lagrangian (\[5\]) for vector field (\[6\]) and inserting Eqs.(\[7\]) and (\[8\]), we obtain the following over determined system of equations by comparing the coefficients of $\dot{a}^2,~\dot{b}^2,~\dot{R}^2,~\dot{T}^2,~\dot{a}\dot{b},~\dot{a}
\dot{R},~\dot{a}\dot{T},~\dot{b}\dot{R},~\dot{b}\dot{T}$ and $\dot{R}\dot{T}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{13}
&&(b\alpha,_{_R}+2a\beta,_{_R})f_{RR}=0,\\\label{14}
&&(b\alpha,_{_T}+2a\beta,_{_T})f_{RT}=0,\\\label{15}&&2\beta,_{_a}f_R
+b\gamma,_{_a}f_{RR}+b\delta,_{_a}f_{RT}=0,\\\label{16}&&b\alpha,_{_R}f_{RT}
+b\alpha,_{_T}f_{RR}+2a\beta,_{_R}f_{RT}+2a\beta,_{_T}f_{RR}=0,\\\nonumber&&2\beta
f_{RR}+b\gamma f_{RRR}+b\delta
f_{RRT}+b\alpha,_{_a}f_{RR}+2a\beta,_{_a}f_{RR}+2\beta,_{_R}f_R
+b\gamma,_{_R}f_{RR}\\\label{18}&&+b\delta,_{_R}f_{RT}=0,\\\nonumber&&2\beta
f_{RT}+b\gamma f_{RRT}+b\delta
f_{RTT}+b\alpha,_{_a}f_{RT}+2a\beta,_{_a}f_{RT}+2\beta,_{_T}f_R
+b\gamma,_{_T}f_{RR}\\\label{19}&&+b\delta,_{_T}f_{RT}=0,\\\nonumber&&2\beta
f_R+2b\gamma f_{RR}+2b\delta
f_{RT}+2b\alpha,_{_a}f_R+2a\beta,_{_a}f_R+2b\beta,_{_b}f_R+2ab
\gamma,_{_a}f_{RR}\\\label{20}&&+b^2\gamma,_{_b}f_{RR}+2ab\delta,_{_a}f_{RT}
+b^2\delta,_{_b}f_{RT}=0,\\\nonumber&&2b\alpha f_{RR}+2a\beta
f_{RR}+2ab\gamma f_{RRR}+2ab\delta
f_{RRT}+b^2\alpha,_{_b}f_{RR}+2b\alpha,_{_R}f_R+2ab\\\label{21}&&\times\beta,_{_b}f_{RR}
+2a\beta,_{_R}f_R+2ab\gamma,_{_R}f_{RR}+2ab\delta,_{_R}f_{RT}=0,\\\nonumber&&2b\alpha
f_{RT}+2a\beta f_{RT}+2ab\gamma f_{RRT}+2ab\delta
f_{RTT}+b^2\alpha,_{_b}f_{RT}+2b\alpha,_{_T}f_R+2ab\\\label{22}&&\times\beta,_{_b}f_{RT}
+2a\beta,_{_T}f_R+2ab\gamma,_{_T}f_{RR}+2ab\delta,_{_T}f_{RT}=0,\\\nonumber
&&\alpha f_R+a\gamma f_{RR}+a\delta
f_{RT}+2b\alpha,_{_b}f_R+2a\beta,_{_b}f_R+2ab\gamma,_{_b}f_{RR}
+2ab\delta,_{_b}\\\label{17}&&\times f_{RT}=0,
\\\nonumber
&&b^2\alpha[f-Rf_R-Tf_T+f_T(3p-\rho)+p+a\{f_T(3p,_{_a}-\rho,_{_a})+p,_{_a}\}]
+\beta[2ab\\\nonumber&&\times(f-Rf_R-Tf_T+f_T(3p-\rho)+p)
+ab^2\{f_T(3p,_{_b}-\rho,_{_b})+p,_{_b}\}]
+ab^2\\\nonumber&&\times\gamma[-(Rf_{RR}+Tf_{RT})+f_{RT}(3p-\rho)]
+ab^2\delta[-(Rf_{RT}+Tf_{TT})+f_{TT}\\\label{23}&&\times(3p-\rho)]=0.\end{aligned}$$ We solve this non-linear system of partial differential equations for two models of $f(R,T)$ gravity and evaluate possible solutions of symmetry generator coefficients as well as corresponding conserved quantities.
**$f(R,T)=R+2f(T)$**
--------------------
Here we discuss a solution for a simple model that explores Einstein gravity with matter components such as $f(R,T)=R+2f(T)$, where the curvature term behaves as a leading term of the model. This model corresponds to $\Lambda$CDM model when matter part comprises cosmological constant as a function of trace $T$. Consequently, this model reduces to $$\label{27}
f(R,T)=R+2\Lambda+h(T).$$ To find the solution of Eqs.(\[13\])-(\[23\]), we consider power-law form of unknown coefficients of vector field as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{28}
\alpha&=&\alpha_0a^{\alpha_1}b^{\alpha_2}R^{\alpha_3}T^{\alpha_4},
\quad\beta=\beta_0a^{\beta_1}b^{\beta_2}R^{\beta_3}T^{\beta_4},
\\\label{29}\gamma&=&\gamma_0a^{\gamma_1}b^{\gamma_2}R^{\gamma_3}T^{\gamma_4},
\quad\delta=\delta_0a^{\delta_1}b^{\delta_2}R^{\delta_3}T^{\delta_4},\end{aligned}$$ where the powers are unknown constants to be determined. Using these coefficients in Eqs.(\[13\])-(\[22\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_0&=&-\beta_0(\alpha_2+2),\quad\alpha_1=1,\quad\alpha_3=0,
\quad\alpha_4=0,\quad\gamma=0,
\\\nonumber\beta_1&=&0,\quad\beta_2=\alpha_2+1,\quad\beta_3=0,\quad\beta_4=0.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting these values in Eq.(\[28\]), it follows that $$\alpha=-\beta_0(\alpha_2+2)ab^{\alpha_2},\quad\beta=\beta_0b^{\alpha_2+1}.$$ In order to evaluate $\alpha_2$, we substitute these solutions in Eq.(\[17\]) which implies that either $\alpha_2=0$ or $\alpha_2=\frac{1}{2}$.
### Case I: $\alpha_2=0$ {#case-i-alpha_20 .unnumbered}
In this case, the generator coefficients turn out to be $$\alpha=-2\beta_0a,\quad\beta=\beta_0b.$$ In order to evaluate the remaining coefficients, we insert these values in Eqs.(\[24\]), (\[26\]) and (\[23\]) which give $$\begin{aligned}
h(T)&=&l_1T+l_2,\quad\delta=0,\quad
p=l_3a^{-\frac{1}{5}}b^{-\frac{2}{5}},\\
\rho&=&-\frac{1}{2l_1}[2\Lambda+l_2+(3l_1-1)
l_3a^{-\frac{1}{5}}b^{-\frac{2}{5}}].\end{aligned}$$ Substituting all these solutions in Eqs.(\[13\])-(\[22\]), we obtain $l_1=-\frac{19}{3}$. Consequently, the coefficients of symmetry generator and $f(R,T)$ model become $$\alpha=-2\beta_0a,\quad\beta=\beta_0b,\quad\gamma=0,\quad\delta=0,\quad
f(R,T)=R-\frac{19T}{3},$$ where $h(T)=-\frac{19T}{3}-2\Lambda$ and $T=\frac{87}{19}l_3a^{-\frac{1}{5}}b^{-\frac{2}{5}}$. To avoid Dolgov-Kawasaki instability, the $f(R,T)$ model preserves the following conditions [@r4] $$\label{R}
f_R(R)>0,\quad f_{RR}(R)>0,\quad 1+f_T(R,T)>0,\quad R>R_0.$$ In this case, the constructed $f(R,T)$ model is found to be viable for $l_3<0$. Using the values of symmetry generator coefficients, we obtain symmetry generator which yields scaling symmetry and its conserved quantity as $$K=-2\beta_0a\frac{\partial}{\partial
a}+\beta_0b\frac{\partial}{\partial
b},\quad\Sigma=\beta_0[-4ab\dot{b}+4\dot{a}b^{2}].$$
Now we solve the field equations using cyclic variable whose existence is assured by the presence of symmetry generator of Noether symmetry. We consider a point transformation which reduces complex nature of the system to $\phi: (a,b)\rightarrow(v,z)$ implying that $\phi_Kdv=0$ and $\phi_Kdz=1$. The second mapping indicates that the Lagrangian must be free from the variable $z$. Imposing this point transformation, we reduce the complexity of the system as $$\label{30}
v=\zeta_0a^{\frac{1}{2}}b,\quad z=\frac{\ln b}{\beta_0},$$ where $z$ is cyclic variable and $\zeta_0$ denotes arbitrary constant. The inverse point transformation of variables yields $$\label{31}
a=\zeta_1v^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{-2\beta_0z},\quad
b=\zeta_2e^{\beta_0z},\quad\rho=-\frac{30\zeta_3v^{-\frac{2}{5}}}{19},\quad
p=\zeta_3v^{-\frac{2}{5}}.$$ Here we redefine arbitrary constants as $\zeta_3=l_3\zeta_1^{-\frac{1}{5}}\zeta_2^{-\frac{2}{5}}$. For the above solutions, the Lagrangian (\[5\]) and the corresponding equations of motion with associated energy function (\[24\])-(\[26\]) take the form $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{L}=\zeta_4(4\beta_0v^{\frac{-1}{2}}\dot{v}\dot{z}+4\beta_0^2
v^{\frac{1}{2}}\dot{z}^2-30v^{\frac{2}{5}}),\\\nonumber
&&2\beta_0v^{\frac{-1}{2}}\ddot{z}+2\beta_0^2v^{-\frac{1}{2}}\dot{z}^2
-12v^{-\frac{3}{5}}=0,
\\\nonumber&&8\beta_0v^{\frac{1}{2}}\ddot{z}+v^{-\frac{3}{2}}\dot{v}^2
+4\beta_0v^{-\frac{1}{2}}\dot{z}-2v^{-\frac{1}{2}}\ddot{v}=0,
\\\nonumber&&30v^{\frac{2}{5}}+4\beta_0^2v^{\frac{1}{2}}\dot{z}^2
+\beta_0v^{-\frac{3}{2}}\dot{v}^2\dot{z}-2\beta_0v^{-\frac{1}{2}}\dot{v}\ddot{z}=0.\end{aligned}$$ We solve the above equations to evaluate the time dependent solutions of new variables ($v,~z$) $$v=2(t-\zeta_4)^{\frac{1}{2}}(t^2-2t+\zeta_4^2),\quad
z=\frac{1}{12\beta_0}[12\beta_0\zeta_5-2.93
-4\ln[(t-\zeta_4)^{\frac{5}{2}}]],$$ where $\zeta_4$ and $\zeta_5$ represent integration constants. Inserting these values into Eq.(\[31\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{33}
a&=&\frac{8}{5}\zeta_1e^{-2\beta_0\zeta_5}(t-\zeta_4)^{\frac{5}{3}},
\quad
b=\frac{8}{5}\zeta_2e^{\beta_0\zeta_5}(t-\zeta_4)^{-\frac{1}{3}}
(t^2-2t\zeta_1+\zeta_1^2),\\\nonumber\rho&=&-\frac{30\zeta_3}{19}
[2(t-\zeta_4)^{\frac{1}{2}}(t^2-2t+\zeta_4^2)]^{-\frac{2}{5}}, \quad
p=\zeta_3[2(t-\zeta_4)^{\frac{1}{2}}(t^2-2t+\zeta_4^2)]^{-\frac{2}{5}}.\\\label{32}\end{aligned}$$
We study the behavior of some well-known cosmological parameters like Hubble, deceleration and EoS parameters using scale factors and matter contents. These parameters play significant role to discuss cosmic expansion as Hubble parameter $(H)$ measures the rate of cosmic expansion while deceleration parameter $(q)$ determines that either expansion is accelerated $(q<0)$ or decelerated $(q>0)$ or constant expansion ($q=0$). The EoS parameter $(\omega=\frac{p}{\rho})$ evaluates different eras of the universe and also differentiates DE era into different phases like quintessence ($-1<\omega\leq-1/3$) or phantom ($\omega<-1$). In case of BI universe model, the Hubble and deceleration parameters are $$\nonumber
H=\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{2\dot{b}}{b}\right),\quad
q=-\frac{\dot{H}}{H^2}-1.$$ Using Eq.(\[33\]), the Hubble and deceleration parameters turn out to be $$\label{a'}
H=\frac{5\zeta_6}{3}\left(1+\frac{t}{\zeta_6}\right),\quad
q=-\frac{3}{5}(\zeta_6+t)^{-2}-1,$$ where $\zeta_6=-\zeta_4$. Inserting Eqs.(\[33\]) and (\[32\]) in (\[24\]) and (\[26\]), the effective EoS parameter becomes $$\omega_{eff}=\frac{p_{eff}}{\rho_{eff}}=1-\frac{\zeta_4-t+3(\sqrt{t-\zeta_4}
(t^2-2t+\zeta_4^2))^{\frac{2}{5}}}{t-\zeta_4}.$$ The crucial pair of ($r,s$) parameters study the correspondence between constructed and standard universe models such as for ($r,s$)=(1,0), the constructed model corresponds to standard constant cosmological constant cold dark matter ($\Lambda$CDM) model. In terms of Hubble and deceleration parameters, these are defined as $$r=q+2q^2-\frac{\dot{q}}{H},\quad s=\frac{r-1}{3(q-\frac{1}{2})}.$$ Using Eq.(\[a’\]), these parameters take the form $$\begin{aligned}
r&=&1+\frac{18}{25}\left(2(t-\zeta_4)^{-4}-2(t-\zeta_4)^{-3}
+(t-\zeta_4)^{-2}\right),\\\nonumber
s&=&\frac{1}{3}(r-1)\left(-\frac{3(t+\zeta_6)^{-2}}{5}-\frac{3}{2}\right)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Both plots of Figure **1** represent graphical analysis of the scale factors $a$ and $b$ which show the increasing behavior of both scale factors in $x$ and $y,~z$-directions, respectively. This increasing nature of scale factors indicates the cosmic accelerated expansion in all directions. The graphical analysis of Hubble and deceleration parameters is shown in Figure **2**. Figure **2(i)** shows that the Hubble parameter grows continuously representing expanding universe whereas Figure **2(ii)** shows negative deceleration parameter which corresponds to accelerated expansion of the universe. In Figure **3**, the first plot indicates that the effective EoS parameter corresponds to quintessence phase while Figure **3(ii)** represents correspondence of the constructed model with standard $\Lambda$CDM universe model. Thus, the analysis of cosmological parameters implies that the universe experiences accelerated expansion for BI universe model in the context of $f(R,T)$ gravity.
### Case II: $\alpha_2 = \frac{1}{2}$ {#case-ii-alpha_2-frac12 .unnumbered}
For $\alpha_2=\frac{1}{2}$, the solutions become $$\alpha=-\frac{5}{2}\beta_0ab^{\frac{1}{2}},\quad\beta=\beta_0b^{\frac{3}{2}},$$ whereas Eq.(\[23\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\delta&=&0,\quad h(T)=-2\Lambda+c_1T,\quad
p=c_2a^{\frac{3c_1^2-3c_1-1}{3c_1-1}}b^{\frac{3(5c_1^2-4c_1-2)}{2(3c_1-1)}},
\\\nonumber\rho&=&\left(\frac{3c_1-1}
{c_1-2}\right)c_2a^{\frac{3c_1^2-3c_1-1}{3c_1-1}}b^{\frac{3(5c_1^2-4c_1-2)}{2(3c_1-1)}}.\end{aligned}$$ The above solutions satisfy the system of Eqs.(\[13\])-(\[22\]) for $c_1=\frac{3\pm\sqrt{21}}{6}$. Under this condition, the solutions and considered model of $f(R,T)$ gravity take the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha&=&-\frac{5}{2}\beta_0ab^{\frac{1}{2}},\quad\beta=\beta_0b^{\frac{3}{2}},
\quad\gamma,\delta=0,\quad
h(T)=-2\Lambda+\left(\frac{3\pm\sqrt{21}}{6}\right)T,\\\nonumber
p&=&c_2b^{\frac{1}{2}},\quad
\rho=\left(\frac{-3\mp\sqrt{21}}{9\mp\sqrt{21}}\right)c_2b^{\frac{1}{2}},\quad
f(R,T)=R+\left(\frac{3\pm\sqrt{21}}{6}\right)T,\end{aligned}$$ where $T=\left(\frac{30\mp2\sqrt{21}}{9\mp\sqrt{21}}\right)c_2b^{\frac{1}{2}}$. Here, the constructed model ignores Dolgov-Kawasaki instability as $f_R,~f_{RR},~1+f_T>0$. The symmetry generator and its corresponding conserved quantity turn out to be $$K=-\frac{5}{2}\beta_0ab^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial
a}+\beta_0b^{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial
b},\quad\Sigma=\beta_0[6ab^{\frac{3}{2}}\dot{b}-4\dot{a}b^{\frac{5}{2}}].$$ We consider $z$ to be a cyclic variable which yields $$\nonumber
v=\chi_0a^{\frac{2}{5}}b,\quad z=-\frac{2
b^{-\frac{1}{2}}}{\beta_0},$$ where $\chi_0$ denotes arbitrary constant. The corresponding inverse point transformation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
a&=&\chi_1v^{\frac{5}{2}}\left(-\frac{\beta_0z}{2}\right)^5,\quad
b=\chi_2\left(-\frac{\beta_0z}{2}\right)^{-2},\\\nonumber\quad
p&=&c_2\chi_2\left(-\frac{\beta_0z}{2}\right)^{-1}\quad
\rho=\left(\frac{-3\mp\sqrt{21}}{9\mp\sqrt{21}}\right)c_2\chi_2
\left(-\frac{\beta_0z}{2}\right)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_1,\chi_2$ are arbitrary constants. For these solutions, the Lagrangian (\[5\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{L}&=&-2\beta_0\chi_1\chi_2^2\left[5v^{\frac{3}{2}}\dot{v}
-6\beta_0v^{\frac{5}{2}}\dot{z}^2\left(-\frac{\beta_0z}{2}\right)^{-1}\right]
+c_2v^{\frac{5}{2}}\left[4\left(\frac{3\pm\sqrt{21}}{6}\right)\right.
\\\nonumber&\times&\left.
\left(\frac{6\mp\sqrt{21}}{9\mp\sqrt{21}}\right)-1\right],\end{aligned}$$ which depends upon the cyclic variable $z$. Thus, the resulting symmetry generator for $\alpha_2=0$ yields scaling symmetry providing more significant results as compared to $\alpha_2=\frac{1}{2}$.
**$f(R,T)=f_1(R)+f_2(T)$**
--------------------------
Here we consider $f(R,T)$ model which does not encourage any absolute non-minimal coupling of curvature and matter. For vector field $K$ (\[6\]), we substitute this model in Eqs.(\[13\])-(\[20\]) and (\[22\]) yielding the coefficients of symmetry generator in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha&=&-\frac{2ac_3}{b\sqrt{f'_1(R)}}-2ac_4\ln(f'_1(R))-\frac{2c_5}{\sqrt{b}}
-4\ln(b)ac_4-6\ln(b)c_6a+c_7a,
\\\nonumber\beta&=&\frac{c_3}{\sqrt{f'_1(R)}}+(c_8
+\ln(f'_1(R))c_4)b-(c_4+c_6)b\ln(b)+c_6b\ln(a),
\\\nonumber\gamma&=&-\frac{2}{\sqrt{f'_1(R)}f''_1(R)b}\left[b((-3c_4-4c_6)\ln(b)
+c_4+c_8+\frac{c_7}{2}\right.\\\nonumber&+&\left.c_6
+c_6\ln(a))(f'_1(R))^{\frac{3}{2}}-c_3f'_1(R)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where prime denotes derivative with respect to $R$ and $c_i$ ($i=3,4,5,6,7,8$) are arbitrary constants. Inserting these solutions in Eq.(\[21\]), we obtain two solutions for $f_1(R)$ as $f_1(R)=c_9R+c_{10}$ which is similar to the previous case while the second solution increases the complexity of the system. To avoid this situation, we consider $f_1(R)=f_0R^n,~(n\neq0,~1)$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha&=&ac_{11},\quad\beta=bc_{12},\quad\gamma=\frac{(c_{11}+2c_{12})R}{1-n},\quad
f_2(T)=\frac{T}{3}+c_{13},\\\nonumber
p&=&\frac{1}{12nc_{13}}\left[R^{1-n}b\rho,_b-Rc_{13}
-6R^{1-n}c_{13}+2R^{1-n}\rho+6nc_{13}R\right],
\\\nonumber\rho&=&3f_0R^n+3c_{13}-\frac{(c_{11}a\rho,_a
+c_{12}b\rho,_b)}{(c_{11}+2c_{12})}.\end{aligned}$$
These solutions satisfy (\[13\])-(\[23\]) for $n=2$ which implies that $f_1(R)=f_0R^2$ and hence this quadratic curvature term describes an indirect non-minimal coupling of the matter components with geometry. Thus the matter contents and model of $f(R,T)$ gravity turn out to be $$\begin{aligned}
\rho&=&3f_0R^2+3c_{13}+\frac{a^{-1
+\frac{c_{12}}{c_{11}}}b}{2},\quad
p=\frac{1}{24c_{13}}\left[\frac{3a^{-1+\frac{c_{12}}{c_{11}}}
bR^{-1}}{2}+12c_{13}R\right],
\\\nonumber f(R,T)&=&f_0R^2+\frac{T}{3}+c_{13},\quad
T=3p-\rho.\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the constructed $f(R,T)$ model is found to be viable as it preserves stability conditions (\[R\]). The corresponding symmetry generator takes the form $$K=ac_{11}\frac{\partial}{\partial a}+bc_{12}\frac{\partial}{\partial
b}-R(c_{11}+2c_{12})\frac{\partial}{\partial R}.$$ This generator yields scaling symmetry with the following conserved factors $$\Sigma_1=4ab^2\dot{R}f_0-4b^2\dot{a}f_0R,\quad\Sigma_2=-24ab\dot{b}f_0R-8ab^2\dot{R}f_0,$$ where $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ are conserved quantities corresponding to $c_{11}$ and $c_{12}$, respectively.
To reduce the complex nature of the system, we consider $\phi:
(a,b,R)\rightarrow(u,v,z)$ implying that $\phi_Kdu=0$, $\phi_Kdv=0$ and $\phi_Kdz=1$. In this case, we choose $z$ as cyclic variable which gives $$\nonumber
u=A_0a^{\frac{c_{11}+2c_{12}}{c_{11}}}R,\quad
v=A_1b^{\frac{c_{11}+2c_{12}}{c_{12}}}R,\quad
z=-\frac{1}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}\ln R,$$ where $A_0$ and $A_1$ denote integration constants. The corresponding inverse point transformation yields $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
a&=&u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}e^{c_{11}z},\quad
b=v^{\frac{c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}e^{c_{12}z},\quad
R=e^{c_{11}+2c_{12}z}.\end{aligned}$$ For these solutions, the Lagrangian (\[5\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{L}&=&\frac{1}{(c_{11}+2c_{12})^2}\left(24f_0\dot{z}^2
v^{\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}c_{11}^3
u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}c_{12}
+60f_0\dot{z}^2v^{\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}\right.\\\nonumber&\times&\left.c_{11}^2c_{12}^2+80f_0\dot{z}^2
v^{\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}c_{11}c_{12}^3u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
+16f_0\dot{v}\dot{z}u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
c_{12}^3v^{-\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}} \right.\\\nonumber
&+&\left.4f_0\dot{u}\dot{z}v^{\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}c_{11}^3u^{-\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
-8f_0\dot{u}\dot{v}c_{12}c_{11} v^{-\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
u^{-\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
+8f_0\dot{u}\dot{z}\right.\\\nonumber&\times&\left.v^{\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
u^{-\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}c_{12}c_{11}^2
+8f_0\dot{v}\dot{z}u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
v^{-\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}c_{12}^2c_{11}-\left(u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}e^{c_{11}
z}\right)^{\frac{c_{12}}{c_{11}}}\right.\\\nonumber&\times&\left.v^{\frac{3c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
e^{3c_{12}z}c_{11}^2-4\left(u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}e^{c_{11}
z}\right)^{\frac{c_{12}}{c_{11}}}v^{\frac{3c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
e^{3c_{12}z}c_{12}^2-4f_0\dot{v}^2c_{12}^2\right.\\\nonumber&\times&\left.u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}v^{-\frac{2
(c_{12}+c_{11})}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}+48f_0\dot{z}^2
u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}v^{\frac{2
c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}c_{12}^4+4v^{\frac{2c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}\right.\\\nonumber&\times&\left.f_0
c_{11}^4\dot{z}^2-4\left(u^{\frac{c_{11}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}e^{c_{11}
z}\right)^{\frac{c_{12}}{c_{11}}}v^{\frac{3c_{12}}{c_{11}+2c_{12}}}
e^{3c_{12}z}c_{11}c_{12}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here, the Lagrangian again depends on the cyclic variable $z$. Consequently, this approach does not provide a successive way to evaluate exact solution of the anisotropic universe model in this case.
Noether Gauge Symmetry
======================
In this section, we determine Noether gauge symmetry of homogeneous and isotropic as well as anisotropic universe for $f(R,T)=f_0R^n+h(T)$ model.
Flat FRW Universe Model
-----------------------
We first consider flat FRW metric given by $$\label{34}
ds^2=-dt^2+a^2(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2),$$ where the scale factor $a$ describes expansion in $x,~y$ and $z$-directions. For isotropic universe, the Lagrangian depends on configuration space $(a,~R,~T)$ with tangent space $(a,~R,~T,~\dot{a},~\dot{R},~\dot{T})$. The metric variation of action (\[1\]) with $\mathcal{L}_m=p(a)$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\mathcal{L}(a,R,T,\dot{a},\dot{R},\dot{T})=a^3[f(R,T)-Rf_R(R,T)
-Tf_T(R,T)+f_T(R,T)\\\nonumber&&\times(3p(a)-\rho(a))+p(a)]
-6(a\dot{a}^2f_R(R,T)+a^2\dot{a}\dot{R}f_{RR}(R,T)
\\\label{35}&&+a^2\dot{a}\dot{T}f_{RT}(R,T)).\end{aligned}$$ For Noether gauge symmetry, the vector field $K$ with its first order prolongation is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
K&=&\tau(t,a,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\alpha(t,a,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial
a}+\beta(t,a,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial
R}+\gamma(t,a,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial T},\\\nonumber
K^{[1]}&=&\tau\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial a}+\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial
R}+\gamma\frac{\partial}{\partial
T}+\dot{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\dot{a}}+\dot{\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\dot{R}}+\dot{\gamma}\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{T}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau,~\alpha,~\beta$ and $\gamma$ are unknown coefficients of vector field to be determined and the time derivatives of these coefficients are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\dot{\alpha}=\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial
t}+\dot{a}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial
a}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial
R}+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial
T}-\dot{a}\left\{\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial
t}+\dot{a}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial
a}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial R}
+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial T}\right\},\\
\nonumber \dot{\beta}=\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial
t}+\dot{a}\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial
a}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial
R}+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\beta}{\partial
T}-\dot{R}\left\{\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial
t}+\dot{a}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial
a}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial R}
+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial T}\right\},\\
\nonumber \dot{\gamma}=\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial
t}+\dot{a}\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial
a}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial
R}+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\gamma}{\partial
T}-\dot{T}\left\{\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial
t}+\dot{a}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial
a}+\dot{R}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial R}
+\dot{T}\frac{\partial\tau}{\partial T}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
The existence of Noether gauge symmetry demands $$\label{36}
K^{[1]}\mathcal{L}+(D\tau)\mathcal{L}=DG(t,a,R,T),$$ where $G$ represents gauge function and $D=\partial_t+\dot{a}\partial_a+\dot{R}\partial_R+\dot{T}\partial_T$. Substituting the values of vector field, its first order prolongation and corresponding derivatives of coefficients in Eq.(\[36\]), we obtain the following system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{37}
&&\tau,_{_a}=0,\quad\tau,_{_R}=0,\quad\tau,_{_T}=0,\quad G,_{_T}=0,
\\\label{41}&&n(n-1)f_0R^{n-2}a^2\alpha,_{_R}=0,\\\label{43}&&
n(n-1)f_0a^2R^{n-2}\alpha,_{_T}=0,\\\label{42}&&
2a\alpha,_{_T}+(n-1)aR^{-1}\beta,_{_T}=0,\\\label{40}&&
6n(n-1)f_0a^2R^{n-2}\alpha,_{_t}=-G,_{_R},\\\label{39}&&
nf_0R^{n-1}[2a\alpha,_{_t}+(n-1)a^2R^{-1}\beta,_{_t}]=-G,_{_a},
\\\label{38}&&\alpha+(n-1)aR^{-1}\beta+2a\alpha,_{_a}
-a\tau,_{_t}+(n-1)a^2R^{-1}\beta,_{_a}=0,
\\\nonumber&&2(n-1)
R^{-1}\alpha+(n-1)(n-2)aR^{-2}\beta+(n-1)aR^{-1}\alpha,_{_a}+2\alpha,_{_R}
-(n-1)\\\label{44}&&\times
aR^{-1}\tau,_{_t}+(n-1)aR^{-1}\beta,_{_R}=0,\\\nonumber&&
\alpha[3a^2\{f_0R^n(1-n)+h(T)-Th(T),_{_T}+h(T),_{_T}(3p-\rho)+p\}
+a^3\{h(T),_{_T}\\\nonumber&&\times(3p,_{_a}-\rho,_{_a})
+p,_{_a}\}]-n(n-1)f_0a^3R^{n-1}\beta +a^3\gamma
h(T),_{_TT}(3p-\rho-T)\\\label{45}&&+a^3\tau,_{_t}\{f_0R^n(1-n)+h(T)
-Th(T),_{_T}+h(T),_{_T}(3p-\rho)+p\}=G,_{_t}.\end{aligned}$$ Solving the above system, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\tau&=&\frac{\xi_4t(3\xi_{11}\xi_2-\xi_3\xi_{10})}{\xi_{11}}+\xi_{13},\quad
\alpha=\xi_4(\xi_2a+\xi_3a^{-1}),\\\nonumber\beta&=&\frac{\xi_4
\xi_3(\xi_{10}+\xi_{11}a^{-2})R} {\xi_{11}(1-n)},\quad G=\frac{\xi_1
t}{2},\quad\gamma=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_i$ are arbitrary constants. For these coefficients, the symmetry generator becomes $$\begin{aligned}
K&=&\left(\frac{\xi_4t(3\xi_{11}\xi_2-\xi_3\xi_{10})}{\xi_{11}}+\xi_{13}\right)
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\left(\frac{\xi_4
\xi_3(\xi_{10}+\xi_{11}a^{-2})R}{\xi_{11}(1-n)}\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial
R}\\\nonumber&+&\xi_4(\xi_2a+\xi_3a^{-1})\frac{\partial}{\partial
a}.\end{aligned}$$ This generator can be split as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
K_1&=&\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\quad
K_2=\left(\frac{t(3\xi_{11}\xi_2-\xi_3\xi_{10})}{\xi_{11}}\right)
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\left(\frac{
\xi_3(\xi_{10}+\xi_{11}a^{-2})R}{\xi_{11}(1-n)}\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial
R}\\\nonumber&+&(\xi_2a+\xi_3a^{-1})\frac{\partial}{\partial a},\end{aligned}$$ where the first generator corresponds to energy conservation. The corresponding conserved quantities are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Sigma_1&=&-\frac{t(3\xi_{11}\xi_2-\xi_3\xi_{10})}{\xi_{11}}
\left[a^3(f_0R^n(1-n)+\epsilon_0-\frac{\rho}{3})-6(a\dot{a}^2
+(n-1)\right.\\\nonumber&\times&\left.a^2\dot{a}\dot{R}R^{-1})nf_0R^{n-1}\right]
+6anf_0R^{n-1}
(2\dot{a}-(n-1)aR^{-1}\dot{R})\left[(\xi_2a+\xi_3a^{-1})
\right.\\\nonumber&-&\left.\frac{t\dot{a}
(3\xi_{11}\xi_2-\xi_3\xi_{10})}{\xi_{11}}\right]
-6n(n-1)f_0a^2R^{n-2}\dot{a}\left[\frac{
\xi_3(\xi_{10}+\xi_{11}a^{-2})R}{\xi_{11}(1-n)}\right.\\\nonumber&+&\left.
\frac{t\dot{R}(3\xi_{11}\xi_2-\xi_3\xi_{10})}{\xi_{11}}\right],\\
\nonumber \Sigma_2&=&-a^3(f_0R^n(1-n)+\epsilon_0-\frac{\rho}{3})-
6(a\dot{a}^2 +2(n-1)a^2\dot{a}\dot{R}R^{-1})nf_0R^{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Bianchi I Universe Model
------------------------
Here we investigate Noether gauge symmetry for BI universe model. In this case, the vector field and corresponding first order prolongation take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
K&=&\tau(t,a,b,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\alpha(t,a,b,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial
a}+\beta(t,a,b,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial
b}\\\nonumber&+&\gamma(t,a,b,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial
R}+\delta(t,a,b,R,T)\frac{\partial}{\partial T},\\\nonumber
K^{[1]}&=&\tau\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial a}+\beta\frac{\partial}{\partial
b}+\gamma\frac{\partial}{\partial R}+\delta\frac{\partial}{\partial
T}+\dot{\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\dot{a}}+\dot{\beta}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\dot{b}}+\dot{\gamma}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\dot{R}}+\dot{\delta}\frac{\partial}{\partial \dot{T}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\dot{\alpha}=D\alpha-\dot{a}D\tau,\quad\dot{\beta}=D\beta-\dot{b}D\tau,
\quad\dot{\gamma}=D\gamma-\dot{R}D\tau,\quad\dot{\delta}=D\delta-\dot{T}D\tau.$$ Using the above vector field, its prolongation and coefficients derivatives in the condition of the existence of Noether gauge symmetry, we formulate the following system of nonlinear partial differential equations as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{46}
&&\tau,_{_a}=0,\quad\tau,_{_b}=0,\quad\tau,_{_R}=0,\quad\tau,_{_T}=0,\quad
G,_{_T}=0,\\\label{47}&&b\alpha,_{_R}+2a\beta,_{_R}=0,
\\\label{50}&&b\alpha,_{_T}+2a\beta,_{_T}=0,\\\label{48}&&2\beta,_{_a}
+(n-1)bR^{-1}\gamma,_{_a}=0,\\\label{49}&&2\beta,_{_T}
+(n-1)bR^{-1}\gamma,_{_T}=0,\\\label{51}&&b\alpha,_{_T}
+a\beta,_{_T}+(n-1)abR^{-1}\gamma,_{_T}=0,\\\label{52}&&
n(n-1)f_0R^{n-2}[2b^2\alpha,_{_t}+4ab\beta,_{_t}]=-G,_{_R},\\\label{53}&&
nf_0R^{n-1}[4b\beta,_{_t}+2(n-1)b^2R^{-1}\gamma,_{_t}]=-G,_{_a},\\\label{54}&&
nf_0R^{n-1}[4b\alpha,_{_t}+4a\beta,_{_t}+4(n-1)abR^{-1}\gamma,_{_t}]=-G,_{_b},
\\\label{55}&&\alpha+(n-1)aR^{-1}\gamma+2b\alpha,_{_b}+2a\beta,_{_b}
+2(n-1)abR^{-1}\gamma,_{_b}+a\tau,_{_t}=0,\\\nonumber&&2\beta
+2(n-1)bR^{-1}\gamma+2b\alpha,_{_a}+2a\beta,_{_a}+2b\beta,_{_b}+2(n-1)abR^{-1}
\gamma,_{_a}\\\label{56}&&+(n-1)b^2R^{-1}\gamma,_{_b}-2b\tau,_{_t}=0,\\\nonumber&&
2(n-1)R^{-1}\beta+(n-1)(n-2)bR^{-2}\gamma+(n-1)bR^{-1}
\alpha,_{_a}+2\beta,_{_R}\\\label{57}&&+2(n-1)aR^{-1}\beta,_{_a}
+(n-1)bR^{-1}\gamma,_{_R}-(n-1)bR^{-1}\tau,_{_t}=0,\\\nonumber&&
2(n-1)bR^{-1}\alpha+2(n-1)aR^{-1}\beta+2(n-1)(n-2)abR^{-2}\gamma
+2b\alpha,_{_R}\\\nonumber&&+(n-1)b^2R^{-1}\alpha,_{_b}+2(n-1)abR^{-1}
\beta,_{_b} +2a\beta,_{_R}+2(n-1)abR^{-1}\gamma,_{_R}\\\label{58}&&
-2(n-1)abR^{-1}\tau,_{_t}=0,\\\nonumber&&
b^2\alpha[f_0R^n(1-n)+h(T)-T
h(T),_{_T}+h(T),_{_T}(3p-\rho)+p+a\{h(T),_{_T}\\\nonumber&&\times
(3p,_{_a}-\rho,_{_a})+p,_{_a}\}] +\beta[2ab(f_0R^n(1-n)+h(T)-T
h(T),_{_T}+h(T),_{_T}\\\nonumber&&\times
(3p-\rho)+p)+ab^2\{h(T),_{_T}(3p,_{_b}-\rho,_{_b})+p,_{_b}\}]
-n(n-1)f_0ab^2R^{n-1}\gamma\\\nonumber&&+ab^2\delta
h(T),_{_TT}(3p-\rho-T)+ab^2\tau,_{_t}\{f_0R^n(1-n)+h(T) -T
h(T),_{_T}\\\label{59}&&+h(T),_{_T}(3p-\rho)+p\}=G,_{_t}.\end{aligned}$$
We solve this system of equations $$\begin{aligned}
\tau&=&\eta_1,\quad
G=(\eta_2t+\eta_3)\eta_4\eta_5,\quad\alpha=\eta_5\eta_6a,\quad\beta=\eta_5\eta_6b
,\\\nonumber\gamma&=&\frac{\eta_5\eta_6R}{2(1-n)},\quad\delta=0,\quad
\rho=-\frac{3\eta_2\eta_4(\eta_7+\eta_8\ln
a)}{ab^2\eta_6\eta_8},\\\nonumber
p&=&-\frac{1}{2nf_0}[f_0R^n+R^{1-n}\eta_9-Rnf_0],
\\\nonumber
f(R,T)&=&f_0R^n-\frac{1}{6nf_0}[f_0R^n+R^{1-n}\eta_9-Rnf_0]
-\frac{\eta_2\eta_4(\eta_7+\eta_8\ln a)}{ab^2\eta_6\eta_8},\end{aligned}$$ where the constants $\eta_i$ are redefined. The solution of these coefficients lead to $$\begin{aligned}
K&=&\eta_1\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\eta_5\eta_6a\frac{\partial}{\partial
a}+\eta_5\eta_6b\frac{\partial}{\partial
b}+\frac{\eta_5\eta_6R}{2(1-n)}\frac{\partial}{\partial R}.\end{aligned}$$ This generator can be split as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
K_1=\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\quad K_2=a \frac{\partial}{\partial
a}+b\frac{\partial}{\partial
b}+\frac{R}{2(1-n)}\frac{\partial}{\partial R},\end{aligned}$$ where the first generator yields energy conservation whereas the second generator provides scaling symmetry. The corresponding conserved quantities are $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\Sigma_1&=&-ab^2
[(f_0R^n(1-n)+\epsilon_1-\frac{\rho}{3})-nf_0R^{n-1}(2a\dot{b}^2
+(n-1)R^{-1}(2b^2\dot{a}\dot{R}\\\nonumber&+&4ab\dot{b}\dot{R})+4b\dot{a}\dot{b})]
,\\\nonumber \Sigma_2&=&\eta_2t+\eta_3-4b^2\dot{a}nf_0R^{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Final Remarks
=============
In this paper, we have discussed Noether and Noether gauge symmetries of BI universe model in $f(R,T)$ gravity. We have formulated Noether symmetry generators, corresponding conserved quantities, matter contents ($p,~\rho$) as well as explicit forms of generic function $f(R,T)$ for BI model via two theoretical models of $f(R,T)$ gravity, i.e., $R+2\Lambda+h(T)$ and $f_0R^n+h(T)$. We have also evaluated Noether gauge symmetries and conserved quantities of homogeneous isotropic as well as anisotropic universe models for $f_0R^n+h(T)$ model.
For BI universe model, we have found two Noether symmetry generators for the first model in which the first generator gives scaling symmetry. We have solved the system by introducing cyclic variable which lead to exact solution of the scale factors and $f(R,T)$ model. The graphical behavior of scale factors indicate that the universe undergoes an expansion in $x,~y$ and $z$-directions. To evaluate exact solution of the anisotropic universe model for the second symmetry generator, we have constructed Lagrangian in terms of cyclic variable. The Lagrangian violates the mapping $\phi_Kdz=1$ as it is not independent of cyclic variable $z$. Thus, the symmetry generator with scaling symmetry yields exact solution of the anisotropic universe model. We have investigated graphical behavior of the cosmological parameters, i.e., Hubble and deceleration parameters for this solution. This indicates an accelerated expansion of the universe while EoS parameter corresponds to quintessence phase. The trajectory of $r$ and $s$ parameters indicates that the constructed $f(R,T)$ model corresponds to standard $\Lambda$CDM model. For the second model ($f(R,T)=f_1(R)+f_2(T)$) when $f_1(R)=f_0R^n$, the symmetry generator provides scaling symmetry for $n=2$. This implies that the scaling symmetry induces an indirect non-minimal quadratic curvature matter coupling in this gravity.
Finally, we have discussed Noether gauge symmetry and associated conserved quantities of flat FRW and BI universe models. The time coefficient of symmetry generator is found to be $t$ dependent for FRW universe but becomes constant for BI model while gauge function is non-zero in both cases. The symmetry generator provides energy conservation for isotropic universe whereas for anisotropic universe, we have energy conservation along with scaling symmetry. In the previous work [@a4], we have formulated exact solution through Noether symmetry approach for LRS BI universe using $f(R)$ power-law model. The cosmological parameters correspond to accelerated expanding universe while the EoS parameter describes phantom divide line from quintessence to phantom phase. The Noether symmetry generator provides scaling symmetry whereas Noether gauge symmetry yields energy conservation with constant time coefficient of symmetry generator and gauge term. Here, we have discussed exact solution via Noether symmetry for BI model. The cosmological parameters yield consistent results but EoS parameter corresponds to phantom era. In case of Noether gauge symmetry, we have found time dependent gauge term and time coefficient of symmetry generator for flat FRW model but this time coefficient remains constant for BI model. Thus, the Noether and Noether gauge symmetries yield more symmetries for non-minimal curvature matter coupling in $f(R,T)$ gravity as compared to $f(R)$ gravity.
[**Acknowledgment**]{}
This work has been supported by the *Pakistan Academy of Sciences Project*.
[28]{}
Felice, A.D. and Tsujikawa, S.: Living Rev. Rel. **13**(2010)3; Nojiri, S. and Odintsov, S.D.: Phys. Rept. **505**(2011)59; Bamba, K., Capozziello, S., Nojiri, S. and Odintsov, S.D.: Astrophys. Space Sci. **342**(2012)155.
Starobinsky, A.A.: J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett. **86**(2007)157.
Nojiri, S. and Odintsov, S.D.: Phys. Lett. B **599**(2004)137.
Harko,T., Lobo, F.S.N., Nojiri, S. and Odintsov, S.D.: Phys. Rev. D **84**(2011)024020.
Sharif, M. and Zubair, M.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. **03**(2012)028; J. Exp. Theor. Phys. **117**(2013)248 J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **82**(2013)064001; ibid. **82**(2013)014002; Astrophys. Space Sci. **349**(2014)52; Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **46**(2014)1723.
Ellis, G.F.R., Maartens, R. and MacCallum, M.A.H.: *Relativistic Cosmology* (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Barrow, J.D. and Turner, M.S.: Nature **292**(1982)35; Demianski, M.: Nature **307**(1984)140.
Akarsu, Ö. and Kilinc, C.B.: Astrophys. Space Sci. **326**(2010)315.
Sharif, M. and Zubair, M.: Astrophys. Space Sci. **349**(2014)457.
Shamir, M.F.: Eur. Phys. J. C **75**(2015)8.
Kanakavalli, T. and Ananda, R.G.: Astrophys. Space Sci. **361**(2016)206.
Sharif, M. and Waheed, S.: Can. J. Phys. **88**(2010)833.
Sharif, M. and Waheed, S.: Phys. Scr. **83**(2011)015014.
Sharif, M. and Waheed, S.: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. **02**(2013)043.
Kucukakca, Y., Camci, U. and Semiz, İ.: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. **44**(2012)1893.
Jamil, M., Momeni, D. and Myrzakulov, R.: Eur. Phys. J. C **72**(2012)2137.
Kucukakca, Y.: Eur. Phys. J. C **73**(2013)2327.
Sharif, M. and Shafique, I.: Phys. Rev. D **90**(2014)084033.
Sharif, M. and Fatima, I.: J. Exp. Theor. Phys. **122**(2016)104.
Capozziello, S., Stabile, A. and Troisi, A.: Class. Quantum Grav. **24**(2007)2153.
Vakili, B.: Phys. Lett. B **16**(2008)664.
Jamil, M., Mahomed, F.M. and Momeni, D.: Phys. Lett. B **702**(2011)315.
Hussain, I., Jamil, M. and Mahomed, F.M.: Astrophys. Space Sci. **337**(2012)373.
Shamir, M.F., Jhangeer, A. and Bhatti, A.A.: Chin. Phys. Lett. A **29**(2012)080402.
Kucukakca, Y. and Camci, U.: Astrophys. Space Sci. **338**(2012)211.
Momeni, D., Myrzakulov, R. and Güdekli, E.: Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. **12**(2015)1550101.
Haghani, Z., Harko, T., Lobo, F.S.N., Sepangi, H.R. and Shahidi, S.: Phys. Rev. D **88**(2013)044023; Odintsov, S.D. and Saez-Gomez, D.: Phys. Lett. B 725(2013)437.
Sharif, M. and Nawazish, I.: J. Exp. Theor. Phys. **120**(2014)49.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that sets of integers lacking the configuration $x$, $x+y$, $x+y^2$ have at most polylogarithmic density.'
address:
- |
Mathematical Institute\
University of Oxford\
UK
- |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
Lancaster University\
UK
author:
- Sarah Peluse
- Sean Prendiville
bibliography:
- '/Users/sean/Dropbox/SeanBib.bib'
title: A polylogarithmic bound in the nonlinear Roth theorem
---
Introduction
============
Statement of results
--------------------
In [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative] the authors obtained, for the first time, an effective bound for subsets of ${\left\{1, \dots, N\right\}}$ lacking the nonlinear Roth configuration $x$, $x+y$, $x+y^2$. There it was established that such sets have cardinality at most $O(N/(\log\log N)^c)$, where $c> 0$ is an absolute constant. The key breakthrough of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative] was a “local $U^1$-control” result, from which a bound for sets lacking the nonlinear Roth configuration follows via standard methods. Here, we combine this local $U^1$-control result with a more sophisticated argument to remove a logarithm from the bound of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative].
\[main\] There exists an absolute constant $c > 0$ such that the following holds. Suppose that $A \subset {\left\{1,\dots, N\right\}}$ lacks configurations of the form $$\label{main config}
x,\ x+y, \ x+y^2 \qquad (y \neq 0).$$ Then$$|A| = O\left( N/(\log N)^{c}\right).$$
A careful analysis shows that the exponent $c = 2^{-150}$ is permissible, where 150 represents the combined number of times we utilise the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality in [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative] and this paper
We also show, in a quantitatively effective manner, that the major arc Fourier coefficients of a set determine how many nonlinear Roth configurations the set contains.
\[global control\] Let $\delta > 0$ and $f, g, h : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ be 1-bounded functions with support in ${\left\{1, \dots, N\right\}}$. Suppose that $${\left| \sum_{x\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\sum_{ y\in {\mathbb{N}}} f(x) g(x+y)h(x+y^2) \right|}{\geqslant}\delta N^{3/2}.$$ Then either $N \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, or there is a frequency $\alpha \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and a positive integer $q \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ such that[^1] ${\left\| q\alpha\right\|} \ll \delta^{-O(1)}/N$ and $${\left| \sum_{x\in {\mathbb{Z}}} h(x)e(\alpha x) \right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$
In the nomenclature of [@TaoObstructions], the major arc linear phases are the only obstructions to uniformity for the nonlinear Roth configuration.
The major arc Fourier coefficients of a subset of $\{1,\dots,N\}$ essentially measure its distribution in arithmetic progressions of common difference $\ll 1$ and length $\gg N$. To illustrate this, the following definition is useful.
\[local function def\] We call a function $\phi : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ a *local function of resolution $M$ and modulus $q$* if there exists a partition of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ into intervals of length $M$ such that $\phi$ is constant on the intersection of every such interval with every congruence class mod $q$.
\[global control cor\] Let $\delta > 0$ and $f, g, h : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ be 1-bounded functions with support in ${\left\{1, \dots, N\right\}}$. Suppose that $${\left| \sum_{x\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\sum_{ y\in {\mathbb{N}}} f(x) g(x+y)h(x+y^2) \right|}{\geqslant}\delta N^{3/2}.$$ Then either $N \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, or there is a 1-bounded local function $\phi $ of resolution $\gg \delta^{O(1)} N$ and modulus $q \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ such that $${\left| \sum_{x\in {\mathbb{Z}}} h(x)\phi(x) \right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$
One cannot hope to prove that the functions $f$ and $g$ above also correlate globally with local functions, as the following example illustrates. For any positive integers $x_1, x_2 {\leqslant}N^{1/2}$, set $$f{\left( x_1 + (x_2-1){\left\lfloor N^{1/2} \right\rfloor} \right)} = \begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } x_2 \equiv 0 \pmod 4,\\
0 & \text{ if } x_2 \equiv 1 \pmod 4,\\
-1 & \text{ if } x_2 \equiv 2 \pmod 4,\\
0 & \text{ if } x_2 \equiv 3 \pmod 4; \end{cases}$$ and set $f(x) = 0$ everywhere else. Taking $g := f$ and $h:=1_{\{1,\dots, N\}}$, one can check that either $N \ll 1$ or $$\sum_{x\in {\mathbb{Z}}}\sum_{y\in {\mathbb{N}}} f(x)g(x+y) h(x+y^2) \gg N^{3/2}.$$ However, for any arithmetic progression $P\subset\{1, \dots, N\}$, we have $${\left| \sum_{x \in P} f(x)\right|} \ll N^{1/2}.$$ Hence, for any local function $\phi$ of resolution ${\geqslant}\delta N$ and modulus ${\leqslant}\delta^{-1}$, the triangle inequality gives the discorrelation $${\left| \sum_{x \in {\mathbb{Z}}} f(x) \phi(x)\right|} \ll \delta^{-2} N^{1/2}.$$
This example is a local obstruction coming from the real numbers: the nature of our counting operator means that we cannot disentangle possible correlations between the $f$ and $g$ functions on subintervals of length $N^{1/2}$. We can, however, show that these are the only other possible obstructions to uniformity.
\[local control\] Let $\delta > 0$ and $f_1, f_2, f_3 : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ be 1-bounded functions with support in ${\left\{1, \dots, N\right\}}$. Suppose that $${\left| \sum_{x\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\sum_{ y\in {\mathbb{N}}} f_1(x) f_2(x+y)f_3(x+y^2) \right|}{\geqslant}\delta N^{3/2}.$$ Then either $N \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, or for each $i=1,2,3$ there is a 1-bounded local function $\phi_i$ of resolution $\gg \delta^{O(1)} N^{1/2}$ and modulus $q_i \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ such that $${\left| \sum_{x\in {\mathbb{Z}}} f_i(x)\phi_i(x) \right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$
Longer polynomial progressions {#longer intro}
------------------------------
In analogy with the first author’s generalisation [@PeluseBounds] of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative], it is natural to ask whether the methods of this paper yield polylogarithmic bounds for sets of integers lacking longer progressions $$\label{longer}
x,\ x+ P_1(y), \ \dots, \ x + P_m(y),$$ where the $P_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}[y]$ have zero constant term and $\deg P_1 < \dots < \deg P_m$.
As was mentioned above, the key input to this paper is the local $U^1$-control result [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative Theorem 7.1]. Replacing this with [@PeluseBounds Theorem 3.3], our argument generalises in a straightforward manner to yield polylogarithmic bounds for subsets of $\{1,\dots,N\}$ lacking when $m = 2$, that is, for all three-term polynomial progressions with distinct degrees and zero constant term.
Obtaining polylogarithmic bounds for longer polynomial progressions requires an additional idea. We sketch a strategy in §\[longer section\], which relies on obtaining an appropriate generalisation of [@PeluseBounds Theorem 3.3], a generalisation that would require re-running the majority of the arguments therein.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
S. Peluse is supported by the NSF Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program under Grant No. DMS-1903038
An outline of our argument {#sec3}
--------------------------
Effective Szemerédi-type theorems are commonly proved via a density increment strategy, the prototypical example being the proof of Roth’s theorem [@RothCertainI] on three-term arithmetic progressions. This strategy begins with a set $A \subset \{1, \dots, N\}$ of density $\delta := |A|/N$ that lacks the configuration in question. It then proceeds to show that there is a substructure $S \subset \{1, \dots, N\}$ on which $A$ has increased density $\delta + \Omega_\delta(1)$. One then hopes to iterate the argument with $A \cap S$ in place of $A$ and $S$ in place of $\{1, \dots, N\}$.
One avenue to obtaining polylogarithmic bounds in a Szemerédi-type theorem is to obtain a constant proportion density increment $\delta + \Omega(\delta)$ on a substructure $S$ of polynomial size $|S| \approx N^{\Omega(1)}$. This was accomplished for three-term arithmetic progressions by Heath–Brown [@HeathBrownInteger] and Szemerédi [@SzemerediInteger] (in fact, they were able to handle a smaller lower bound on $|S|$).
An alternative strategy for obtaining polylogarithmic bounds is to obtain the weaker polynomial increment $\delta + \Omega(\delta^{O(1)})$, yet on a *dense* or *global* substructure $S$, that is, a substructure of size $|S| {\geqslant}\exp(-O(\delta^{-O(1)})) N$. This was accomplished by Sárközy [@SarkozyDifferenceI] for the configuration $x, x+y^2$ and for three-term arithmetic progressions by Bourgain [@BourgainTriples].
Both of these strategies are achievable for the nonlinear Roth configuration. The global structure strategy is perhaps the most natural, and may be accomplished by utilising a generalisation of Theorem \[global control\]. In this note we do not pursue this, and instead give details for a constant-proportion density increment, as our argument is somewhat cleaner in this form.
More specifically, we show that if $A \subset {\left\{1,\dots, N\right\}}$ has density $\delta$ and lacks nontrivial configurations of the form $x, x+y, x+y^2$, then there exists an arithmetic progression $P$ of length $|P| \gg \delta^{O(1)} N^{1/2}$ and common difference $q \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ such that we have the density increment $$\label{constant proportion}
\frac{|A\cap P|}{|P|} {\geqslant}(1+\Omega(1)) \frac{|A|}{N}.$$ As outlined in [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative], the ‘almost bounded’ size of $q$ allows us to iterate this procedure. (In [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative], we obtain the weaker density increment $(1+\Omega(\delta^{O(1)}))|A|/N$, which leads to the extra logarithm appearing in the bound there.)
We obtain the constant-proportion increment by combining the local $U^1$-control result of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative] with a strategy of Heath–Brown [@HeathBrownInteger] and Szemerédi [@SzemerediInteger], which has a very robust formulation due to Green and Tao [@GreenTaoNewII]. To accomplish this, we first give a structural characterisation of sets lacking the nonlinear Roth configuration (Theorem \[local control\]). These sets resemble the level sets of the product of a function that is constant on intervals of length $N^{1/2}$ and a function that is constant on congruence classes modulo a bounded $q$.
Having obtained such a structural characterisation, an energy increment procedure closely following [@GreenTaoNewII] allows us to approximate an arbitrary set of integers by these level sets, up to an error that does not contribute substantially to the count of nonlinear Roth configurations. A combinatorial argument then allows us to deduce that our set must have a substantial density increment on one of these level sets, of the form $\delta + \Omega(\delta)$. As a result, our density increment procedure requires only $\log(\delta^{-1})+O(1)$ iterations, compared with the $O(\delta^{-O(1)})$ required in [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative], and this yields the polylogarithmic improvement over our previous density increment iteration.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We derive Theorem \[main\] in §\[increment sec\] via a density increment iteration. Our deduction uses a density increment lemma that is established in §§\[inverse theorem section\]–\[increment proof sec\]. We prove Theorem \[global control\] and Corollary \[global control cor\] in §\[global sec\]. Theorem \[local control\] will follow from combining Lemma \[partial inverse theorem\] with Corollary \[global control cor\].
Notation
--------
### Standard conventions
We use ${\mathbb{N}}$ to denote the positive integers. For a real number $X {\geqslant}1$, write $[X] = \{ 1,2, \ldots, {\left\lfloor X \right\rfloor}\}$. A complex-valued function is said to be *1-bounded* if the modulus of the function does not exceed 1.
We use counting measure on ${\mathbb{Z}}$, so that for $f,g :{\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$, we have $${\left\| f\right\|}_{\ell^p} := {\biggl( \sum_x |f(x)|^p \biggr)}^{{\frac{1}{p}}}, \ {\left\langlef,g\right\rangle} := \sum_x f(x)\overline{g(x)},\ \text{and}\ (f*g)(x) = \sum_y f(y)g(x-y).$$ Any sum of the form $\sum_x$ is to be interpreted as a sum over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. The *support* of $f$ is the set ${\mathrm{supp}}(f) := {\left\{x \in {\mathbb{Z}}: f(x) \neq 0\right\}}$. We write ${\left\| f\right\|}_\infty$ for $\sup_{x \in {\mathbb{Z}}} |f(x)|$.
We use Haar probability measure on ${\mathbb{T}}:= {\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$, so that for measurable $F : {\mathbb{T}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$, we have $${\left\| F\right\|}_{L^p} := {\biggl( \int_{\mathbb{T}}|F(\alpha)|^pd\alpha \biggr)}^{{\frac{1}{p}}} = {\biggl( \int_0^1 |F(\alpha)|^pd\alpha \biggr)}^{{\frac{1}{p}}}.$$ We write ${\left\| \alpha\right\|}_{\mathbb{T}}$ for the distance from $\alpha \in {\mathbb{R}}$ to the nearest integer $
\min_{n \in {\mathbb{Z}}} |\alpha - n|.
$ This remains well-defined on ${\mathbb{T}}$.
We define the Fourier transform of $f : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ by $$\label{Fourier transform}
\hat{f}(\alpha) := \sum_x f(x) e(\alpha x) \qquad (\alpha \in {\mathbb{T}}),$$ when this makes sense. Here $e(\alpha)$ stands for $e^{2\pi i \alpha}$.
For a finite set $S$ and function $f:S\to{\mathbb{C}}$, denote the average of $f$ over $S$ by $${\mathbb{E}}_{s\in S}f(s):=\frac{1}{|S|}\sum_{s\in S}f(s).$$
If $\|\cdot\|$ is a seminorm on an inner product space, recall that its dual seminorm $\|\cdot\|^*$ is defined by $$\label{dual norm}
\|f\|^{*}:=\sup_{\|g\|{\leqslant}1}|\langle f,g\rangle|.$$ Hence, $$\label{dual ineq}
{\left| {\left\langlef,g\right\rangle}\right|} {\leqslant}{\left\| f\right\|}^* {\left\| g\right\|}.$$
For a complex-valued function $f$ and positive-valued function $g$, write $f \ll g$ or $f = O(g)$ if there exists a constant $C$ such that $|f(x)| \le C g(x)$ for all $x$. We write $f = \Omega(g)$ if $f \gg g$.
### Local conventions
Up to normalisation, all of the above are well-used in the literature. Next, we list notation specific to our paper. We have tried to minimise this in order to aid the casual reader.
The quantity $(N/q)^{1/2}$ appears repeatedly, where $N$ and $q$ are integers fixed throughout the majority of our paper. We therefore adopt the convention that $$\label{M def}
M:= {\left\lfloor \sqrt{N/q} \right\rfloor}.$$ Assuming this, define the *counting operator* on the functions $f_i : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ by $$\label{counting op}
\Lambda_{q, N}(f_0, f_1, f_2) := {\mathbb{E}}_{x \in [N]} {\mathbb{E}}_{y \in [M]} f_0(x)f_1(x+y) f_2(x+qy^2).$$ When the $f_0=f_1=f_2=f$, we simply write $\Lambda_{q, N}(f)$ for $\Lambda_{q,N}(f_0,f_1,f_2)$.
For a real parameter $H {\geqslant}1$, we use $\mu_H : {\mathbb{Z}}\to [0,1]$ to represent the following normalised Fejér kernel $$\label{fejer}
\mu_H(h) := {\frac{1}{{\left\lfloor H \right\rfloor}}} {\left( 1 - \frac{|h|}{{\left\lfloor H \right\rfloor}} \right)}_+ = \frac{(1_{[H]} * 1_{-[H]} )(h)}{{\left\lfloor H \right\rfloor}^2}.$$ This is a probability measure on ${\mathbb{Z}}$ with support in the interval $(-H, H)$.
Iterating the density increment {#increment sec}
===============================
In this section we prove Theorem \[main\] using the following lemma, which we will devote §§\[inverse theorem section\]–\[increment proof sec\] to proving.
\[increment lemma\] Let $q {\leqslant}N$ be positive integers and $\delta > 0$. Suppose that $A \subset [N]$ satisfies $|A| {\geqslant}\delta N$ and lacks the configuration $$\label{q config}
x,\ x+y, \ x+qy^2 \qquad (y \neq 0).$$ Then either $N \ll (q/\delta)^{O(1)}$ or there exists $q' {\leqslant}\exp{\left( O{\left( \delta^{-O(1)} \right)} \right)}$ and $N' {\geqslant}q^{-O(1)}\exp{\left( -O{\left( \delta^{-O(1)} \right)} \right)}N^{1/2} $ such that $$\label{increment}
|A \cap (a + qq'\cdot[N'])| {\geqslant}(1+\Omega(1))\delta N'.$$
This is the same as the proof of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative Theorem 1.1], but using the improved density increment lemma above in place of the density increment lemma of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative]. Note first that if $A$ lacks the configuration , then the set $$\{x :a+qq'x\in A\},$$ lacks configurations of the form $$x,\ x+y,\ x+q^2q'y^2 \qquad (y \neq 0).$$
Let $A \subset [N]$ have size $\delta N$, and suppose that it has no non-linear Roth configurations . Setting $A_0 := A$, $N_0 := N$ and $q_0 = 1$, let us suppose we have a sequence of tuples $(A_i, N_i, q_i)$ for $i = 0, 1, \dots, n$ that each satisfy the following:
(i) $A_i$ lacks configurations of the form $$x,\ x+y,\ x+q_0^{2^i} q_1^{2^{i-1}}\dotsm q_{i-1}^2 q_i y^2 \qquad (y \neq 0).$$
(ii) \[qi upper bound\] $q_i {\leqslant}\exp{\left( O{\left( \delta^{-O(1)} \right)} \right)}$;
(iii) $A_i \subset [N_i]$ and for $i {\geqslant}1$ we have $$\frac{|A_i|}{N_i} {\geqslant}(1+c)\frac{|A_{i-1}|}{N_{i-1}},$$ where $c = \Omega(1)$ is a positive absolute constant;
(iv) \[length lower bound\] for $i {\geqslant}1$ we have the lower bound $$N_i {\geqslant}\frac{N_{i-1}^{1/2}}{{\left( q_0^{2^{i-1}}\dotsm q_{i-1}\exp{\left( \delta^{-O(1)} \right)} \right)}^{O(1)}}.$$
By Lemma \[increment lemma\], either $$\label{termination condition}
N_n \ll {\left( q_0^{2^n}q_1^{2^{n-1}}\dotsm q_{n-1}^2 q_n/\delta \right)}^{O(1)},$$ or we may obtain $(A_{n+1}, N_{n+1}, q_{n+1})$ satisfying conditions (i)–(iv). If holds, then our iterative process terminates at stage $n$.
If the number of iterations $n$ is at least $c^{-1}$, then the density of $A_n$ on $[N_n]$ is at least $2\delta$. After an additional ${\tfrac{1}{2}}c^{-1}$ iterations, the density is at least $4\delta$. Hence if the number of iterations is at least $${\left\lceil c^{-1} \right\rceil} + {\left\lceil {\tfrac{1}{2}}c^{-1} \right\rceil} + {\left\lceil {\tfrac{1}{4}}c^{-1} \right\rceil}+ \dots + {\left\lceil {\tfrac{1}{2^{m-1}}}c^{-1} \right\rceil},$$ then the density is at least $2^m\delta$. The density therefore exceeds one if the number of iterations exceeds $2c^{-1} + \log_2(\delta^{-1})$. Since this cannot happen, it follows that there exists $n {\leqslant}\log_2(\delta^{-1})+O(1)$ such that the procedure terminates at stage $n$.
At the point of termination, the smallness assumption must hold, so that $$\label{N_i upper bound}
N_n {\leqslant}\exp{\left( O{\Bigl( \delta^{-O(1)} \Bigr)} \right)}.$$ On the other hand, iteratively applying the lower bound , we have $$\label{N_i lower bound}
\begin{split}
N_n & {\geqslant}\frac{N_{n-1}^{1/2}}{{\left( q_0^{2^{n-1}}\dotsm q_{n-1}\exp{\left( \delta^{-O(1)} \right)} \right)}^{O(1)}}\\
& {\geqslant}N^{1/2^n}{\left[ q_0^{2^{n-1}}\dotsm q_{n-1}\exp{\left( \delta^{-O(1)} \right)} \right]}^{-O(1 + {\frac{1}{2}} + {\frac{1}{4}} + \dots + 2^{1-n}) } \\
& \gg \exp{\left( -O{\left( \delta^{-O(1)} \right)} \right)} N^{\Omega(\delta)},
\end{split}$$ where we use the upper bound on the $q_i$’s, together with $n {\leqslant}\log_2(1/\delta)+O(1)$. Taking a logarithm and comparing upper and lower bounds for $N_n$ gives $
\log N \ll \delta^{-O(1)},
$ which yields the bound claimed in Theorem \[main\].
The cut norm inverse theorem {#inverse theorem section}
============================
The first step of the proof of Lemma \[increment lemma\] is to use the main technical result of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative] to prove an inverse theorem for the cut norm associated to $\Lambda_{q,N}$, which we now define.
For positive integers $q {\leqslant}N$, we define the *cut norm* of $f : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ by $$\label{q norm eq}
{\left\| f\right\|}_{q, N} := \sup\{|\Lambda_{q, N}(f, g_1,g_2)|,\ |\Lambda_{q, N}(g_1, f,g_2)|,\ |\Lambda_{q, N}(g_1,g_2, f)|\},$$ where the supremum is taken over all 1-bounded functions $g_i : [N] \to {\mathbb{C}}$. We note that, in spite of our nomenclature, this is not a norm, but a seminorm. One could remedy this by summing over $y {\geqslant}0$ in the counting operator
Initially, the cut norm is too restrictive for us, so we begin by working with the weaker quantity $$\label{flat q norm eq}
{\left\| f\right\|}^\flat_{q,N} := \sup\{|\Lambda_{q, N}(f, g_1,g_2)|, |\Lambda_{q, N}(g_1, f,g_2)| : |g_i| {\leqslant}1 \text{ and } {\mathrm{supp}}(g_i) \subset [N] \},$$ which we refer to as the *partial cut norm*.
The following lemma is simply a rephrasing of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative Theorem 7.1], which is the technical heart of that paper. See Definition \[local function def\] for the meaning of ‘local function’.
\[partial inverse theorem\] Let $q {\leqslant}N$ be positive integers, $\delta>0$, and $f:{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ be a $1$-bounded function with support in $[N]$. Suppose that $${\left\| f\right\|}^\flat_{q,N}{\geqslant}\delta .$$ Then either $N \ll (q/\delta)^{O(1)}$ or there exists a 1-bounded local function $\phi$ of resolution $\gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$, modulus $qq'$ for some $q'\ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, and such that $$\sum_{x\in[N]} f(x)\phi(x) \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$
By compactness, there exist 1-bounded functions $g_1, g_2 : [N] \to {\mathbb{C}}$ such that either $
|\Lambda_{q, N}(f, g_1, g_2)| {\geqslant}\delta
$ or $
|\Lambda_{q, N}(g_1,f, g_2)| {\geqslant}\delta.
$ In the latter case, we may apply [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative Theorem 7.1] to deduce that there exist positive integers $q'\ll\delta^{-O(1)}$ and $N' \gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$ such that $$\sum_{x}{\left| \sum_{y\in[N']}f(x+qq'y)\right|}\gg \delta^{O(1)}NN'.$$ In the former case, the reader may check that the argument of [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative Theorem 7.1] delivers the same conclusion[^2].
To ease notation, write $Q := qq'$. Partitioning the integers into arithmetic progressions of length $N'$ and common difference $Q$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\delta^{O(1)} NN' \ll \sum_{z \in [N']}\sum_{u\in [Q]} \sum_{x\in{\mathbb{Z}}} {\left| \sum_{y \in [N']} f( Qz +QN'x +u + Qy)\right|}\\ {\leqslant}N'\max_z\sum_{u\in [Q]} \sum_{x\in {\mathbb{Z}}} {\left| \sum_{y \in [N']} f(Qz + QN'x +u +Qy)\right|}.\end{gathered}$$ Defining $ \psi_z(u,x)$ to be the conjugate phase of the inner sum, we deduce the existence of $z$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^{O(1)} N \ll \sum_{u \in [Q]}\sum_x\sum_{y \in [N']}f(Qz + QN'x +u +Qy)\psi_z(u,x).\end{aligned}$$ The result follows on noting that every integer has a unique representation of the form $QN'x +u +Qy$ with $u \in [Q]$, $x \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $y \in [N']$. Hence the map $$Qz + QN'x +u +Qy \mapsto \psi_z(u,x)$$ is a local function of resolution $QN'$ and modulus $Q$.
Now we can prove an inverse theorem for the cut norm itself.
\[inverse theorem\] Let $q {\leqslant}N$ be positive integers, $\delta>0$, and $f:{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ be a $1$-bounded function with support in $[N]$. Suppose that $${\left\| f\right\|}_{q,N}{\geqslant}\delta .$$ Then either $N \ll (q/\delta)^{O(1)}$ or there exist 1-bounded local functions $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, of resolution $\gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$ and moduli $qq_1$ and $qq_2$, respectively, for some $q_1,q_2\ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ such that $$\label{cut norm density increment}
{\left| \sum_{x\in[N]} f(x)\phi_1(x)\phi_2(x)\right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$
A key tool in proving Lemma \[inverse theorem\] is the following decomposition result, which relies on the finite-dimensional Hahn–Banach theorem.
\[HB decomp\] Let $\|\cdot\|$ be a seminorm on the space of complex-valued functions with support in $[N]$. For any such function $f$ and ${\varepsilon}> 0$, there exists a decomposition $f=f_{str}+f_{unf}$ such that $${\left\| f_{str}\right\|}^* {\leqslant}{\varepsilon}^{-1}{\left\| f\right\|}_{2} \quad \text{and} \quad {\left\| f_{unf}\right\|}{\leqslant}{\varepsilon}{\left\| f\right\|}_{2}.$$
This can be found in the discussion following [@GowersDecompositions Proposition 3.6]. Although the statement therein is for norms, and not seminorms, one can check that the (simple) argument remains valid in this greater generality[^3].
Using the dual norm decomposition afforded by Lemma \[HB decomp\], we can gain control of every function in the counting operator.
By the definition of the cut norm and Lemma \[partial inverse theorem\], we may assume that there are 1-bounded functions $g, h : [N] \to {\mathbb{C}}$ such that $$|\Lambda_{q, N}(g, h, f)| {\geqslant}\delta .$$ Applying Lemma \[HB decomp\] to $g$ with ${\left\| \cdot\right\|} := {\left\| \cdot\right\|}_{q, N}^\flat$ and ${\varepsilon}:= {\tfrac{1}{2}}\delta N^{-1/2}$, we deduce that $$|\Lambda_{q, N}(g_{str}, h,f)| {\geqslant}\delta - |\Lambda_{q, N}(g_{unf}, h,f)|
{\geqslant}\delta - {\left\| g_{unf}\right\|}_{q, N}^\flat {\geqslant}\tfrac{\delta}{2} .$$
Recalling that $M := \lfloor\sqrt{N/q}\rfloor$, define the dual function $$F(x) : = {\mathbb{E}}_{y \in [M]} h(x+y) f(x+qy^2).$$ The dual inequality then gives $$\tfrac\delta2 {\leqslant}|\Lambda_{q, N}(g_{str}, h,f)| = N^{-1}|{\left\langleg_{str}, F\right\rangle}| {\leqslant}2 \delta^{-1} {\left\| F\right\|}_{q, N}^\flat.$$ Hence, by the partial cut norm inverse theorem (Lemma \[partial inverse theorem\]), there exists a 1-bounded local function $\phi_1$ of resolution $\gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$ and modulus $qq_1$ for some $q_1\ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ such that $${\left| \sum_{x\in[N]} F(x)\phi_1(x)\right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$ Thus $$|\Lambda_{q, N}(\phi_1, h, f)| \gg \delta^{O(1)} .$$
We now re-run our argument, this time applying Lemma \[HB decomp\] to $h$ and deducing the existence of a 1-bounded local function $\phi_2$ of resolution $\gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$ and modulus $qq_2$ for some $q_2\ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ such that $$|\Lambda_{q, N}(\phi_1, \phi_2, f)| \gg \delta^{O(1)} .$$ Expanding the counting operator and taking a maximum over $y\in [M]$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^{O(1)} NM & \ll {\left| \sum_{y \in [M]}\sum_x f(x)\phi_1(x-qy^2) \phi_2(x-qy^2 + y)\right|}\\
& {\leqslant}M {\left| \sum_x f(x)\tilde{\phi}_1(x) \tilde{\phi}_2(x)\right|},\end{aligned}$$ where both $\tilde{\phi}_i$ are 1-bounded local functions of resolution $\gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$ and moduli $qq_i$ for some $q_i\ll \delta^{-O(1)}$.
A weak regularity lemma
=======================
Much of the material is this section is standard, and closely follows the expositions in Green [@GreenMontreal] and Green–Tao [@GreenTaoNewII]. To simplify the exposition of later arguments, while the factors in [@GreenMontreal] and [@GreenTaoNewII] are $\sigma$-algebras, our factors will be the set of atoms of certain $\sigma$-algebras (which can obviously be recovered by taking the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the set of atoms).
We define a *factor* $\mathcal{B}$ of $[N]$ to be a partition of $[N]$, so that $[N] = \sqcup_{B \in \mathcal{B}} B$. We say that a factor $\mathcal{B}'$ *refines* $\mathcal{B}$ if every element of $\mathcal{B}$ is a union of elements of $\mathcal{B}'$. The *join* $\mathcal{B}_1\vee\dots\vee\mathcal{B}_d$ of factors $\mathcal{B}_1, \dots, \mathcal{B}_d$ is the factor formed by taking the $d$-fold intersections of the elements of $\mathcal{B}_1$, …, $\mathcal{B}_d$, that is, $$\mathcal{B}_1\vee\dots\vee\mathcal{B}_d:=\{B_1\cap\dots\cap B_d:B_i\in\mathcal{B}_i\text{ for }i=1,\dots,d\}.$$
Given a factor $\mathcal{B}$, we say that a function $f : [N] \to {\mathbb{C}}$ is *$\mathcal{B}$-measurable* if it is constant on the elements of $\mathcal{B}$.
Define the *projection* of any function $f : [N] \to {\mathbb{C}}$ onto $\mathcal{B}$ by $$\label{conditional expectation}
\Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f(x) = \frac{\sum_{B \in \mathcal{B}} 1_B(x) \sum_{y \in B} f(y)}{\sum_{B \in \mathcal{B}} 1_B(x) \sum_{y \in B} 1_{[N]}(y)}.$$ Notice that $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f$ is $\mathcal{B}$-measurable, and is just the conditional expectation of $f$ with respect to the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the elements of $\mathcal{B}$.
We record some well-known properties of the projection operator $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}$ (that is, properties of conditional expectation) in the next lemma.
\[properties\] [ ]{}
1. \[projection part\] The operator $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}$ linearly projects onto the space of $\mathcal{B}$-measurable functions.
2. \[adjoint part\] $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}$ is self-adjoint with respect to the inner product $${\left\langlef, g\right\rangle} := \sum_x f(x) \overline{g(x)} \qquad (f, g : [N] \to {\mathbb{C}}),$$ so that ${\left\langlef, \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}g\right\rangle} = {\left\langle\Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f, g\right\rangle}$.
3. If $\mathcal{B}'$ is a refinement of $\mathcal{B}$ then $$\Pi_{\mathcal{B}'}\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f = \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f. $$
4. \[orthog part\] If $\mathcal{B}'$ refines $\mathcal{B}$ then $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f $ is orthogonal to $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}'}f - \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f $.
Inspecting the formula reveals that $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}$ is linear, that $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f$ is constant on elements of $\mathcal{B}$, and that if $f$ itself is constant on elements of $\mathcal{B}$, then $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f = f$. This establishes .
Interchanging the order of summation gives $$\begin{split}
{\left\langlef, \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}g\right\rangle} = \sum_{B \in \mathcal{B}} |B|^{-1} \sum_{x,y \in B} f(x)\overline{g(y)} = {\left\langle\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f, g \right\rangle}.
\end{split}$$ This proves that $\Pi_\mathcal{B}$ is self-adjoint.
The first refinement property follows from the fact that $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f$ is $\mathcal{B}'$-measurable.
We utilise self-adjointness of $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}}$ and the first refinement property to conclude that $$\begin{split}
{\left\langle\Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f , \Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f- \Pi_{\mathcal{B}'} f\right\rangle}& = {\left\langle\Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f , \Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f- f\right\rangle} = {\left\langlef , \Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f- \Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f\right\rangle} = 0.
\end{split}$$
Now we describe the particular type of factors that will be relevant to us.
\[local factor def\] A *simple real factor* of resolution $M$ is a factor of $[N]$ obtained by partitioning ${\mathbb{R}}$ into intervals all of length $M$.
A *simple congruence factor* of modulus $q$ is the factor of $[N]$ obtained by partitioning into congruence classes mod $q$.
We say that $\mathcal{B}$ is a *simple local factor* of resolution $M$ and modulus $q$ if it is the join of a simple real factor of resolution $M$ and a simple congruence factor of modulus $q$. Notice that $\mathcal{B}$ is a simple local factor if and only if it consists of the level sets of a local function (Definition \[local function def\]) of resolution $M$ and modulus $q$.
A *local factor* of dimension $d$, resolution $M$ and modulus $q$ is the join of $d$ simple local factors $\mathcal{B}_i$, each of resolution $M_i$ and modulus $q_i$, where $M_i {\geqslant}M$ and $q = {\mathrm{lcm}}[q_1, \dots, q_d]$.
Local factors of large resolution and small modulus and dimension necessarily contain few sets. This fact will be useful later in the proof of Lemma \[increment lemma\].
\[atom bound\] If $\mathcal{B}$ is a local factor of dimension $d$, resolution $M$, and modulus $q$, then $$|\mathcal{B}| {\leqslant}qd{\left( \frac{N}{M} + 2 \right)}.$$
By the definition of a local factor, it suffices to bound the size of the join of $d$ simple real factors, and then bound the size of the join of $d$ simple congruence factors. The product of these two numbers gives us our final bound.
Joining $d$ congruence simple factors with moduli $q_1, \dots, q_d$ results in another congruence simple factor of modulus $q= {\mathrm{lcm}}[q_1, \dots, q_d]$. The number of parts in such a partition is $q$.
The join of $d$ simple real factors partitions $[N]$ into intervals. The upper endpoint of each of these intervals is either equal to $N$ or is equal to an endpoint of an interval in one of the original simple real factors. For a simple real factor of resolution $M$, at most $1+N/M$ upper endpoints lie in $[1, N)$. Hence the number of intervals in the join of $d$ simple real factors of resolutions $M_1$, …, $M_d$ is at most $2d + N(M_1^{-1} + \dots + M_d^{-1})$.
We now prove a weak regularity lemma for the cut norm via an energy increment argument.
\[weak regularity\] Let $q {\leqslant}N$ be positive integers and $\delta >0$. Either $N \ll (q/\delta)^{O(1)}$, or for any function $f : [N] \to [0, 1]$ there exists a local factor $\mathcal{B}$ of dimension $d \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, resolution $\gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$, and modulus $qq'$ for some $q'{\leqslant}O{\left( 1/ \delta \right)}^{O(d)}$ such that $$\label{proj error}
{\left\| f - \Pi_\mathcal{B} f\right\|}_{q, N} {\leqslant}\delta$$
We run an energy increment argument, initialising at stage $0$ with the trivial factor $\mathcal{B}_0 := {\left\{[N]\right\}}$. Suppose that at stage $d$ of this iteration we have a local factor $\mathcal{B}$ of resolution $ \gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$, dimension at most $2d$, and modulus $qq'$ for some $q'{\leqslant}O(1/ \delta)^{O(d)}$. In addition, suppose that we have the energy lower bound $$\label{energy bound}
{\left\| \Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f\right\|}_{\ell^2}^2 \gg d\delta^{O(1)} N.$$
With these assumptions in place, we query if the following holds $$\label{query}
{\left\| f - \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f\right\|}_{q, N} {\leqslant}\delta .$$ If so, then the process terminates. If not, we show how our iteration may proceed to stage $d+1$.
Applying the cut norm inverse theorem (Lemma \[inverse theorem\]), we conclude that there exist 1-bounded local functions $\phi_i$ of resolution $ \gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$ and modulus $qq_i$ for some $q_i{\leqslant}\delta^{-O(1)}$ such that $${\left| {\left\langlef - \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f, \phi_1\phi_2\right\rangle}\right|} = {\left| \sum_{x \in [N]} (f - \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f)(x) \phi_1(x)\phi_2(x)\right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$
Let $\mathcal{B}' $ denote the join of $\mathcal{B}$ and the simple local factors generated by $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, so that $\mathcal{B}'$ is a local factor of dimension at most $2(d+1)$, resolution $ \gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$ and modulus $qq''$ for some $q'' {\leqslant}q'q_1q_2{\leqslant}O(1/\delta)^{O(d+1)}$. Since $\phi_1\phi_2$ is $\mathcal{B}'$-measurable, we can use the properties listed in Lemma \[properties\] together with the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality to deduce that $$\begin{split}
{\left| {\left\langlef- \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f ,\phi_1\phi_2\right\rangle}\right|} & ={\left| {\left\langlef- \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f ,\Pi_{\mathcal{B}'}(\phi_1\phi_2)\right\rangle}\right|} = {\left| {\left\langle\Pi_{\mathcal{B}'} f - \Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f , \phi_1\phi_2\right\rangle}\right|}\\
& {\leqslant}N^{1/2} {\left\| \Pi_{\mathcal{B}'} f - \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f \right\|}_{\ell^2}.
\end{split}$$ It follows that $${\left\| \Pi_{\mathcal{B}'} f - \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f\right\|}_{\ell^2} \gg\delta^{O(1)} N^{1/2}.$$
Lemma \[properties\] tells us that $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f$ is orthogonal to $\Pi_{\mathcal{B}'}f - \Pi_{\mathcal{B}} f$, hence by Pythagoras’s theorem $${\left\| \Pi_{\mathcal{B}'} f\right\|}_{\ell^2}^2 = {\left\| \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f \right\|}_{\ell^2}^2+ {\left\| \Pi_{\mathcal{B}'} f- \Pi_{\mathcal{B}}f \right\|}_{\ell^2}^2.$$ The energy bound follows for $\mathcal{B}'$, allowing us to proceed to the next stage of our iteration.
Since the function $f$ is $1$-bounded, the projection $\Pi_\mathcal{B}f$ is also 1-bounded, hence the energy is always bounded above by $N$. It follows that this energy increment must terminate at stage $d$ for some $d \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, yielding the lemma.
The density increment lemma {#increment proof sec}
===========================
In this section we prove Lemma \[increment lemma\], modelling our argument on that given by Green and Tao [@GreenTaoNewII Corollary 5.8]. We first record, for the sake of convenience, the following immediate consequence of the triangle inequality.
\[L1 control\] Suppose that $N {\geqslant}q$. Then for any $f_0, f_1, f_2 : [N]\to {\mathbb{C}}$ we have $$|\Lambda_{q, N}(f_0, f_1, f_2)| {\leqslant}N^{-1}{\left\| f_i\right\|}_{\ell^1} \prod_{j \neq i} {\left\| f_j\right\|}_\infty .$$
We prove the result for $i = 1$, the other cases being similar. A reparametrisation gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \Lambda_{q, N}(f_0, f_1, f_2)\right|} &= {\left| {\mathbb{E}}_{x\in[N]} f_1(x) {\mathbb{E}}_{y \in [M]} f_0(x-y)f_2(x+qy^2 - y)\right|}\\
& {\leqslant}{\mathbb{E}}_{x\in[N]} |f_1(x)| {\mathbb{E}}_{y \in [M]} |f_0(x-y)||f_2(x+qy^2 - y)|.\end{aligned}$$
We are now in a position to prove Lemma \[increment lemma\], and thereby complete our proof of Theorem \[main\].
Let $A$ satisfy the assumptions of Lemma \[increment lemma\]. Increasing $\delta$ only strengthens our conclusion, so we may assume that $|A| = \delta N$. Since $\Lambda_{q, N}(1_A) = 0$, we have that $
{\left| \Lambda_{q, N}(1_A) -\Lambda_{q, N}(\delta1_{[N]})\right|} = \delta^3 \Lambda_{q, N}(1_{[N]}) \gg \delta^3
$.
Applying the weak regularity lemma (Lemma \[weak regularity\]), there exists a local factor $\mathcal{B}$ of dimension $d \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, resolution $\gg (\delta/q)^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$, and modulus $qq'$ for some $q' {\leqslant}O(1/ \delta)^{O(d)}$ such that $${\left\| 1_A - \Pi_\mathcal{B} 1_A\right\|}_{q, N} {\leqslant}\tfrac{1}{6} \delta^3 \Lambda_{q, N}({1_{[N]}}).$$ Setting $f := \Pi_\mathcal{B} 1_A$, a telescoping identity thus yields $${\left| \Lambda_{q, N}(f) -\Lambda_{q, N}(\delta1_{[N]})\right|} {\geqslant}{\tfrac{1}{2}} \delta^3 \Lambda_{q, N}({1_{[N]}}) \gg \delta^3.$$
Define the $\mathcal{B}$-measurable set $$S:= {\left\{x \in [N] : f(x) {\geqslant}(1+c)\delta\right\}},$$ where $c>0$ is a sufficiently small absolute constant that will be chosen to make the following argument valid. By Lemma \[L1 control\] and a telescoping identity, we have ${\left| \Lambda_{q, N}(f) -\Lambda_{q, N}(f1_{S^c})\right|} {\leqslant}3|S|/N$, so that $$\tfrac{|S|}{N} + {\left| \Lambda_{q, N}(f1_{S^c}) -\Lambda_{q, N}(\delta1_{[N]})\right|} \gg \delta^3 .$$ Yet another telescoping identity, in conjunction with Lemma \[L1 control\], gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \Lambda_{q, N}(f1_{S^c}) -\Lambda_{q, N}(\delta 1_{[N]})\right|} & \ll \tfrac{\delta^2 }{N}
{\left\| f1_{S^c}- \delta1_{[N]}\right\|}_{\ell^1} {\leqslant}\tfrac{\delta^2 }{N} {\left\| f - \delta1_{[N]}\right\|}_{\ell^1} + \tfrac{|S|}{N},\end{aligned}$$ so that $$|S| + \delta^2 {\left\| f - \delta1_{[N]}\right\|}_{\ell^1} \gg \delta^3 N.$$
Since $f - \delta1_{[N]}$ has mean zero, its $\ell^1$-norm is equal to twice the $\ell^1$-norm of its positive part. The function ${\left( f - \delta1_{[N]} \right)}_+$ can only exceed $c \delta$ on $S$, so taking $c$ small enough gives $
|S| \gg \delta^3N
$. Letting $B$ denote the largest element of $\mathcal{B}$ for which $B \subset S$, the bound in Lemma \[atom bound\] yields $$|B| \gg q^{-O(1)}\delta^{O(d)} 2^{-O(d)} N^{1/2}.$$ By construction (see Definition \[local factor def\]), the set $B$ is an arithmetic progression of common difference $qq'$ with $q' {\leqslant}O(1/\delta)^{O(d)}$. Moreover, the density of $A$ on $B$ is equal to the value of $f(x)$ for any $x \in B$, and this is at least $(1+c)\delta$ by the definition of $S$.
Global control by major arc Fourier coefficients {#global sec}
================================================
The purpose of this section is to prove Theorem \[global control\] and Corollary \[global control cor\]. We begin with an alternative version of Lemma \[partial inverse theorem\], replacing the rigid local function found therein with something more continuous. In the following, we say that $\phi : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ is *$C$-Lipschitz along $q \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}$* if for any $x, y \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we have $$|\phi(x+qy) - \phi(x)| {\leqslant}C |y|.$$ Recalling our definition for the Fejér kernel , we observe that a function of the form $$\label{h def}
x \mapsto \sum_h \mu_H(h) f(x+qh)$$ is Lipschitz along $q \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}$.
\[h lipschitz\] Let $q, H$ be positive integers and $f : {\mathbb{Z}}\to {\mathbb{C}}$ be 1-bounded. If $\phi$ is defined as in , then $\phi$ is $O(H^{-1})$-Lipschitz along $q \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}$, in that for any $x, y\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we have $\phi(x+qy) = \phi(x) + O(|y|/H)$.
Recalling , the triangle inequality for $|\cdot|$ and $\max\{\cdot, 0\}$ show that $|\mu_H(h+y) - \mu_H(h)| {\leqslant}|y|/{\left\lfloor H \right\rfloor}^2$ for all $h, y \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Hence a change of variables gives $$|\phi(x+qy) - \phi(x)| {\leqslant}\sum_h |\mu_H(h-y) - \mu_H(h)| \ll \frac{|y|}{H^2}\sum_{h \in (-H, H)\cup(y-H, y+H) } 1.$$
Now we prove another partial cut norm inverse theorem, this time getting correlation with functions that are Lipschitz along progressions with small common difference.
\[partial inverse theorem II\] Let $N$ be a positive integer, $ \delta>0$, and $f, g, h:{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ be $1$-bounded functions with support in $[N]$. Suppose that $${\left| {\mathbb{E}}_{x \in [N]} {\mathbb{E}}_{y \in [N^{1/2}]} f(x) g(x+y) h(x+y^2)\right|}{\geqslant}\delta .$$ Then either $N \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, or there exists $q \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ and a 1-bounded function $\phi$ that is $O(\delta^{-O(1)} N^{-1/2})$-Lipschitz along $q \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\sum_{x\in[N]} g(x)\phi(x) \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$
Applying [@PelusePrendivilleQuantitative Theorem 7.1], we obtain positive integers $q\ll\delta^{-O(1)}$ and $N^{1/2} {\geqslant}M \gg \delta^{O(1)}N^{1/2}$ such that $$\sum_{x}{\left| \sum_{y\in[M]}g(x+qy)\right|}\gg \delta^{O(1)}NM.$$ By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and a change of variables, we have $$\sum_{x}g(x)\sum_{y_1, y_2\in[M]}\overline{g(x+q(y_1 - y_2))}\gg \delta^{O(1)}NM^2.$$ Setting $$\phi(x) := {\mathbb{E}}_{y_1, y_2\in[M]}\overline{g(x+q(y_1 - y_2))},$$ Lemma \[h lipschitz\] shows this function has the required properties.
Before proving Theorem \[global control\], we record two standard facts.
\[rog lem\] There are at most $O(N^4)$ solutions $x \in [N]^6$ to the equation $$x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2 = x_4^2 +x_5^2 + x_6^2.$$
There are a number of ways to prove this. Perhaps the most robust is via the circle method, see [@DavenportAnalytic].
\[weyl-ineq\] Let $P \subset {\mathbb{Z}}$ be an arithmetic progression with common difference $q$ and let $0< \delta {\leqslant}1$. Suppose that $${\left| \sum_{x \in P} e(\alpha x^2) \right|} {\geqslant}\delta |P|.$$ Then either $|P| \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ or there exists a positive integer $q' \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ such that $$\|q'q^2\alpha\| \ll \delta^{-O(1)}|P|^{-2}.$$
Let $P = x_0 + q\cdot [N]$, so that our exponential sum becomes $$\sum_{x \in P} e(\alpha x^2) = \sum_{y \in [N]} e(\alpha q^2 y^2 + 2\alpha q x_0 y + \alpha x_0^2).$$ Applying [@GreenTaoQuadratic Lemma A.11], either $N \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ or the conclusion of our lemma follows.
Write $\Lambda_N$ for the counting operator $\Lambda_{1, N}$ (that is, the average with $q=1$). Let $f, g, h : [N] \to {\mathbb{C}}$ be 1-bounded functions satisfying $$|\Lambda_{N}(f, g, h) | {\geqslant}\delta .$$ Define the seminorm $${\left\| g\right\|} := \sup{\left\{|\Lambda_N(g_1, g, g_2)|: |g_i| {\leqslant}1 \text{ and } {\mathrm{supp}}(g_i) \subset [N]\right\}}.$$ Applying Lemma \[HB decomp\] to $g$ with ${\varepsilon}:= {\tfrac{1}{2}}\delta N^{-1/2}$, we follow the argument in the proof of Lemma \[inverse theorem\] to deduce that $$|\Lambda_{N}(f,g_{str},h)| {\geqslant}\delta - |\Lambda_{N}(f, g_{unf},h)|
{\geqslant}\delta - {\left\| g_{unf}\right\|} {\geqslant}\tfrac{\delta}{2} .$$
Define the dual function $$F(x) : = {\mathbb{E}}_{y \in [N^{1/2}]} f(x) h(x+y^2).$$ The dual inequality then gives $$\tfrac\delta2 {\leqslant}|\Lambda_{N}(f, g_{str},h)| = N^{-1}|{\left\langleg_{str}, F\right\rangle}| {\leqslant}2 \delta^{-1} {\left\| F\right\|}.$$ Hence, by Lemma \[partial inverse theorem II\], there exists $q \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$ and a 1-bounded function $\phi$ that is $O(\delta^{-O(1)} N^{-1/2})$-Lipschitz along $q \cdot {\mathbb{Z}}$ and satisfies $$\sum_{x\in[N]} F(x)\phi(x) \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$ Expanding the definition of the dual function, we have $$\sum_{x\in [N]}\sum_{y \in [N^{1/2}]}f(x)\phi(x+y) h(x+y^2) \gg \delta^{O(1)}N^{3/2}.$$
Let us partition ${\mathbb{Z}}$ into arithmetic progressions $P$ each of common difference $q$ and length $M$, where $M$ will be chosen shortly. For each such arithmetic progression $P$, fix an element $y_P \in P$. Using the Lipschitz property of $\phi$, for any $x \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $y \in P$ we have $$|\phi(x+y_P) - \phi(x+y)| \ll \delta^{-O(1)}M N^{-1/2}.$$ Hence, $${\left| \sum_P\sum_{x\in [N]}\sum_{y \in P\cap [N^{1/2}]}f(x)[\phi(x+y) - \phi(x + y_P) ]h(x+y^2)\right|} \ll \delta^{-O(1)}MN.$$ We can therefore take $M$ sufficiently small to satisfy both $M \gg \delta^{O(1)} N^{1/2}$ and $${\left| \sum_P\sum_x\sum_{y \in P\cap [N^{1/2}]}f(x) \phi(x + y_P) h(x+y^2)\right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)}N^{3/2}.$$
Set $f_P(x) := f(x) \phi(x+y_P)$. The number of progressions $P$ that intersect $[N^{1/2}]$ is at most $O(N^{1/2}M^{-1} + q) = O(\delta^{-O(1)})$. Therefore, the pigeon-hole principle gives a progression $P$ for which $$\label{shorter sarko}
{\left| \sum_x\sum_{y \in P\cap[N^{1/2}]} f_P(x) h(x+y^2)\right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)}N^{3/2}.$$ In particular, $|P \cap [N^{1/2}]| \gg \delta^{O(1)} N^{1/2}$.
Writing $S_{P}(\alpha)$ for $\sum_{y \in P\cap [N^{1/2}]} e{\left( \alpha y^2 \right)}$, the orthogonality relations allow us to reformulate as $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \int_{\mathbb{T}}\hat{f}_P(\alpha) \hat{h}(-\alpha) S_{P}(\alpha) d \alpha\right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)}N^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\eta > 0$ be a parameter to be determined shortly, and define the major arcs $$\mathfrak{M} := {\left\{\alpha \in {\mathbb{T}}: |S_{P}(\alpha)| {\geqslant}\eta N^{1/2}\right\}}.$$ Parseval’s identity then gives $${\left| \int_{{\mathbb{T}}\setminus\mathfrak{M}} \hat{f}_P(\alpha) \hat{h}(-\alpha) S_{P}(\alpha) d \alpha\right|} {\leqslant}\eta N^{1/2} {\big\| \hat{f}_P \big\|}_2{\big\| \hat{h} \big\|}_2 {\leqslant}\eta N^{3/2}.$$ Hence we may take $\eta \gg \delta^{O(1)}$ and ensure that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left| \int_{\mathfrak{M}} \hat{f}_P(\alpha) \hat{h}(-\alpha) S_{P}(\alpha)d \alpha\right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)}N^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[rog lem\] and orthogonality, we have ${\left\| S_{P}\right\|}_6 \ll N^{1/3}$. Thus, by Hölder’s inequality, we get that $${\left| \int_{\mathfrak{M}} \hat{f}_P(\alpha) \hat{h}(-\alpha) S_{P}(\alpha)d \alpha\right|} {\leqslant}{\big\| \hat{f}_P \big\|}_2 {\big\| \hat{h} \big\|}_2^{2/3} {\big\| S_P \big\|}_6 \sup_{\alpha \in \mathfrak{M}} {\bigl| \hat{h}(-\alpha) \bigr|}^{1/3}.$$ We therefore deduce that there exists $\alpha \in \mathfrak{M}$ such that $${\bigl| \hat{h}(-\alpha) \bigr|} \gg \delta^{O(1)} N.$$
Finally, an application of Weyl’s inequality (Lemma \[weyl-ineq\]) shows that if $-\alpha \in \mathfrak{M}$ then $\alpha$ has the required Diophantine approximation property.
Let $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be the frequency and $q$ the positive integer provided by Theorem \[global control\]. For any integer $a$ and positive integer $M$, if $x, y \in a + q\cdot[M]$, then $${\left| e(\alpha x) - e(\alpha y)\right|} {\leqslant}2\pi{\left\| \alpha(x-y)\right\|} \ll \delta^{-O(1)} M N^{-1}.$$ Partitioning ${\mathbb{Z}}$ into arithmetic progressions of common difference $q$ and length $M$ then gives $$\delta^{O(1)} N \ll \sum_P{\Bigl| \sum_{x \in P} f(x) \Bigr|} + \delta^{-O(1)} M .$$ We thus take $M \gg \delta^{O(1)} N$ sufficiently small to ensure that $$\delta^{O(1)} N \ll \sum_P{\Bigl| \sum_{x \in P} f(x) \Bigr|}.$$ Write $\theta_P$ for the conjugate phase of the inner sum. Then the map $x \mapsto \sum_P\theta_P1_P(x)$ is a local function of resolution $\gg \delta^{O(1)}N$ and modulus $\ll \delta^{-O(1)}$, yielding the corollary.
Longer progressions {#longer section}
===================
As mentioned in §\[longer intro\], the main obstacle to generalising our polylogarithmic bound to longer configurations such as is in obtaining an appropriate generalisation of Lemma \[inverse theorem\]; in particular, showing that if the relevant counting operator is large, then *all* functions must correlate with a product of a bounded number of local functions.
Let us demonstrate where the argument breaks down for $m > 2$. Given polynomials as in and 1-bounded functions $f_0, f_1, \dots, f_m : [N] \to {\mathbb{C}}$, define the counting operator $$\begin{gathered}
\Lambda_{P_1, \dots, P_m}^N(f_0, f_1, \dots, f_m) := \\{\mathbb{E}}_{x \in [N]} {\mathbb{E}}_{y \in [N^{1/\deg P_m}]}f_0(x)f_1(x+P_1(y))\dotsm f_m(x+P_m(y)) .\end{gathered}$$ Using the main technical result of [@PeluseBounds], [@PeluseBounds Theorem 3.3], one can show that if $${\left| \Lambda_{P_1, \dots, P_m}^N(f_0, f_1, \dots , f_m)\right|} {\geqslant}\delta ,$$ then both $f_0$ and $f_1$ correlate with local functions $\phi_0$ and $\phi_1$. Using the Hahn–Banach decomposition (Lemma \[HB decomp\]), as in our proof of Theorem \[global control\] and Lemma \[inverse theorem\], one may conclude that $${\left| \Lambda_{P_1, \dots, P_m}^N(\phi_0, \phi_1, f_2, \dots , f_m)\right|} \gg \delta^{O(1)},$$ If $m = 2$, one can then pigeon-hole in the smaller $y$ variable appearing in the counting operator (as we do in the proof of Lemma \[inverse theorem\]) to conclude that $f_2$ correlates with a product of two local functions. It is this simple pigeon-holing argument that fails when $m > 2$.
An alternative strategy for longer progressions
-----------------------------------------------
A more productive strategy is to follow our proof of Theorem \[global control\] instead of Theorem \[main\]. In proving Theorem \[global control\] we replace the counting operator $\Lambda_{y, y^2}^N(f_0, f_1, f_2)$ with $\Lambda_{y, y^2}^N(f_0, \phi, f_2)$, where $\phi$ is a local function that is constant on progressions of length $\approx N^{1/2}$ with common difference of size $\approx O(1)$. Provided that we pass to appropriate subprogressions in all of the variables appearing in our counting operator, we can exploit the properties of this local function and ‘remove’ it from our count. In effect (after passing to subprogressions of bounded common difference), we replace the count $\Lambda_{y, y^2}^N(f_0, f_1, f_2)$ with one of the form $\Lambda_{Q}^{N'}(f_0, f_2)$, where $Q$ is a quadratic polynomial and $N'$ is slightly smaller than $N$.
Generalising this approach, one can use [@PeluseBounds Theorem 3.3] to replace the counting operator $\Lambda_{P_1, \dots, P_m}^N(f_0, f_1, \dots , f_m)$ with $\Lambda_{P_1, \dots, P_m}^N(f_0, \phi, f_2, \dots , f_m)$, where $\phi$ is a local function. Provided that this local function has resolution $\gg N^{\deg P_1 / \deg P_m}$ and common difference $q \ll 1$, we have $$\phi(x+P_1(y)) \approx \phi(x)$$ for any $x\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and any $y$ constrained to a subprogression of common difference $q$ and length $\approx N^{\deg P_1 / \deg P_m}$. Passing to subprogressions in $x$ and $y$, one should then be able to replace the operator $$\Lambda_{P_1, \dots, P_m}^N(f_0, \phi, f_2, \dots , f_m)$$ by one of the form $$\Lambda_{Q_2, \dots, Q_m}^{N'}(f_0, f_2, \dots , f_m).$$ Applying induction on $m$ may then allow one to show that every function in the original counting operator correlates with a local function.
The main impediment to carrying out this strategy is that the polynomials $Q_2$, …, $Q_m$, which arise on passing to a subprogression, may not satisfy the hypotheses required to reapply [@PeluseBounds Theorem 3.3]. It is likely that the polynomials are sufficiently well-behaved for the arguments of [@PeluseBounds] to remain valid, but we leave this verification to the energetic reader.
[^1]: Here ${\left\| \cdot\right\|}$ denotes the distance to the nearest integer, and $e(\alpha) := e^{2\pi i\alpha}$. For our conventions regarding asymptotic notation see §\[notation\].
[^2]: For details see the second author’s exposition [@PrendivilleInverse].
[^3]: On occasion the relevant results in [@GowersDecompositions] appear to assume that unit balls are *bounded* (if we take the definition of *convex body* to be a compact convex set with non-empty interior), which may not be true for the unit ball of a seminorm. However, the boundedness assumption is not necessary in the pertinent proofs. Moreover, one could quotient by the norm zero set to obtain a genuine norm.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In [@alpay2015infinite], a technique was developed which allows for the construction of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space on basins of attraction containing $0$. When the right conditions are met, an explicit orthonormal basis can be constructed using a particular class of operators. It is natural then to consider how the orthonormal basis changes as we let the basin of attraction vary. We will consider this question for the basins of attraction containing $0$ of the family of polynomials $\mathcal{F} = \{az^{2^{n+2}}-2az^{2^{n+1}}:a\neq0\}$, where $n\in\mathbb{N}$.'
address: 'Department of Mathematical Sciences, 101 Mathematics Building, University of Montana, Missoula, 59812'
author:
- James Tipton
date: 'December 23, 2016'
title: Dynamics of Orthonormal Bases Associated to Basins of Attraction
---
Introduction
============
If $R$ is a rational map, then associated to any attracting fixed point, $\zeta$, of $R$ is the basin of attraction containing $\zeta$, which we will denote $B_{R,\zeta}$. Following the approach of [@alpay2015infinite], it was shown in [@jet2016] that whenever $R$ is a polynomial with an attracting fixed point at $0$, one obtains a kernel function of the form $$K(z,w) = \prod_{i=0}^\infty\left(1+\left(R^{\circ i}(z)\overline{R^{\circ i}(w)}\right)^\alpha\right)$$
for any positive integer $\alpha$, and where $R^{\circ i}$ is shorthand for $R$ composed with itself $i$ times. Associated to each kernel function is a unique reproducing kernel Hilbert space. On the reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces of the kernel functions above, we have the following operators: $$S_0(f)(z) = f(R(z))\quad\text{ and }\quad S_1(f)(z) = z^\alpha f(R(z))$$
Following the work in [@alpay2015infinite], if these operators satisfy the Cuntz relations, $$S^{*}_iS_j = \delta_{ij}I\quad\text{ and}\quad\sum S_iS^{*}_i = I,$$
then the functions given by $S_{i_1}\cdots S_{i_m}\mathbf{1}(z)$, where $m\in\mathbb{N}$, $i_j\in\{0,1\}$, and $\mathbf{1}(z)=1$, form an orthonormal basis for the reproducing kernel Hilbert space associated to the kernel function $K(z,w)$. It was shown in [@jet2016] that this is the case for the family of polynomials $\mathcal{F} = \{az^{2^{n+2}}-2az^{2^{n+1}}:a\neq0\}$, if we take the exponent $\alpha$ in $K(z,w)$ to be $2^n$. We will show that the corresponding orthonormal bases vary continuously on the parameter $a$.
Basic Definitions and Propositions
==================================
Complex Dynamics
----------------
Two excellent references for a more detailed and complete theory of complex dynamics include [@beardon2000iteration] and [@milnor2006dynamics]. We will always denote by $R$ and $S$ a rational map.
If $\zeta$ is a complex number satisfying the properties $R(\zeta) = \zeta$ and $|R^{'}(\zeta)|<1$, then we call $\zeta$ an attracting fixed point of $R$. In particular, if $R^{'}(\zeta) = 0$, then $\zeta$ is called a super-attracting fixed point of $R$.
Associated to any attracting fixed point is the set of those complex numbers which are “attracted” to the fixed point.
Suppose $R$ has an attracting fixed point $\zeta$. The basin of attraction of $R$ containing the attracting fixed point $\zeta$ is given by
$$B_{R,\zeta} = \left\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}R^{\circ i}(z)=\zeta\right\}$$
where $R^{\circ i}$ denotes $R$ composed with itself $i$ times.
Some basins of attraction at $0$ have a seemingly uncommon characterization:
Suppose $R$ is a rational map with an attracting fixed point at $0$. If $\infty$ does not belong to $B_{R,0}$, then $$B_{R,0} = \left\{z\in\mathbb{C}:\sum_{i=0}^\infty |R^{\circ i}(z)|<\infty\right\}$$
We first note that any such degree $n$ rational map must be of the form
$$R(z) = \dfrac{\sum_{i=1}^na_iz^i}{\sum_{i=0}^mb_iz^i},\qquad \left|\dfrac{a_1}{b_0}\right|<1,\quad a_n,b_m,b_0\neq0$$
- \
If $z\in\Omega$, then $\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}R^{i}(z) = 0$, and thus $\Omega$ is contained within $B_{R,0}$.\
- \
To obtain the reverse inclusion, we use the ratio test. Let $\zeta\in B_{R,0}$ and let $z_j = R^{\circ j}(\zeta)$. We then compute
$$\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{|R^{\circ j+1}(\zeta)|}{|R^{\circ j}(\zeta)|}=\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{|R(z_j)|}{|z_j|} = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{|\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_{i+1}z_j^i|}{|\sum_{i=0}^mb_iz_j^i|}=\left|\dfrac{a_1}{b_0}\right|<1$$
Thus we have that the series
$$\sum_{i=0}^\infty|R^{\circ i}(\zeta)|$$
converges absolutely, giving $\zeta\in\Omega$, which completes the proof.
When $0<R^{'}(0)<1$, the above lemma easily follows from the proof of Koenigs’ Linearization Theorem. However, through the ratio test, one can see that the lemma actually holds for $R^{'}(0) = 0$ as well. The usefulness of this lemma will become apparent when combined Lemma 3.2.
Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces
---------------------------------
A classic reference for the theory of kernel functions is [@aronszajn1950theory], while a more modern approach is given in [@paulsen2016introduction].
Suppose $X$ is a set. A reproducing kernel Hilbert space on $X$ is a Hilbert space of functions, $\mathcal{H}$, on $X$ for which every linear evaluation functional is bounded.
From this one is able to conclude the existence of a unique function on $X$, $K(z,w)$ satisfying $$h(w) = \langle h(z), K(z,w) \rangle$$
for all $h\in\mathcal{H}$. This function has many names, including kernel function, reproducing kernel, and positive definite function. It can be shown that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the collection of all positive definite functions on a set $X$ and the collection of all reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces on the set $X$. For this reason, $(\mathcal{H}, K)$ is often referred to as a reproducing kernel pair on $X$. Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces have many nice properties; among them is the following:
Suppose $(\mathcal{H},K)$ is a reproducing pair on some set $X$. If $\{e_i\}_{i\in I}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}$, then $$K(z,w) = \sum_{i\in I}e_i(z)\overline{e_i(w)}$$
Essentially, if one knows an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}$, then one knows the kernel function $K$ as well.
Kernel Functions on Basins of Attraction
========================================
In this section, we recall results from [@alpay2015infinite] which are relevant to later sections. In what follows, we will let $\mathcal{U}$ be a topological space, $(\mathcal{H}_k, k)$ a reproducing kernel pair on $\mathcal{U}$ with orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}_{i\in I}$, and $R$ an endomorphism on $\mathcal{U}$ such that there exists $l\in\mathcal{U}$ satisfying $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}R_n(z) = l$ for all $z\in\mathcal{U}$. The following proposition says that under certain conditions one may obtain a kernel function on $\mathcal{U}$ as an infinite product involving the iteration of the endomorphism $R$.
Suppose that $K(z,w)$ is a continuous map on $\mathcal{U}$, not identically $0$, such that $K(z,w) = k(z,w)K(R(z), R(w))$. If $K(l,l)>0$, then $K(z,w)$ is a kernel function on $\mathcal{U}$ and $$K(z,w) = \left(\prod_{n=0}^\infty\left(\sum_{i\in I}e_i(R_n(z))\overline{e_i(R_n(w))}\right)\right)K(l,l)$$
The following lemma will allow us to apply Proposition 3.1 to basins of attraction at $0$.
If $k(z,w) = 1 + t(z,w)$ where $t$ is also a kernel function on $\mathcal{U}$ and the set $$\Omega = \left\{z\in\mathcal{U}: \sum_{n=0}^\infty|t(R_n(z),R_n(z)|<\infty\right\}$$ is non-empty, then the infinite product $$K(z,w) = \prod_{n=0}^\infty k(R_n(z),R_n(w))$$ converges on $\Omega$, and satisfies $K(z,w) = k(z,w)K(R(z), R(w))$ for all $z,w\in\Omega$.
The next few result aim for an explicit construction of an orthonormal basis for the reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ associated to the kernel function $K$ obtained in Proposition 3.1. Suppose that for every $z\in\Omega$, the map $R$ satisfies the cardinality condition $$M(z) = \text{Card}\{\zeta\in\Omega:\,R(\zeta) = z\}<\infty$$
and either $$\dfrac{1}{M(z)}\sum_{R(\zeta)=z}e_i(\zeta)e_j(\zeta)^{*} = \delta_{ij},\qquad \forall i,j\in I \tag{$\dagger$}$$
or $$\dfrac{1}{M(z)}\sum_{R(\zeta)=z}e_i(\zeta)e_j(\zeta) = \delta_{ij},\qquad \forall i,j\in I \tag{$\ddagger$}$$
These conditions were designed with the Cuntz relations in mind. Details on these relations can be found in [@cuntz1977simplec].
Consider the operators $\{S_i\}_{i\in I}$ defined on $\mathcal{H}$ by $S_i(f)(z) = e_i(z)f(R(z))$. If either $\dagger$ or $\ddagger$ holds, then the operators $\{S_i\}_{i\in I}$ satisfy the Cuntz relations.
With these operators one can construct an orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}$. First observe that the function $\mathbf{1}(z) = 1$ is in $\mathcal{H}$. Let $\rho = \dim\mathcal{H}_k$ and let $J$ be an index set with cardinality equal to $\rho$. For each natural number $N$, let $S_{\iota_N} = S_{j_1}\cdots S_{j_N}$, where $\iota_N=(j_1,\dots,j_N)\in J^N$. Next define an index set $J^\infty$ by $$J^\infty = \bigcup_{N=1}^\infty J^N$$
Finally, for each $v\in J^\infty$ we define a function $b_v$ by $$b_{v}(z) =S_{v}\mathbf{1}(z)$$
The last theorem of this section states under what conditions these functions form an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}$.
\[onb\] If the operators $\{S_i\}_{i\in I}$ satisfy the Cuntz relations then the collection of functions $\{b_v : v\in J^\infty\}$ form an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}$ and thus $$K(z, w) = \sum_{v\in J^\infty}b_v(z)\overline{b_v(w)}$$
A Family of Examples
====================
A key observation, due to Lemma 2.3, comes from realizing, in the context of complex dynamics, that the set $\Omega$ from Lemma 3.2 is in fact the basin of attraction at $0$ for a rational map $R$. As shown in [@jet2016], taking $t(z,w) = (z\overline{w})^\alpha$ we obtain:
Let $R(z) = \sum_{i=1}^nc_iz^i$ such that $|c_1| < 1$ and suppose $1<\alpha\in\mathbb{N}$. Then $$K(z, w) = \prod_{n=0}^\infty\left(1 + \left[R^{\circ n}(z)\overline{R^{\circ n}(w)}\right]^\alpha\right)$$ is a kernel function on the basin of attraction at $0$.
The rest of this section is devoted to showing that the results from [@alpay2015infinite], given in Section 3, apply to polynomials belonging to the family $$\mathcal{F} = \{R_a(z) = az^{2^{n+2}} - 2az^{2^{n+1}} : a\neq 0\}.$$ In fact, the motivation for studying this family comes from example given in [@alpay2015infinite]. In particular, the authors showed that their methods worked for the polynomial $R(z) = z^4 - 2z^2$. Using a similar approach, we will show that their methods work for any member of the family $\mathcal{F}$.\
First note that $0$ is a super-attracting fixed point of $R_a$, for all $a\neq 0$. Thus each $R_a$ has a basin of attraction at $0$. Setting $t(z,w) = (z\overline{w})^{2^n}$, we may conclude from Theorem 4.1 that $$K_a(z,w) = \prod_{n=0}^\infty\left(1 + \left[R_a^{\circ n}(z)\overline{R_a^{\circ n}(w)}\right]^{2^n}\right)$$
is a kernel function on $B_{R_a,0}$. Denote the corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space by $\mathcal{H}_a$. We now construct an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}_a$. First we show that $R_a$ satisfies $\ddagger$. Before we begin, it is worth noting that since $t(z,w) = 1 + (z\overline{w})^{2^n}$, we have that $e_0(z) = 1$ and $e_1(z) = z^{2^n}$.
Let $k(z,w) = 1 + (z\overline{w})^{2^{n}}$ where $n$ is a non-negative integer. Then $R_a(z) = az^{2^{n+2}} - 2az^{2^{n+1}}$ satisfies $\ddagger$ for all $a\neq 0$.
We need to verify that the following equalities hold for any $w\in\Omega$ $$\dfrac{1}{M(w)}\sum_{R(\zeta)=w}1 = 1,\qquad\qquad \dfrac{1}{M(w)}\sum_{R(\zeta)=w}\zeta^{2^{n+1}} = 1,\qquad\qquad \dfrac{1}{M(w)}\sum_{R(\zeta)=w}\zeta^{2^n} = 0$$
where $M(w) = \text{Card}\{w\in\Omega\ : R(\zeta) = w\}<\infty$. That $M(w) = 2^{n+2}$ follows from the fundamental theorem of algebra and that $\Omega$ is completely invariant with respect to $R$. Thus the first equality follows. From the substitution $u = \zeta^{2^{n+1}}$, we can determine that $$\zeta^{2^{n+1}} = 1 \pm \dfrac{\sqrt{a^2 + aw} }{a}$$ which implies the second equality. Taking the square root of both sides of the previous equality gives $$\zeta^{2^n} = \pm\sqrt{1 \pm \dfrac{\sqrt{a^2 + aw} }{a}}$$
which implies the final equality.
By Theorem 3.3, the operators $S_0$ and $S_1$, defined on $\mathcal{H}_a$ by $$S_0(f)(z) = e_0(z)f(R_a(z)) = f(R_a(z))$$ and $$S_1(f)(z) = e_1(z)f(R_a(z)) = z^{2^n}f(R_a(z)),$$ satisfy the Cuntz relations. Therefore, by Theorem 3.4, the functions $$b_v(z) = S_v\mathbf{1}(z),\text{ where }v\in J^\infty,$$ form an orthonormal basis of $\mathcal{H}_a$. We will now study the dynamics of these basis vectors as $a$ varies.
Dynamics of the family $\mathcal{F}$
====================================
Fix $a\neq 0$, and consider the collection of basis vectors for $\mathcal{H}_a$, which we will denote $\mathcal{B}_a = \{b_{v,a}(z) : v\in J^\infty\}$. We want to be able to say something about how these $b_{v,a}$ look, and we will see that their appearance has very little to do with our choice of $a$. Our two “simplest” basis vectors may be obtained when $v$ consists of a single component. They are given by $$S_0\mathbf{1}(z) = e_0(z)\mathbf{1}(R_a(z)) = \mathbf{1}(z) \text{ and }S_1\mathbf{1}(z) = e_1(z)\mathbf{1}(R_a(z)) = z^{2^n}.$$ If we let $v$ consist of two components, then we gain two basis vectors which are distinct from the previous two: $$S_0S_1\mathbf{1}(z) = S_0(z^{2^n}) = e_0(z)(R_a(z))^{2^n} = \sum_{k=0}^{2^n}\alpha_k(a)z^{2^{2n+2}-2^{n+1}k}$$ and
$$S_1S_1\mathbf{1}(z) = S_1(z^{2^n}) = e_1(z)(R_a(z))^{2^n} = \sum_{k=0}^{2^n}\alpha_k(a)z^{2^{2n+2}-2^{n+1}k + 2^n}$$ where $\alpha_k(a) = (-2)^k\binom{2^n}{k}a^{2^n}$, for $0\leq k\leq 2^n$. One way to describe these two basis vectors is that they are polynomials whose non-zero coefficients, $\alpha_k(a)$, are polynomials in $a$ with the following property: each $\alpha_k(a)$ has coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}$ and constant term equal to $0$. For ease of exposition, we will say that any polynomial fitting the above description has “good form”. With the exception of the first two “simple” basis vectors, we want to show that every other basis vector has good form. To this end we prove the following lemma:
If $f$ is a polynomial with good form, then both $S_0 f$ and $S_1 f$ have good form as well.
If $f$ has good form, then we must have that $f(z) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^ma_iz^i$, where $a_i$ is a polynomial in $a$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}$ and constant term equal to $0$. We have that $S_0f(z) = e_0(z)f(R_a(z)) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^ma_i(R_a(z))^i$. Observe that for each $i$, we have that
$$a_i(R_a(z))^i = \sum_{k=0}^ia_i(-2)^k\binom{i}{k}a^iz^{2^{n+1}(2i-k)},$$
which is a polynomial with good form. Since $S_0f(z)$ is a sum of polynomials having good form, it too is a polynomial with good form. Lastly, observe that $$S_1f(z) = e_1(z)f(R_a(z)) = z^{2^n}(S_0 f(z))$$ and so $S_1f(z)$ is a polynomial with good form as well.
If $v\in J^\infty$ such that $b_{v,a}(z)\neq 1$ and $b_{v,a}(z)\neq z^{2^n}$, then $b_{v,a}(z)$ is a polynomial with good form.
This follows inductively from the fact that both $S_0S_1\mathbf{1}(z)$ and $S_1S_1\mathbf{1}(z)$ are polynomials with good form.
An important observation from the above computations is the following:
Suppose that $R_{a_1}$ and $R_{a_2}$ are polynomials in $\mathcal{F}$ and let $$\beta_i(x)=\sum_{l=0}^{k_i}c_{i_l}x^l$$ $$\text{Then }\, b_{v,a_1}(z) = \sum_{i=0}^n\beta_i(a_1)z^i\text{ if and only if }\, b_{v,a_2}(z) = \sum_{i=0}^n\beta_i(a_2)z^i$$
Since the $b_{v,a}$ are polynomials, we can think of them as elements in the topological space of rational maps on the Riemann sphere. In this sense, we can say that the $b_{v,a}$ vary continuously as $a$ varies.
For each $v\in J^\infty$, the map $\Gamma_v$ on $\mathbb{C}/\{0\}$ given by $a\mapsto b_{v,a}$ is continuous.
Let $a_n$ be a sequence in $\mathbb{C}/\{0\}$ converging to $a\in\mathbb{C}/\{0\}$. Then we have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Gamma_v(a_n) = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}b_{v,a_n} = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{i=0}^m\beta_i(a_n)z^i = \sum_{i=0}^m\beta_i(a)z^i = b_{v,a} = \Gamma(a)$$
Since the coefficients of $b_v$ is given by the polynomial $\beta_i(x)$ which is continuous, we have that $\Gamma_v$ is continuous as well.
The idea with this theorem is that the basis vectors $b_{v,a}$ approximate, in the sense of continuity, their “neighboring” basis vectors.
[9]{}
Daniel Alpay, Palle Jorgensen, Izchak Lewkowicz, and Itzik Martziano, *Infinite product represenations for kernels and iterations of functions*, Recent Advances in Inverse Scattering, Schur Analysis, and Stochastic Processes, Springer, 2015, pp. 67-87.
Nachman Aronszajn, *Theory of reproducing kernels*, Transactions of the American mathematical society **68** (1950), no. 3, 337-404.
Alan F Beardon, *Iteration of rational functions: Complex analytic dynamical systems*, vol. 132, Springer Science & Business Media, 2000.
Joachim Cuntz, *Simple* $c^{*}$*-algebras generated by isometries*, Communications in mathematical physics **57** (1977), no. 2, 173-185.
John Willard Milnor, *Dynamics in one complex variable*, vol. 160, Springer, 2006.
Vern I Paulsen and Mrinal Raghupathi, *An introduction to the theory of reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces*, vol. 152, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
James Tipton, *Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces and complex dynamics*, doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 2016.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction and Summary. {#sec1}
=========================
In the proofs of many of the results of Schoolfield (1999a), the $L^2$ distance to uniformity for the random walk (on the so-called *wreath product* of a group $G$ with the symmetric group $S_n$) being analyzed is often found to be expressible in terms of the $L^2$ distance to uniformity for related random walks on the symmetric groups $S_j$ with $1
\leq j \leq n$. Similarly, in the proofs of many of the results of Schoolfield (1999b), the $L^2$ distance to stationarity for the Markov chain being analyzed is often found to be expressible in terms of the $L^2$ distance to stationarity of related Markov chains on the homogeneous spaces $S_{i+j}/ (S_i \times S_j)$ for various values of $i$ and $j$. It is from this observation that the results of this paper have evolved. We develop a method, with broad applications, for bounding the rate of convergence to stationarity for a general class of random walks and Markov chains in terms of closely related chains on the symmetric groups and related homogeneous spaces. Certain specialized problems of this sort were previously analyzed with the use of group representation theory. Our analysis is more directly probabilistic and yields some insight into the basic structure of the random walks and Markov chains being analyzed.
Markov Chains on $G~\wr~S_n$. {#sec1.1}
-----------------------------
We now describe one of the two basic set-ups we will be considering \[namely, the one corresponding to the results in Schoolfield (1999a)\]. Let $n$ be a positive integer and let $P$ be a probability measure defined on a finite set $G$ ($ = \{1, \ldots, m\}$, say). Imagine $n$ cards, labeled $1$ through $n$ on their fronts, arranged on a table in sequential order. Write the number $1$ on the back of each card. Now repeatedly permute the cards and rewrite the numbers on their backs, as follows. For each independent repetition, begin by choosing integers $i$ and $j$ independently according to $P$.
If $i \neq j$, transpose the cards in positions $i$ and $j$. Then, (probabilistically) independently of the choice of $i$ and $j$, replace the numbers on the backs of the transposed cards with two numbers chosen independently from $G$ according to $P$.
If $i = j$ (which occurs with probability $1 / n$), leave all cards in their current positions. Then, again independently of the choice of $j$, replace the number on the back of the card in position $j$ by a number chosen according to $P$.
Our interest is in bounding the mixing time for Markov chains of the sort we have described. More generally, consider any probability measure, say $\widehat{Q}$, on the set of ordered pairs $\hat{\pi}$ of the form $\hat{\pi} = (\pi, J)$, where $\pi$ is a permutation of $\{1, \ldots, n\}$ and $J$ is a subset of the set of fixed points of $\pi$. At each time step, we choose such a $\hat{\pi}$ according to $\widehat{Q}$ and then (a) permute the cards by multiplying the current permutation of front-labels by $\pi$; and (b) replace the back-numbers of all cards whose positions have changed, and also every card whose (necessarily unchanged) position belongs to $J$, by numbers chosen independently according to $P$.
The specific transpositions example discussed above fits the more general description, taking $\widehat{Q}$ to be defined by
$$\label{1.1}
\begin{array}{rcll}
\widehat{Q}(e,\{j\}) & := & \displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2} & \mbox{for
any $j \in [n]$, with~$e$ the identity permutation}, \vspace{.5pc} \\
\widehat{Q}(\tau,\emptyset) & := & \displaystyle \frac{2}{n^2} &
\mbox{for any transposition~$\tau$}, \vspace{.5pc} \\
\widehat{Q}(\hat{\pi}) & := & 0 & \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}$$
When $m = 1$, i.e., when the aspect of back-number labeling is ignored, the state space of the chain can be identified with the symmetric group $S_n$, and the mixing time can be bounded as in the following classical result, which is Theorem 1 of Diaconis and Shahshahani (1981) and was later included in Diaconis (1988) as Theorem 5 in Section D of Chapter 3. The total variation norm ($\|\cdot\|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}}$) and the $L^2$ norm ($\|\cdot\|_2$) will be reviewed in Section \[sec1.3\].
\[1.2\] Let $\nu^{*k}$ denote the distribution at time $k$ for the random transpositions chain [(\[1.1\])]{} when $m = 1$, and let $U$ be the uniform distribution on $S_n$. Let $k = \frac{1}{2} n \log n + cn$. Then there exists a universal constant $a > 0$ such that $$\| \nu^{*k} - U \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}} \ \ \leq \ \
\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}\ \| \nu^{*k} - U \|_2 \ \
\leq \ \ a e^{- 2 c} \ \ \ \mbox{\rm for all\ }c > 0.$$
Without reviewing the precise details, we remark that this bound is sharp, in that there is a matching lower bound for total variation (and hence also for $L^2$). Thus, roughly put, $\frac{1}{2} n \log n + cn$ steps are necessary and sufficient for approximate stationarity.
Now consider the chain (\[1.1\]) for general $m \geq 2$, but restrict attention to the case that $P$ is uniform on $G$. An elementary approach to bounding the mixing time is to combine the mixing time result of Theorem \[1.2\] (which measures how quickly the cards get mixed up) with a coupon collector’s analysis (which measures how quickly their back-numbers become random). This approach is carried out in Theorem 3.6.4 of Schoolfield (1999a), but gives an upper bound only on total variation distance. If we are to use the chain’s mixing-time analysis in conjunction with the powerful comparison technique of Diaconis and Saloff-Coste (1993a, 1993b) to bound mixing times for other more complicated chains, as is done for example in Section 4 of Schoolfield (1999a), we need an upper bound on $L^2$ distance.
Such a bound can be obtained using group representation theory. Indeed, the Markov chain we have described is a random walk on the complete monomial group $G \wr S_n$, which is the wreath product of the group $G$ with $S_n$; see Schoolfield (1999a) for further background and discussion. The following result is Theorem 3.1.3 of Schoolfield (1999a).
\[1.3\] Let $\nu^{*k}$ denote the distribution at time $k$ for the random transpositions chain [(\[1.1\])]{} when $P$ is uniform on $G$ (with $|G| \geq 2$). Let $k = \frac{1}{2} n \log n + \frac{1}{4} n \log(|G| -
1) + cn$. Then there exists a universal constant $b > 0$ such that $$\| \nu^{*k} - U \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}} \ \ \leq \ \
\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \ \| \nu^{*k} - U \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ b e^{- 2 c} \ \ \
\mbox{\rm for all\ }c > 0.$$
For $L^2$ distance (but not for TV distance), the presence of the additional term $\frac{1}{4} n \log(|G| - 1)$ in the mixing-time bound is “real,” in that there is a matching lower bound: see the table at the end of Section 3.6 in Schoolfield (1999a).
The group-representation approach becomes substantially more difficult to carry out when the card-rearrangement scheme is something other than random transpositions, and prohibitively so if the resulting step-distribution on $S_n$ is not constant on conjugacy classes. Moreover, there is no possibility whatsoever of using this approach when $P$ is non-uniform, since then we are no longer dealing with random walk on a group.
In Section \[sec2\] we provide an $L^2$-analysis of our chain for completely general shuffles $\widehat{Q}$ of the sort we have described. More specifically, in Theorem \[2.3\] we derive an exact formula for the $L^2$ distance to stationarity in terms of the $L^2$ distance for closely related random walks on the symmetric groups $S_j$ for $1 \leq j
\leq n$. Subsequent corollaries establish more easily applied results in special cases. In particular, Corollary \[2.8\] extends Theorem \[1.3\] to handle non-uniform $P$.
Our new method does have its limitations. The back-number randomizations must not depend on the current back numbers (but rather chosen afresh from $P$), and they must be independent and identically distributed from card to card. So, for example, we do not know how to adapt our method to analyze the “paired-shuffles” random walk of Section 3.7 in Schoolfield (1999a).
Markov Chains on $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r~\times~S_{n - r})$. {#sec1.2}
--------------------------------------------------------
We now turn to our second basic set-up \[namely, the one corresponding to the results in Schoolfield (1999b)\]. Again, let $n$ be a positive integer and let $P$ be a probability measure defined on a finite set $G = \{1,
\ldots, m\}$.
Imagine two racks, the first with positions labeled $1$ through $r$ and the second with positions labeled $r + 1$ through $n$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $1 \leq r \leq n/2$. Suppose that there are $n$ balls, labeled with serial numbers $1$ through $n$, each initially placed at its corresponding rack position. On each ball is written the number $1$, which we shall call its $G$-number. Now repeatedly rearrange the balls and rewrite their $G$-numbers, as follows.
Consider any $\widehat{Q}$ as in Section \[sec1.1\]. At each time step, choose $\hat{\pi}$ from $\widehat{Q}$ and then (a) permute the balls by multiplying the current permutation of serial numbers by $\pi$; (b) independently, replace the $G$-numbers of all balls whose positions have changed as a result of the permutation, and also every ball whose (necessarily unchanged) position belongs to $J$, by numbers chosen independently from $P$; and (c) rearrange the balls on each of the two racks so that their serial numbers are in increasing order.
Notice that steps (a)–(b) are carried out in precisely the same way as steps (a)–(b) in Section \[sec1.1\]. The state of the system is completely determined, at each step, by the ordered $n$-tuple of $G$-numbers of the $n$ balls $1, 2, \ldots, n$ and the unordered set of serial numbers of balls on the first rack. We have thus described a Markov chain on the set of all $|G|^n \cdot {n \choose
r}$ ordered pairs of $n$-tuples of elements of $G$ and $r$-element subsets of a set with $n$ elements.
In our present setting, the transpositions example (\[1.1\]) fits the more general description, taking $\widehat{Q}$ to be defined by
$$\label{1.4}
\begin{array}{rcll}
\widehat{Q}(\kappa,\{j\}) & := & \displaystyle \frac{1}{n^2 r! (n-r)!}
& \mbox{where $\kappa \in K$ and $j \in [n]$}, \vspace{.5pc} \\
\widehat{Q}(\kappa,\{i,j\}) & := & \displaystyle \frac{2}{n^2 r!
(n-r)!} & \begin{array}{l} \mbox{where $\kappa \in K$ and $i \neq j$}
\\ \mbox{with $i,j \in [r]$ or $i,j \in [n] \setminus [r]$}, \end{array}
\vspace{.5pc} \\
\widehat{Q}(\tau \kappa,\emptyset) & := & \displaystyle \frac{2}{n^2
r! (n-r)!} & \mbox{where $\tau \kappa \in T K$}, \vspace{.5pc} \\
\widehat{Q}(\hat{\pi}) & := & 0 & \mbox{otherwise},
\end{array}$$
where $K := S_r \times S_{n-r}$, $T$ is the set of all transpositions in $S_n \setminus K$, and $T K := \{ \tau \kappa \in S_n :
\tau \in T \ \mbox{and}\ \kappa \in K \}$. When $m = 1$, the state space of the chain can be identified with the homogeneous space $S_n / (S_r
\times S_{n - r})$. The chain is then a variant of the celebrated Bernoulli–Laplace diffusion model. For the classical model, Diaconis and Shahshahani (1987) determined the mixing time. Similarly, Schoolfield (1999b) determined the mixing time of the present variant, which slows down the classical chain by a factor of $\frac{n^2}{2 r (n -
r)}$ by not forcing two balls to switch racks at each step. The following result is Theorem 2.5.3 of Schoolfield (1999b).
\[1.5\] Let $\widetilde{\nu^{*k}}$ denote the distribution at time $k$ for the variant [(\[1.4\])]{} of the Bernoulli–Laplace model when $m = 1$, and let $\widetilde{U}$ be the uniform distribution on $S_n / (S_r \times S_{n
- r})$. Let $k = \frac{1}{4} n (\log n + c)$. Then there exists a universal constant $a > 0$ such that $$\| \widetilde{\nu^{*k}} - \widetilde{U} \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}}
\ \ \leq \ \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \ \| \widetilde{\nu^{*k}} -
\widetilde{U} \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ a e^{- 2 c} \ \ \ \mbox{\rm for all\ }c >
0.$$
Again there are matching lower bounds, for $r$ not too far from $n/2$, so this Markov chain is twice as fast to converge as the random walk of Theorem \[1.2\].
The following analogue, for the special case $m = 2$, of Theorem \[1.3\] in the present setting was obtained as Theorem 3.1.3 of Schoolfield (1999b).
\[1.6\] Let $\widetilde{\nu^{*k}}$ denote the distribution at time $k$ for the variant [(\[1.4\])]{} of the Bernoulli–Laplace model when $P$ is uniform on $G$ with $|G| = 2$. Let $k = \frac{1}{4} n (\log n + c)$. Then there exists a universal constant $b > 0$ such that $$\| \widetilde{\nu^{*k}} - \widetilde{U} \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}}
\ \ \leq \ \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \ \| \widetilde{\nu^{*k}} -
\widetilde{U} \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ be^{-c/2} \ \ \ \mbox{\rm for all\ }\ c >
0.$$
Notice that Theorem \[1.6\] provides (essentially) the same mixing time bound as that found in Theorem \[1.5\]. Again there are matching lower bounds, for $r$ not too far from $n/2$, so this Markov chain is twice as fast to converge as the random walk of Theorem \[1.3\] in the special case $m = 2$.
In Section \[sec3\], we provide a general $L^2$-analysis of our chain, which has state space equal to the homogeneous space $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r
\times S_{n-r})$. More specifically, in Theorem \[3.3\] we derive an exact formula for the $L^2$ distance to stationarity in terms of the $L^2$ distance for closely related Markov chains on the homogeneous spaces $S_{i+j}/ (S_i \times S_j)$ for various values of $i$ and $j$. Subsequent corollaries establish more easily applied results in special cases. In particular, Corollary \[3.8\] extends Theorem \[1.6\] to handle non-uniform $P$.
Again, our method does have its limitations. For example, we do not know how to adapt our method to analyze the “paired-flips” Markov chain of Section 3.4 in Schoolfield (1999b).
Distances Between Probability Measures. {#sec1.3}
---------------------------------------
We now review several ways of measuring distances between probability measures on a finite set $G$. Let $R$ be a fixed reference probability measure on $G$ with $R(g) > 0$ for all $g \in G$. As discussed in Aldous and Fill (200x), for each $1 \leq p < \infty$ define the *$L^p$ norm* $\| \nu \|_p$ of any signed measure $\nu$ on $G$ (with respect to $R$) by $$\| \nu \|_p \ \ := \ \ \left( \mathbb{E}_R
\left| \frac{\nu}{R} \right|^p \right)^{1/p} \ \ =
\ \ \left( \sum_{g \in G} \frac{\left|
\nu(g) \right|^p}{R(g)^{p-1}} \right)^{1/p}.$$ Thus the $L^p$ distance between any two probability measures $P$ and $Q$ on $G$ (with respect to $R$) is $$\| P - Q \|_p \ \ = \ \ \left( \mathbb{E}_R \left |\frac{
P - Q}{R} \right|^p \right)^{1/p} \ \ =
\ \ \left( \sum_{g \in G} \frac{\left|
P(g) - Q(g) \right|^p}{R(g)^{p-1}} \right)^{1/p}$$ Notice that $$\| P - Q \|_1 \ \ = \ \ \sum_{g \in G} |P(g) - Q(g)|.$$ In our applications we will always take $Q = R$ (and $R$ will always be the stationary distribution of the Markov chain under consideration at that time). In that case, when $U$ is the uniform distribution on $G$, $$\| P - U \|_2 \ \ = \ \ \left( |G| \sum_{g \in G} |P(g) - U(g)|^2
\right)^{1/2}.$$
The *total variation distance* between $P$ and $Q$ is defined by $$\| P - Q \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}} \ \ := \ \ \max_{A \subseteq G}
|P(A) - Q(A)|.$$ Notice that $\| P - Q \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}} \ = \ \frac{1}{2} \|
P - Q \|_1$. It is a direct consequence of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that $$\| P - U \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}} \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle
\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \ \| P - U \|_2.$$
If **P**$(\cdot,\cdot)$ is a reversible transition matrix on $G$ with stationary distribution $R = {\bf P}^{\infty}(\cdot)$, then, for any $g_0
\in G$, $$\| {\bf P}^{k}\left( g_0, \cdot \right) -
{\bf P}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_2^2 \ \ =
\ \ \displaystyle \frac{ {\bf P}^{2k}\left( g_0, g_0 \right) }
{ {\bf P}^{\infty}\left( g_0 \right) } \ - \ 1.$$
All of the distances we have discussed here are indeed metrics on the space of probability measures on $G$.
Markov Chains on $G~\wr~S_n$. {#sec2}
=============================
We now analyze a very general Markov chain on the complete monomial group $G~\wr~S_n$. It should be noted that, in the results which follow, there is no essential use of the group structure of $G$. So the results of this section extend simply; in general, the Markov chain of interest is on the set $G^n \times S_n$.
A Class of Chains on $G~\wr~S_n$. {#sec2.1}
---------------------------------
We introduce a generalization of permutations $\pi \in S_n$ which will provide an extra level of generality in the results that follow. Recall that any permutation $\pi \in S_n$ can be written as the product of disjoint cyclic factors, say $$\pi = (i_1^{(1)}\ i_2^{(1)}\ \cdots\ i_{k_1}^{(1)})\ (i_1^{(2)}\
i_2^{(2)}\ \cdots\ i_{k_2}^{(2)})\ \cdots\ (i_1^{(\ell)}\ i_2^{(\ell)}\
\cdots\ i_{k_\ell}^{(\ell)}),$$ where the $K := k_1 + \cdots + k_{\ell}$ numbers $i_b^{(a)}$ are distinct elements from $[n] := \{1, 2, \ldots, n \}$ and we may suppose $k_a \geq
2$ for $1 \leq a \leq \ell$. The $n - K$ elements of $[n]$ not included among the $i_b^{(a)}$ are each fixed by $\pi$; we denote this $(n-K)$-set by $F(\pi)$.
We refer to the ordered pair of a permutation $\pi \in S_n$ and a subset $J$ of $F(\pi)$ as an *augmented permutation*. We denote the set of all such ordered pairs $\hat{\pi} = ( \pi, J )$, with $\pi \in S_n$ and $J
\subseteq F(\pi)$, by $\widehat{S}_n$. For example, $\hat{\pi} \in
\widehat{S}_{10}$ given by $\hat{\pi} \ = \ \left( (12)(34)(567), \{8,10\}
\right)$ is the augmentation of the permutation $\pi \ = \ (12)(34)(567)
\in S_{10}$ by the subset $\{8,10\}$ of $F(\pi) = \{8,9,10\}$. Notice that any given $\hat{\pi} \in \widehat{S}_n$ corresponds to a unique permutation $\pi \in S_n$; denote the mapping $\hat{\pi} \mapsto \pi$ by $T$. For $\hat{\pi} = (\pi,J) \in \widehat{S}_n$, define $I(\hat{\pi})$ to be the set of indices $i$ *included* in $\hat{\pi}$, in the sense that either $i$ is *not* a fixed point of $\pi$ or $i \in J$; for our example, $I(\hat{\pi}) \ = \ \{ 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 \}$.
Let $\widehat{Q}$ be a probability measure on $\widehat{S}_n$ such that
$$\label{2.0}
\widehat{Q}(\pi,J) \ = \ \widehat{Q}(\pi^{-1},J) \ \ \ \mbox{for all $\pi
\in S_n$ and $J \subseteq F(\pi) = F(\pi^{-1})$}.$$
We refer to this property as *augmented symmetry*. This terminology is (in part) justified by the fact that if $\widehat{Q}$ is augmented symmetric, then the measure $Q$ on $S_n$ induced by $T$ is given by $$Q(\pi) \ = \ \sum_{J \subseteq F(\pi)} \widehat{Q}\left( (\pi,J)
\right) \ = \ Q(\pi^{-1}) \ \ \ \mbox{for each $\pi \in S_n$}$$ and so is symmetric in the usual sense. We assume that $Q$ is not concentrated on a subgroup of $G$ or a coset thereof. Thus $Q^{*k}$ approaches the uniform distribution $U$ on $S_n$ for large $k$.
Suppose that $G$ is a finite group. Label the elements of $G$ as $g_1,
g_2, \ldots, g_{|G|}$. Let $P$ be a probability measure defined on $G$. Define $p_i := P(g_i)$ for $1 \leq i \leq |G|$. To avoid trivialities, we suppose $\displaystyle p_{\min} := \min \left\{ p_i : 1 \leq i \leq |G|
\right\} > 0$.
Let $\hat{\xi}_1, \hat{\xi}_2, \ldots$ be a sequence of independent augmented permutations each distributed according to $\widehat{Q}$. These correspond uniquely to a sequence $\xi_1, \xi_2, \ldots$ of permutations each distributed according to $Q$. Define **Y** $:= (Y_0, Y_1, Y_2,
\ldots)$ to be the random walk on $S_n$ with $Y_0 := e$ and $Y_k := \xi_k
\xi_{k-1} \cdots \xi_1$ for all $k \geq 1$. (There is no loss of generality in defining $Y_0 := e$, as any other $\pi \in S_n$ can be transformed to the identity by a permutation of the labels.)
Define **X** $:= (X_0, X_1, X_2, \ldots)$ to be the Markov chain on $G^n$ such that $X_0 := \vec{x}_0 = (\chi_1, \ldots, \chi_n)$ with $\chi_i \in G$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$ and, at each step $k$ for $k \geq 1$, the entries of $X_{k-1}$ whose positions are included in $I(\hat{\xi}_k)$ are independently changed to an element of $G$ distributed according to $P$.
Define **W** $:= (W_0, W_1, W_2, \ldots)$ to be the Markov chain on $G~\wr~S_n$ such that $W_k := (X_k; Y_k)$ for all $k \geq 0$. Notice that the random walk on $G~\wr~S_n$ analyzed in Theorem \[1.3\] is a special case of **W**, with $P$ being the uniform distribution and $\widehat{Q}$ being defined as at (\[1.1\]). Let **P**$(\cdot,
\cdot)$ be the transition matrix for **W** and let **P**$^{\infty}(\cdot)$ be the stationary distribution for **W**.
Notice that $$\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} \left( \vec{x};\pi \right) \ = \
\frac{1}{n!} \prod_{i=1}^n p_{x_i}$$ for any $(\vec{x};\pi) \in G~\wr~S_n$ and that $$\mbox{\textbf{P}} \left( (\vec{x};\pi), (\vec{y};\sigma) \right) \ = \
\sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n : T(\hat{\rho}) = \sigma \pi^{-1}}
\widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho}) \left[ \prod_{j \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right]
\cdot \left[ \prod_{\ell \not\in I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(x_{\ell} =
y_{\ell}) \right]$$ for any $(\vec{x};\pi), (\vec{y};\sigma) \in G~\wr~S_n$. Thus, using the augmented symmetry of $\widehat{Q}$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \vec{x};\pi \right)
\mbox{\textbf{P}} \left( (\vec{x};\pi), (\vec{y};\sigma) \right)
\vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \left[ \frac{1}{n!} \prod_{i=1}^n p_{x_i} \right]
\sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n : T(\hat{\rho}) = \sigma \pi^{-1}}
\widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho}) \left[ \prod_{j \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right]
\cdot \left[ \prod_{\ell \not\in I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(x_{\ell} =
y_{\ell}) \right] \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n : T(\hat{\rho}) =
\sigma \pi^{-1}} \widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho}) \left[ \frac{1}{n!} \left(
\prod_{i \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{x_i} \right) \left( \prod_{i \not\in
I(\hat{\rho})} p_{x_i} \right) \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{j \in
I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{\ell \not\in
I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(x_{\ell} = y_{\ell}) \right] \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n : T(\hat{\rho}) =
\pi \sigma^{-1}} \widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho}) \left[ \frac{1}{n!} \left(
\prod_{i \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{x_i} \right) \left( \prod_{j \not\in
I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right) \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{j \in
I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{\ell \not\in
I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(y_{\ell} = x_{\ell}) \right] \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \left[ \frac{1}{n!} \prod_{j=1}^n p_{y_j} \right]
\sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n : T(\hat{\rho}) = \pi \sigma^{-1}}
\widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho}) \left[ \prod_{i \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{x_i} \right]
\cdot \left[ \prod_{\ell \not\in I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(y_{\ell} =
x_{\ell}) \right] \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \vec{y};\sigma
\right) \mbox{\textbf{P}} \left( (\vec{y};\sigma), (\vec{x};\pi) \right).
\end{array}$$ Therefore, **P** is reversible, which is a necessary condition in order to apply the comparison technique of Diaconis and Saloff-Coste (1993a).
Convergence to Stationarity: Main Result. {#sec2.2}
-----------------------------------------
For notational purposes, let
$$\label{2.1} \mu_n(J) \ \ := \ \ \widehat{Q}\{
\hat{\sigma} \in \widehat{S}_n : I(\hat{\sigma}) \subseteq J\}.$$
For any $J \subseteq [n]$, let $S_{(J)}$ be the subgroup of $S_n$ consisting of those $\sigma \in S_n$ with $[n] \setminus F(\sigma)
\subseteq J$. If $\hat{\pi} \in \widehat{S}_n$ is random with distribution $\widehat{Q}$, then, when the conditioning event $$E := \{ I(\hat{\pi}) \subseteq J \}
\bigg[ = \{ [n] \setminus F\left( T(\hat{\pi}) \right) \subseteq J \} \bigg]$$ has positive probability, the probability measure induced by $T$ from the conditional distribution (call it $\widehat{Q}_{S_{(J)}}$) of $\hat{\pi}$ given $E$ is concentrated on $S_{(J)}$. Call this induced measure $Q_{S_{(J)}}$. Notice that $\widehat{Q}_{S_{(J)}}$, like $\widehat{Q}$, is augmented symmetric and hence that $Q_{S_{(J)}}$ is symmetric on $S_{(J)}$. Let $U_{S_{(J)}}$ be the uniform measure on $S_{(J)}$. For notational purposes, let
$$\label{2.2}
d_k(J) \ \ := \ \ |J|! \| Q_{S_{(J)}}^{*k} - U_{S_{(J)}} \|_2^2.$$
*Example.* Let $\widehat{Q}$ be defined as at (\[1.1\]). Then $\widehat{Q}$ satisfies the augmented symmetry property (\[2.0\]). In Corollary \[2.8\] we will be using $\widehat{Q}$ to define a random walk on $G~\wr~S_n$ which is precisely the random walk analyzed in Theorem \[1.3\].
For now, however, we will be satisfied to determine $\widehat{Q}_{S_{(J)}}$ and $Q_{S_{(J)}}$, where $J \subseteq [n]$. It is easy to verify that $$\begin{array}{rcll}
\widehat{Q}_{S_{(J)}}(e,\{j\}) & := & \displaystyle \frac{1}{|J|^2} &
\mbox{for each $j \in J$}, \vspace{.5pc} \\
\widehat{Q}_{S_{(J)}}((p\ q),\emptyset) & := & \displaystyle
\frac{2}{|J|^2} & \mbox{for each transposition $\tau \in S_n$ with
$\{p,q\} \subseteq J$}, \vspace{.5pc} \\
\widehat{Q}_{S_{(J)}}(\hat{\pi}) & := & 0 & \mbox{otherwise},
\end{array}$$ and hence that $\widehat{Q}_{S_{(J)}}$ is the probability measure defined at (\[1.1\]), but with $[n]$ changed to $J$. Thus, roughly put, the random walk analyzed in Theorem \[1.3\], conditionally restricted to the indices in $J$, gives a random walk “as if $J$ were the only indices.”
The following result establishes an upper bound on the total variation distance by deriving an exact formula for $\| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^k \left(
(\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2$.
\[2.3\] Let ***W*** be the Markov chain on the complete monomial group $G~\wr~S_n$ defined in Section [\[sec2.1\]]{}. Then
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right)
- \emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}}^2 & \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\emph{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]}
\frac{n!}{|J|!} \left[ \prod_{i \not\in J} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right] \mu_n(J)^{2k} \ d_k(J)
\vspace{1pc} \\
& & \displaystyle + \ \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{J: J \subsetneq
[n]} \frac{n!}{|J|!} \left[ \prod_{i \not\in J} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right] \mu_n(J)^{2k}.
\end{array}$$ where $\mu_n(J)$ and $d_k(J)$ are defined at [(\[2.1\])]{} and [(\[2.2\])]{}, respectively.
Before proceeding to the proof, we note the following. In the present setting, the argument used to prove Theorem 3.6.4 of Schoolfield (1999a) gives the upper bound $$\| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}} \ \ \leq \ \ \| Q^{*k} - U_{S_n} \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}} \ + \
\mathbb{P} \left( T > k \right),$$ where $T := \inf \left\{ k \geq 1 : H_k = [n] \right\}$ and $H_k$ is defined as at the outset of that theorem’s proof. Theorem \[2.3\] provides a similar type of upper bound, but (a) we work with $L^2$ distance instead of total variation distance and (b) the analysis is more intricate, involving the need to consider how many steps are needed to escape sets $J$ of positions and also the need to know $L^2$ for random walks on subsets of $[n]$. However, Theorem \[2.3\] does derive an *exact* formula for $L^2$.
For each $k \geq 1$, let $\displaystyle H_k := \bigcup_{\ell
= 1}^k I(\hat{\xi}_{\ell}) \subseteq [n]$; so $H_k$ is the (random) set of indices included in at least one of the augmented permutations $\hat{\xi}_1, \ldots, \hat{\xi}_k$. For any given $w = (\vec{x};\pi) \in
G~\wr~S_n$, let $A \subseteq [n]$ be the set of indices such that $x_i
\neq \chi_i$, where $x_i$ is the $i$th entry of $\vec{x}$ and $\chi_i$ is the $i$th entry of $\vec{x}_0$, and let $B = [n] \setminus F(\pi)$ be the set of indices deranged by $\pi$. Notice that $H_k \supseteq A \cup B$. Then $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( W_k = (\vec{x};\pi) \right) & = &
\displaystyle \sum_{C: A \cup B \subseteq C \subseteq [n]}
\mathbb{P}\left( H_k = C, W_k = (\vec{x};\pi) \right) \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \sum_{C: A \cup B \subseteq C \subseteq [n]}
\mathbb{P}\left( H_k = C, Y_k = \pi \right) \cdot \mathbb{P}\left( X_k =
\vec{x} \ |\ H_k = C \right) \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \sum_{C: A \cup B \subseteq C \subseteq [n]}
\mathbb{P}\left( H_k = C, Y_k = \pi \right) \ \prod_{i \in C} p_{x_i}.
\end{array}$$
For any $J \subseteq [n]$, we have $\mathbb{P}\left( H_k \subseteq J, Y_k
= \pi \right) = 0$ unless $B \subseteq J \subseteq [n]$, in which case $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( H_k \subseteq J, Y_k = \pi \right) & = &
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( H_k \subseteq J \right) \ \mathbb{P}\left(
Y_k = \pi \ |\ H_k \subseteq J \right) \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \left( \widehat{Q}\{ \hat{\sigma} \in \widehat{S}_n
: I(\hat{\sigma}) \subseteq J\} \right) ^k \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \pi \
|\ H_k \subseteq J \right) \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \mu_n(J)^k \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \pi \ |\ H_k
\subseteq J \right).
\end{array}$$ Then, by Möbius inversion \[see, e.g., Stanley (1986), Section 3.7\], for any $C \subseteq [n]$ we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( H_k = C, Y_k = \pi \right) & = &
\displaystyle \sum_{J: J \subseteq C} \left( -1 \right)^{|C|-|J|} \
\mathbb{P}\left( H_k \subseteq J, Y_k = \pi \right) \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \sum_{J: B \subseteq J \subseteq C} \left( -1
\right)^{|C|-|J|} \ \mu_n(J)^k \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \pi \ |\ H_k
\subseteq J \right).
\end{array}$$
Combining these results gives $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( W_k = (\vec{x};\pi) \right) & = &
\displaystyle \sum_{C: A \cup B \subseteq C \subseteq [n]} \sum_{J: B
\subseteq J \subseteq C} \left( -1 \right)^{|C|-|J|} \ \mu_n(J)^k \
\mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \pi \ |\ H_k \subseteq J \right) \ \prod_{i \in C}
p_{x_i} \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \sum_{J: B \subseteq J \subseteq [n]} \left( -1
\right)^{|J|} \mu_n(J)^k \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \pi \ |\ H_k \subseteq J
\right) \sum_{C: A \cup J \subseteq C \subseteq [n]} \ \prod_{i \in C}
(-p_{x_i}). \vspace{1pc} \\
\end{array}$$ But for any $D \subseteq [n]$, we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \sum_{C: D \subseteq C \subseteq [n]} \prod_{i \in C}
(-p_{x_i}) & = & \displaystyle \left[ \prod_{i \in D} (-p_{x_i})
\right] \sum_{E: E \subseteq [n] \setminus D} \ \ \prod_{i \in E}
(-p_{x_i}) \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \left[ \prod_{i \in D} (-p_{x_i}) \right] \prod_{i
\in [n] \setminus D} (1 - p_{x_i}) \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \prod_{i \in [n]} \left[ 1 - \mathbb{I}_D(i) -
p_{x_i} \right]
\end{array}$$ where (as usual) $\mathbb{I}_D(i) = 1$ if $i \in D$ and $\mathbb{I}_D(i) =
0$ if $i \not\in D$. Therefore $$\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( W_k = (\vec{x};\pi) \right) \ = \
\sum_{J: B \subseteq J \subseteq [n]} \left( -1 \right)^{|J|} \mu_n(J)^{k}
\ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \pi \ |\ H_k \subseteq J \right) \prod_{i=1}^n
\left[ 1 - \mathbb{I}_{A \cup J}(i) - p_{x_i} \right].$$
In particular, when $(\vec{x};\pi) = (\vec{x}_0; e)$, we have $A =
\emptyset = B$ and $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( W_k = (\vec{x}_0;e) \right) & = &
\displaystyle \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \left( -1 \right)^{|J|} \mu_n(J)^k
\ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = e \ |\ H_k \subseteq J \right) \prod_{i=1}^n
\left[ 1 - \mathbb{I}_J(i) - p_{\chi_i} \right] \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \left[ \prod_{i=1}^n p_{\chi_i} \right] \sum_{J: J
\subseteq [n]} \mu_n(J)^k \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = e \ |\ H_k \subseteq J
\right) \prod_{i \not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1
\right).
\end{array}$$ Notice that $\displaystyle \{ H_k \subseteq J \} = \bigcap_{\ell=1}^k
\left\{ I(\hat{\xi}_{\ell}) \subseteq J \right\}$ for any $k$ and $J$. So $\mathcal{L}$ $\left( (Y_0, Y_1, \ldots, Y_k \ | \ H_k \subseteq J)
\right)$ is the law of a random walk on $S_n$ (through step $k$) with step distribution $Q_{S_{(J)}}$. Thus, using the reversibility of **P** and the symmetry of $Q_{S_{(J)}}$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \ \ = \ \ \displaystyle
\frac{n!}{\prod_{i=1}^n p_{\chi_i}} \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{2k}\left(
(\vec{x}_0;e), (\vec{x}_0;e) \right) \ - \ 1 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \ n! \ \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \ \left[ \prod_{i
\not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right] \
\mu_n(J)^{2k} \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_{2k} = e \ |\ H_{2k} \subseteq J
\right) \ \ - \ \ 1 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \ n! \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \ \left[ \prod_{i
\not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right] \
\mu_n(J)^{2k} \ \left( \| Q_{S_{(J)}}^{*k} - U_{S_{(J)}} \|_2^2 +
\frac{1}{|J|!} \right) \ \ - \ \ 1 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \ n! \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \ \left[ \prod_{i
\not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right] \
\mu_n(J)^{2k} \ \frac{1}{|J|!} \left( d_k(J) + 1 \right) \ \ - \ \ 1
\vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \ \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \frac{n!}{|J|!} \left[
\prod_{i \not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right)
\right] \mu_n(J)^{2k} \ d_k(J) \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \displaystyle \ \sum_{J: J \subsetneq [n]}
\frac{n!}{|J|!} \left[ \prod_{i \not\in J} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right] \mu_n(J)^{2k},
\end{array}$$ from which the desired result follows. ${\hskip0.25em\raisebox{0.6ex}{\framebox[0.5em][l]{\ }}\vspace{.5pc}}$
Corollaries. {#sec2.3}
------------
We now establish several corollaries to our main result.
\[2.4\] Let ***W*** be the Markov chain on the complete monomial group $G~\wr~S_n$ as in Theorem [\[2.3\]]{}. For $0 \leq j \leq n$, let $$M_n(j) := \max \left\{ \mu_n(J) : |J| = j \right\} \ \ \ and \ \ \
D_k(j) := \max \left\{ d_k(J) : |J| = j \right\}.$$ Also let $$B(n,k) := \max \left\{ D_k(j) : 0 \leq j \leq n \right\} = \max \left\{
d_k(J) : J \subseteq [n] \right\}.$$ Then $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right)
- \emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}}^2 & \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\emph{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
& \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ B(n,k) \sum_{j=0}^n {n
\choose j} \frac{n!}{j!} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1
\right)^{n-j} M_n(j)^{2k} \vspace{1pc} \\
& & \displaystyle + \ \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} {n \choose
j} \frac{n!}{j!} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^{n-j}
M_n(j)^{2k}.
\end{array}$$
Notice that $$\prod_{i \not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \
\leq \ \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^{n - |J|}.$$ The result then follows readily from Theorem \[2.3\]. [0.25em]{}
\[2.5\] In addition to the assumptions of Theorem [\[2.3\]]{} and Corollary [\[2.4\]]{}, suppose that there exists $m > 0$ such that $\displaystyle M_n(j) \leq \left( j/n \right)^m$ for *all* $0 \leq j
\leq n$. Let $k \geq \frac{1}{m} n \log n + \frac{1}{2m} n \log \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) + \frac{1}{m} cn$. Then $$\| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}} \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \
\|\emph{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ \left(
B\left(n,k\right) \ + \ e^{-2c} \right)^{1/2}.$$
It follows from Corollary \[2.4\] that
$$\label{2.6}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right)
- \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}}^2 \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \nonumber \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \leq \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ B\left(n,k\right)
\sum_{j=0}^n {n \choose j} \frac{n!}{j!} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^{n-j} \left( \frac{j}{n}
\right)^{2km} \nonumber \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} {n
\choose j} \frac{n!}{j!} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1
\right)^{n-j} \left( \frac{j}{n} \right)^{2km}.
\end{array}$$
If we let $i = n-j$, then the upper bound becomes $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right)
- \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}}^2 \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \leq \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ B\left(n,k\right)
\sum_{i=0}^n {n \choose i} \frac{n!}{(n-i)!} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^i \left( 1 - \mbox{$\frac{i}{n}$}
\right)^{2km} \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{i=1}^n {n
\choose i} \frac{n!}{(n-i)!} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1
\right)^i \left( 1 - \mbox{$\frac{i}{n}$} \right)^{2km} \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \leq \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ B\left(n,k\right)
\sum_{i=0}^n \frac{1}{i!} n^{2i} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1
\right)^i e^{-2ikm/n} \ \ + \ \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{i=1}^n
\frac{1}{i!} n^{2i} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^i
e^{-2ikm/n}.
\end{array}$$ Notice that if $k \geq \frac{1}{m} n \log n + \frac{1}{2m} n \log \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) + \frac{1}{m} cn$, then $$e^{-2ikm/n} \ \leq \ \left[ \frac{e^{-2c}}{\left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) n^2} \right]^i,$$ from which it follows that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right)
- \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}}^2 & \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
& \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ B\left(n,k\right)
\sum_{i=0}^n \frac{1}{i!} \left( e^{-2c} \right)^i \ \ + \ \
\mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{i!} \left( e^{-2c} \right)^i
\vspace{1pc} \\
& \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ B\left(n,k\right)
\exp\left( e^{-2c} \right) \ \ + \ \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} e^{-2c}
\exp\left( e^{-2c} \right).
\end{array}$$ Since $c > 0$, we have $\exp\left(e^{-2c}\right) < e$. Therefore $$\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot
\right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm
\scriptsize TV}}^2 \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \ \ \leq \ \ B\left(n,k\right) \
+ \ e^{-2c},$$ from which the desired result follows. ${\hskip0.25em\raisebox{0.6ex}{\framebox[0.5em][l]{\ }}\vspace{.5pc}}$
\[2.7\] In addition to the assumptions of Theorem [\[2.3\]]{} and Corollary [\[2.4\]]{}, suppose that a set with the distribution of $I(\hat{\sigma})$ when $\hat{\sigma}$ has distribution $\widehat{Q}$ can be constructed by first choosing a set size $0 < \ell \leq n$ according to a probability mass function $f_n( \cdot )$ and then choosing a set $L$ with $|L| = \ell$ *uniformly* among all such choices. Let $k \geq n
\log n + \frac{1}{2} n \log \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)
+ cn$. Then $$\| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}} \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \
\|\emph{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ \left( B(n,k) \ + \
e^{-2c} \right)^{1/2}.$$
We apply Corollary \[2.5\]. Notice that $$\widehat{Q}\{ \hat{\sigma} \in \widehat{S}_n : I(\hat{\sigma}) = L\} \
= \ \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} f_n(\ell)/ {n \choose \ell} & \mbox{if
$|L| = \ell$}, \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}. \end{array} \right.$$ Then, for any $J \subseteq [n]$ with $|J| = j$, $$\begin{array}{rcl}
M_n(j) & = & \displaystyle \widehat{Q}\{ \hat{\sigma} \in \widehat{S}_n
: I(\hat{\sigma}) \subseteq J\} \ \ = \ \ \sum_{L \subseteq J}
\widehat{Q}\{ \hat{\sigma} \in \widehat{S}_n : I(\hat{\sigma}) = L\}
\vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \sum_{\ell=1}^j \frac{{j \choose \ell}
f_n(\ell)}{{n \choose \ell}} \ \ \leq \ \ \frac{j}{n} \sum_{\ell=1}^j
f_n(\ell) \ \ \leq \ \ \frac{j}{n}.
\end{array}$$ The result thus follows from Corollary \[2.5\], with $m = 1$. [0.25em]{}
Theorem \[2.3\], and its subsequent corollaries, can be used to bound the distance to stationarity of many different Markov chains **W** on $G~\wr~S_n$ for which bounds on the $L^2$ distance to uniformity for the related random walks on $S_j$ for $1 \leq j \leq n$ are known. Theorem \[1.2\] provides such bounds for random walks generated by random transpositions, showing that $\frac{1}{2} j \log j$ steps are sufficient. Roussel (1999) has studied random walks on $S_n$ generated by permutations with $n-m$ fixed points for $m = 3, 4, 5, \mathrm{and\ }
6$. She has shown that $\frac{1}{m} n \log n$ steps are both necessary and sufficient.
Using Theorem \[1.2\], the following result establishes an upper bound on both the total variation distance and $\| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^k
\left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot)
\|_2$ in the special case when $\widehat{Q}$ is defined by (\[1.1\]). Analogous results could be established using bounds for random walks generated by random $m$-cycles. When $P$ is the uniform distribution on $G$, the result reduces to Theorem \[1.3\].
\[2.8\] Let ***W*** be the Markov chain on the complete monomial group $G~\wr~S_n$ as in Theorem [\[2.3\]]{}, where $\widehat{Q}$ is the probability measure on $\widehat{S}_n$ defined at [(\[1.1\])]{}. Let $k = \frac{1}{2}
n \log n + \frac{1}{4} n \log \left( \frac{1}{p_{\min}} - 1 \right) + \frac{1}{2}
cn$. Then there exists a universal constant $b > 0$ such that $$\| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}} \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \ \|
\emph{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ be^{-c} \ \ \
\emph{for all}\ c > 0.$$
Let $\widehat{Q}$ be defined by (\[1.1\]). For any set $J$ with $|J| = j$, it is clear that we have $$\mu_n(J) \ = \ \left( j/n \right)^2 \ \ \ \mbox{and \ \ \ $d_k(J) \ = \
j! \| Q_{S_j}^{*k} - U_{S_j} \|_2^2$},$$ where $Q_{S_j}$ is the measure on $S_j$ induced by (\[1.1\]) and $U_{S_j}$ is the uniform distribution on $S_j$.
It then follows from Theorem \[1.2\] that there exists a universal constant $a > 0$ such that $D_k(j) \leq 4a^2 e^{-2c}$ for each $1 \leq j
\leq n$, when $k \geq \frac{1}{2} j \log j + \frac{1}{2} cj$. Since $n
\geq j$ and $p_{\min} \leq 1/2$, this is also true when $k = \frac{1}{2} n
\log n + \frac{1}{4} n \log \left( \frac{1}{p_{\min}} - 1 \right) +
\frac{1}{2} cn$.
It then follows from Corollary \[2.5\], with $m = 2$, that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;e), \cdot \right)
- \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}}^2 & \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,e), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
& \leq & 4a^2 e^{-2c} \ + \ e^{-2c} \ \ = \ \ \left( 4a^2 + 1 \right)
e^{-2c},
\end{array}$$ from which the desired result follows. [0.25em]{}
Corollary \[2.8\] shows that $k = \frac{1}{2} n \log n + \frac{1}{4} n
\log \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) + \frac{1}{2} cn$ steps are sufficient for the $L^2$ distance, and hence also the total variation distance, to become small. A lower bound in the $L^2$ distance can also be derived by examining $n^2 \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} -
1 \right) \left( 1 - \frac{1}{n} \right)^{4k}$, which is the contribution, when $j = n-1$ and $m=2$, to the second summation of (\[2.6\]) from the proof of Corollary \[2.5\]. In the present context, the second summation of (\[2.6\]) is the second summation in the statement of Theorem \[2.3\] with $\mu_n(J) = (|J|/n)^2$. Notice that $k =
\frac{1}{2} n \log n + \frac{1}{4} n \log \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) - \frac{1}{2} cn$ steps are necessary for just this term to become small.
Markov Chains on $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$. {#sec3}
======================================================
We now analyze a very general Markov chain on the homogeneous space $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$. It should be noted that, in the results which follow, there is no essential use of the group structure on $G$. So the results of this section extend simply; in general, the Markov chain of interest is on the set $G^n \times \left( S_n / (S_r \times
S_{n-r}) \right)$.
A Class of Chains on $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$. {#sec3.1}
----------------------------------------------------------
Let $[n] := \{1, 2, \ldots, n \}$ and let $[r] := \{1, 2, \ldots, r \}$ where $1 \leq r \leq n/2$. Recall that the homogeneous space $X = S_n/
(S_r \times S_{n-r})$ can be identified with the set of all ${n \choose
r}$ subsets of size $r$ from $[n]$. Suppose that $x = \{ i_1, i_2,
\ldots, i_r \} \subseteq [n]$ is such a subset and that $[n] \setminus x =
\{ j_{r+1}, j_{r+2}, \ldots, j_n \}$. Let $\{ i_{(1)}, i_{(2)}, \ldots,
i_{(k)} \} \subseteq x$ and $\{ j_{(r+1)}, j_{(r+2)}, \ldots, j_{(r+k)} \}
\subseteq [n] \setminus x$ be the sets with all indices, listed in increasing order, such that $r+1 \leq i_{(\ell)} \leq n$ and $1 \leq
j_{(\ell)} \leq r$ for $1 \leq \ell \leq k$; in the Bernoulli–Laplace framework, these are the labels of the balls that are no longer in their respective initial racks. (Notice that if all the balls are on their initial racks, then both of these sets are empty.) To each element $x \in
X$, we can thus correspond a unique permutation $$(j_{(r+1)}\ i_{(1)}) (j_{(r+2)}\ i_{(2)}) \cdots (j_{(r+k)}\ i_{(k)})$$ in $S_n$, which is the product of $k$ (disjoint) transpositions; when this permutation serves to represent an element of the homogeneous space $X$, we denote it by $\tilde{\pi}$. For example, if $x = \{ 2, 4, 8 \} \in X =
S_8/ (S_3 \times S_5)$, then $\tilde{\pi} = (1\ 4) (3\ 8)$. (If all of the balls are on their initial racks, then $\tilde{\pi} = e$.) Notice that any given $\pi \in S_n$ corresponds to a unique $\tilde{\pi} \in X$; denote the mapping $\pi \mapsto \tilde{\pi}$ by $R$. For example, let $\pi$ be the permutation that sends $(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)$ to $(8,2,4,6,7,1,5,3)$; then $x = \{8,2,4\} = \{2,4,8\}$ and $\tilde{\pi} =
R(\pi) = (1\ 4) (3\ 8)$.
We now modify the concept of augmented permutation introduced in Section \[sec2.1\]. Rather than the ordered pair of a permutation $\pi \in
S_n$ and a subset $J$ of $F(\pi)$, we now take an augmented permutation to be the ordered pair of a permutation $\pi \in S_n$ and a subset $J$ of $F(R(\pi))$. $\bigg[$ In the above example, $F(R(\pi)) = F(\tilde{\pi}) =
\{2,5,6,7\} \bigg]$. The necessity of this subtle difference will become apparent when defining $\widehat{Q}$. For $\hat{\pi} = (\pi,J) \in
\widehat{S}_n$ (defined in Section \[sec2.1\]), define $$\widetilde{I}(\hat{\pi}) \ \ := \ \ I(R(\pi),J) \ \ = \ \
I(R(T(\hat{\pi})),J).$$ Thus $\widetilde{I}(\hat{\pi})$ is the union of the set of indices deranged by $R(T(\hat{\pi}))$ and the subset $J$ of the fixed points of $R(T(\hat{\pi}))$.
Let $\widehat{Q}$ be a probability measure on the augmented permutations $\widehat{S}_n$ satisfying the augmented symmetry property (\[2.0\]). Let $Q$ be as described in Section \[sec2.1\].
Let $\hat{\xi}_1, \hat{\xi}_2, \ldots$ be a sequence of independent augmented permutations each distributed according to $\widehat{Q}$. These correspond uniquely to a sequence $\xi_1, \xi_2, \ldots$ of permutations each distributed according to $Q$. Define **Y** $:= (Y_0, Y_1, Y_2,
\ldots)$ to be the Markov chain on $S_n/ (S_r \times S_{n-r})$ such that $Y_0 := \tilde{e}$ and $Y_k := R\left( \xi_k Y_{k-1} \right)$ for all $k
\geq 1$.
Let $P$ be a probability measure defined on a finite group $G$ and let $p_i$ for $1~\leq~i~\leq~|G|$ and $p_{\min} > 0$ be defined as in Section \[sec2.1\]. Define **X** $:= (X_0, X_1, X_2, \ldots)$ to be the Markov chain on $G^n$ such that $X_0 := \vec{x}_0 = (\chi_1, \ldots,
\chi_n)$ with $\chi_i \in G$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$ and, at each step $k$ for $k \geq 1$, the entries of $X_{k-1}$ whose positions are included in $I(\hat{\xi}_k)$ are independently changed to an element of $G$ distributed according to $P$.
Define **W** $:= (W_0, W_1, W_2, \ldots)$ to be the Markov chain on $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$ such that $W_k := (X_k; Y_k)$ for all $k \geq 0$. Notice that the signed generalization of the classical Bernoulli–Laplace diffusion model analyzed in Theorem \[1.6\] is a special case of **W**, with $P$ being the uniform distribution on $\mathbb{Z}_2$ and $\widehat{Q}$ being defined as at (\[1.4\]).
Let **P**$(\cdot, \cdot)$ be the transition matrix for **W** and let **P**$^{\infty}(\cdot)$ be the stationary distribution for **W**. Notice that $$\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} \left( \vec{x};\tilde{\pi} \right) \ = \
\frac{1}{{n \choose r}} \prod_{i=1}^n p_{x_i}$$ for any $(\vec{x};\tilde{\pi}) \in (G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$ and that $$\mbox{\textbf{P}} \left( (\vec{x};\tilde{\pi}),
(\vec{y};\tilde{\sigma}) \right) \ = \ \sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n :
R(T(\hat{\rho})\tilde{\pi}) = \tilde{\sigma}} \widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho})
\left[ \prod_{j \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right] \cdot \left[
\prod_{\ell \not\in I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(x_{\ell} = y_{\ell}) \right]$$ for any $(\vec{x};\tilde{\pi}), (\vec{y};\tilde{\sigma}) \in (G~\wr~S_n) /
(S_r \times S_{n-r})$. Thus, using the augmented symmetry of $\widehat{Q}$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \vec{x};\tilde{\pi} \right)
\mbox{\textbf{P}} \left( (\vec{x};\tilde{\pi}), (\vec{y};\tilde{\sigma})
\right) \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \left[ \frac{1}{{n \choose r}} \prod_{i=1}^n p_{x_i}
\right] \sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n : R(T(\hat{\rho})\tilde{\pi}) =
\tilde{\sigma}} \widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho}) \left[ \prod_{j \in I(\hat{\rho})}
p_{y_j} \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{\ell \not\in I(\hat{\rho})}
\mathbb{I}(x_{\ell} = y_{\ell}) \right] \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n :
R(T(\hat{\rho})\tilde{\pi}) = \tilde{\sigma}} \widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho})
\left[ \frac{1}{{n \choose r}} \prod_{i \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{x_i}
\prod_{i \not\in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{x_i} \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{j \in
I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{\ell \not\in
I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(x_{\ell} = y_{\ell}) \right] \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n :
R(T(\hat{\rho})\tilde{\sigma}) = \tilde{\pi}} \widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho})
\left[ \frac{1}{{n \choose r}} \prod_{i \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{x_i}
\prod_{j \not\in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{j \in
I(\hat{\rho})} p_{y_j} \right] \cdot \left[ \prod_{\ell \not\in
I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(y_{\ell} = x_{\ell}) \right] \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \left[ \frac{1}{{n \choose r}} \prod_{j=1}^n p_{y_j}
\right] \sum_{\hat{\rho} \in \widehat{S}_n :
R(T(\hat{\rho})\tilde{\sigma}) = \tilde{\pi}} \widehat{Q}(\hat{\rho})
\left[ \prod_{i \in I(\hat{\rho})} p_{x_i} \right] \cdot \left[
\prod_{\ell \not\in I(\hat{\rho})} \mathbb{I}(y_{\ell} = x_{\ell}) \right]
\vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left(
\vec{y};\tilde{\sigma} \right) \mbox{\textbf{P}} \left(
(\vec{y};\tilde{\sigma}), (\vec{x};\tilde{\pi}) \right).
\end{array}$$ Therefore, **P** is reversible, which is a necessary condition in order to apply the comparison technique of Diaconis and Saloff-Coste (1993b).
Convergence to Stationarity: Main Result. {#sec3.2}
-----------------------------------------
For any $J \subseteq [n]$, let $X^{(J)}$ be the homogeneous space $S_{(J)}/ \left( S_{(J \cap [r])} \times S_{(J \cap ([n] \setminus
[r]))} \right)$, where $S_{(J')}$ is the subgroup of $S_n$ consisting of those $\sigma \in S_n$ with $[n] \setminus F(\sigma) \subseteq J'$. As in Section \[sec3.1\], let $\widehat{Q}$ be a probability measure on the augmented permutations $\widehat{S}_n$ satisfying the augmented symmetry property (\[2.0\]).
Let $Q$ and $Q_{S_{(J)}}$ be as described in Sections \[sec2.1\] and \[sec2.2\]. For notational purposes, let
$$\label{3.1}
\tilde{\mu}_n(J) \ \ := \ \ \widehat{Q}\{ \hat{\sigma} \in \widehat{S}_n :
\widetilde{I}(\hat{\sigma}) \subseteq J\}.$$
Let $\widetilde{Q}_{X^{(J)}}$ be the probability measure on $X^{(J)}$ induced (as described in Section 2.2 of Schoolfield (1999b)) by $Q_{S_{(J)}}$. Also let $\widetilde{U}_{X^{(J)}}$ be the uniform measure on $X^{(J)}$. For notational purposes, let
$$\label{3.2}
\tilde{d}_k(J) \ \ := \ \ \mbox{${|J| \choose |J \cap [r]|}$} \|
\widetilde{Q^{*k}}_{X^{(J)}} - \widetilde{U}_{X^{(J)}} \|_2^2.$$
*Example.* Let $\widehat{Q}$ be defined as at (\[1.4\]). Then $\widehat{Q}$ satisfies the augmented symmetry property (\[2.0\]). In the Bernoulli–Laplace framework, the elements $\widehat{Q}(\kappa,\{j\})$ and $\widehat{Q}(\kappa,\{i,j\})$ leave the balls on their current racks, but single out one or two of them, respectively; the element $\widehat{Q}(\tau \kappa,\emptyset)$ switches two balls between the racks. In Corollary \[3.8\] we will be using $\widehat{Q}$ to define a Markov chain on $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$ which is a generalization of the Markov chain analyzed in Theorem \[1.6\].
It is also easy to verify that $\widehat{Q}_{S_{(J)}}$ is the probability measure defined at (\[1.4\]), but with $[r]$ and $[n] \setminus [r]$ changed to $J \cap [r]$ and $J \cap ([n] \setminus [r])$, respectively. Thus, roughly put, our generalization of the Markov chain analyzed in Theorem \[1.6\], conditionally restricted to the indices in $J$, gives a Markov chain on $\left( G \wr S_{(J)} \right) / \left( S_{(J \cap [r])}
\times S_{(J \cap ([n] \setminus [r]))} \right)$ “as if $J$ were the only indices.”
The following result establishes an upper bound on the total variation distance by deriving an exact formula for $\| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left(
(\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot)
\|_2^2$.
\[3.3\] Let ***W*** be the Markov chain on the homogeneous space $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$ defined in Section [\[sec3.1\]]{}. Then $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot
\right) - \emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm
\scriptsize TV}}^2 & \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]}
\frac{{n \choose r}}{{|J| \choose |J \cap [r]|}} \left[ \prod_{i \not\in
J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right]
\tilde{\mu}_n(J)^{2k} \ \tilde{d}_k(J) \vspace{1pc} \\
& & \displaystyle + \ \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{J: J \subsetneq
[n]} \frac{{n \choose r}}{{|J| \choose |J \cap [r]|}} \left[ \prod_{i
\not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right]
\tilde{\mu}_n(J)^{2k},
\end{array}$$ where $\tilde{\mu}_n(J)$ and $\tilde{d}_k(J)$ are defined at [(\[3.1\])]{} and [(\[3.2\])]{}, respectively.
For each $k \geq 1$, let $\displaystyle H_k := \bigcup_{\ell
= 1}^k \widetilde{I}(\hat{\xi}_{\ell}) \subseteq [n]$. For any given $w =
(\vec{x};\tilde{\pi}) \in (G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$, let $A
\subseteq [n]$ be the set of indices such that $x_i \neq \chi_i$, where $x_i$ is the $i$th entry of $\vec{x}$ and $\chi_i$ is the $i$th entry of $\vec{x}_0$, and let $B = [n] \setminus F(\tilde{\pi})$ be the set of indices deranged by $\tilde{\pi}$. Notice that $H_k \supseteq A \cup B$.
The proof continues exactly as in the proof of Theorem \[2.3\] to determine that $$\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( W_k = (\vec{x};\tilde{\pi}) \right) \ =
\ \sum_{J: B \subseteq J \subseteq [n]} \left( -1 \right)^{|J|}
\tilde{\mu}_n(J)^{k} \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \tilde{\pi} \ |\ H_k
\subseteq J \right) \prod_{i=1}^n \left[ 1 - \mathbb{I}_{A \cup J}(i) -
p_{x_i} \right].$$
In particular, when $(\vec{x};\tilde{\pi}) = (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e})$, we have $A = \emptyset = B$ and $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}\left( W_k = (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}) \right) & =
& \displaystyle \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \left( -1 \right)^{|J|}
\tilde{\mu}_n(J)^k \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \tilde{e} \ |\ H_k \subseteq J
\right) \prod_{i=1}^n \left[ 1 - \mathbb{I}_J(i) - p_{\chi_i} \right]
\vspace{1pc} \\
& = & \displaystyle \left[ \prod_{i=1}^n p_{\chi_i} \right] \sum_{J: J
\subseteq [n]} \tilde{\mu}_n(J)^k \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_k = \tilde{e} \ |\
H_k \subseteq J \right) \prod_{i \not\in J} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right).
\end{array}$$ Notice that $\displaystyle \{ H_k \subseteq J \} = \bigcap_{\ell=1}^k
\left\{ \widetilde{I}(\hat{\xi}_{\ell}) \subseteq J \right\}$ for any $k$ and $J$. So $\mathcal{L}$ $\left( (Y_0, Y_1, \ldots, Y_k \ | \ H_k
\subseteq J) \right)$ is the law of a Markov chain on $S_n/ (S_r \times
S_{n-r})$ (through step $k$) with step distribution $Q_{X^{(J)}}$. Thus, using the reversibility of **P** and the symmetry of $Q_{X^{(J)}}$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \ \ = \ \ \displaystyle \frac{{n
\choose r}}{\prod_{i=1}^n p_{\chi_i}} \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{2k}\left(
(\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}) \right) \ - \ 1 \vspace{1pc}
\\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \ {n \choose r} \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \ \left[
\prod_{i \not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right)
\right] \ \tilde{\mu}_n(J)^{2k} \ \mathbb{P}\left( Y_{2k} = \tilde{e} \ |\
H_{2k} \subseteq J \right) \ \ - \ \ 1 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \ {n \choose r} \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \ \left[
\prod_{i \not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right)
\right] \ \tilde{\mu}_n(J)^{2k} \ \left[ \| \widetilde{Q^{*k}}_{X^{(J)}} -
\widetilde{U}_{X^{(J)}} \|_2^2 + \frac{1}{{|J| \choose |J \cap [r]|}}
\right] \ \ - \ \ 1 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \ {n \choose r} \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \ \left[
\prod_{i \not\in J} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right)
\right] \ \tilde{\mu}_n(J)^{2k} \ \frac{1}{{|J| \choose |J \cap [r]|}} \
\left( \tilde{d}_k(J) + 1 \right) \ \ - \ \ 1 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ = \displaystyle \ \sum_{J: J \subseteq [n]} \frac{{n \choose
r}}{{|J| \choose |J \cap [r]|}} \left[ \prod_{i \not\in J} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right] \tilde{\mu}_n(J)^{2k} \
\tilde{d}_k(J) \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \displaystyle \ \sum_{J: J \subsetneq [n]} \frac{{n
\choose r}}{{|J| \choose |J \cap [r]|}} \left[ \prod_{i \not\in J} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\chi_i}}$} - 1 \right) \right] \tilde{\mu}_n(J)^{2k},
\end{array}$$ from which the desired result follows. ${\hskip0.25em\raisebox{0.6ex}{\framebox[0.5em][l]{\ }}\vspace{.5pc}}$
Corollaries. {#sec3.3}
------------
We now establish several corollaries to our main result.
\[3.4\] Let ***W*** be the Markov chain on the homogeneous space $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r~\times~S_{n-r})$ as in Theorem [\[3.3\]]{}. For $0 \leq
j \leq n$, let $$\widetilde{M}_n(j) := \max \left\{ \tilde{\mu}_n(J) : |J| = j \right\}
\ \ \ and \ \ \ \widetilde{D}_k(j) := \max \left\{ \tilde{d}_k(J) : |J| =
j \right\}.$$ Also let $$\widetilde{B}(n,k) := \max \left\{ \widetilde{D}_k(j) : 0 \leq j \leq n
\right\} = \max \left\{ \tilde{d}_k(J) : J \subseteq [n] \right\}.$$ Then $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot
\right) - \emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm
\scriptsize TV}}^2 \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\emph{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,\tilde{e}) - \cdot \right),
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \leq \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \widetilde{B}(n,k)
\sum_{i=0}^r \sum_{j=0}^{n-r} {r \choose i} {n-r \choose j} \frac{{n
\choose r}}{{i+j \choose i}} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1
\right)^{n-(i+j)} \widetilde{M}_n(j)^{2k} \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{i=0}^r
\sum_{j=0}^{n-r} {r \choose i} {n-r \choose j} \frac{{n \choose
r}}{{i+j \choose i}} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1
\right)^{n-(i+j)} \widetilde{M}_n(j)^{2k},
\end{array}$$ where the last sum must be modified to exclude the term for $i = r$ and $j
= n-r$.
The proof is analogous to that of Corollary \[2.4\]. [0.25em]{}
\[3.5\] In addition to the assumptions of Theorem [\[3.3\]]{} and Corollary [\[3.4\]]{}, suppose that there exists $m > 0$ such that $\displaystyle \widetilde{M}_n(j) \leq \left( j/n \right)^m$ for *all* $0 \leq j \leq n$. Let $k \geq \frac{1}{2m} n \left( \log n +
\log \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) + c \right)$. Then $$\| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right),
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}} \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \ \|
\emph{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ 2 \left(
\widetilde{B}\left(n,k\right) \ + \ e^{-c} \right)^{1/2}.$$
It follows from Corollary \[3.4\] that
$$\label{3.6}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot
\right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm
\scriptsize TV}}^2 \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \nonumber \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \leq \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \
\widetilde{B}\left(n,k\right) \sum_{i=0}^r \sum_{j=0}^{n-r} {r \choose i}
{n-r \choose j} \frac{{n \choose r}}{{i+j \choose i}} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^{n-(i+j)} \left( \frac{i+j}{n}
\right)^{2km} \nonumber \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{i=0}^r
\sum_{j=0}^{n-r} {r \choose i} {n-r \choose j} \frac{{n \choose
r}}{{i+j \choose i}} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1
\right)^{n-(i+j)} \left( \frac{i+j}{n} \right)^{2km},
\end{array}$$
where the last sum must be modified to exclude the term for $i = r$ and $j
= n-r$. Notice that $${r \choose i} {n-r \choose j} \frac{{n \choose r}}{{i+j \choose i}} \ =
\ {n \choose i+j} { n-(i+j) \choose r-i}.$$ Thus if we put $j' = i+j$ and change the order of summation we have (enacting now the required modification) $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot
\right), \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm
\scriptsize TV}}^2 \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \leq \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \
\widetilde{B}\left(n,k\right) \sum_{j=0}^n {n \choose j} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^{n-j} \left( \frac{j}{n}
\right)^{2km} \sum_{i=\ell \vee (r-(n-j))}^{r \wedge (j-\ell)} {n-j
\choose r-i} \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{j=0}^{n-1} {n
\choose j} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^{n-j} \left(
\frac{j}{n} \right)^{2km} \sum_{i=\ell \vee (r-(n-j))}^{r \wedge (j-\ell)}
{n-j \choose r-i}.
\end{array}$$
Of course $\displaystyle \sum_{i=\ell \vee (r-(n-j))}^{r \wedge (j-\ell)}
\mbox{${n-j \choose r-i}$} \ \leq \ 2^{n-j}$. If we then let $i = n-j$, the upper bound becomes $$\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot
\right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm
\scriptsize TV}}^2 \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \leq \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \
\widetilde{B}\left(n,k\right) \sum_{i=0}^n 2^i {n \choose i} \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^i \left( 1 - \mbox{$\frac{i}{n}$}
\right)^{2km} \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ + \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{i=1}^n 2^i {n
\choose i} \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^i \left( 1 -
\mbox{$\frac{i}{n}$} \right)^{2km} \vspace{1pc} \\
\ \ \ \leq \displaystyle \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \
\widetilde{B}\left(n,k\right) \sum_{i=0}^n \frac{1}{i!} (2n)^i \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^i e^{-2ikm/n} \ \ + \ \
\mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{i!} (2n)^i \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)^i e^{-2ikm/n}.
\end{array}$$ Notice that if $k \geq \frac{1}{2m} n \left( \log n + \log \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) + c \right)$, then $$e^{-2ikm/n} \ \leq \ \left[ \frac{e^{-c}}{\left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) n} \right]^i,$$ from which it follows that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot
\right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm
\scriptsize TV}}^2 & \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \|
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2^2 \vspace{1pc} \\
& \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \
\widetilde{B}\left(n,k\right) \sum_{i=0}^n \frac{1}{i!} \left( 2e^{-c}
\right)^i \ \ + \ \ \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{i!} \left(
2e^{-c} \right)^i \vspace{1pc} \\
& \leq & \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \
\widetilde{B}\left(n,k\right) \exp\left( 2e^{-c} \right) \ \ + \ \
\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} e^{-c} \exp\left( 2e^{-c} \right).
\end{array}$$ Since $c > 0$, we have $\exp\left(2e^{-c}\right) < e^2$. Therefore $$\displaystyle \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}),
\cdot \right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right)
\|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize TV}}^2 \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle
\mbox{$\frac{1}{4}$} \ \| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left(
(\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot)
\|_2^2 \ \ \leq \ \ 4 \left( \widetilde{B}\left(n,k\right) \ + \ e^{-c}
\right),$$ from which the desired result follows. ${\hskip0.25em\raisebox{0.6ex}{\framebox[0.5em][l]{\ }}\vspace{.5pc}}$
\[3.7\] In addition to the assumptions of Theorem [\[3.3\]]{} and Corollary [\[3.4\]]{}, suppose that a set with the distribution of $\widetilde{I}(\hat{\sigma})$ when $\hat{\sigma}$ has distribution $\widehat{Q}$ can be constructed by first choosing a set size $0 < \ell
\leq n$ according to a probability mass function $f_n( \cdot )$ and then choosing a set $L$ with $|L| = \ell$ *uniformly* among all such choices. Let $k \geq \frac{1}{2} n \left( \log n + \log \left(
\mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) + c \right)$. Then $$\| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}} \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \ \|
\emph{\textbf{P}}^k \left( (\vec{x}_0,\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ 2 \left(
\widetilde{B}(n,k) \ + \ e^{-c} \right)^{1/2}.$$
The proof is analogous to that of Corollary \[2.7\]. [0.25em]{}
Theorem \[3.3\], and its subsequent corollaries, can be used to bound the distance to stationarity of many different Markov chains **W** on $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r \times S_{n-r})$ for which bounds on the $L^2$ distance to uniformity for the related Markov chains on $S_{i+j}/ (S_i
\times S_j)$ for $0 \leq i \leq r$ and $0 \leq j \leq n-r$ are known. As an example, the following result establishes an upper bound on both the total variation distance and $\| \mbox{\textbf{P}}^k \left(
(\vec{x}_0,\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) - \mbox{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot)
\|_2$ in the special case when $\widehat{Q}$ is defined by (\[1.4\]). This corollary actually fits the framework of Corollary \[3.7\], but the result is better than that which would have been determined by merely applying Corollary \[3.7\]. When $G = \mathbb{Z}_2$ and $P$ is the uniform distribution on $G$, the result reduces to Theorem \[1.6\].
\[3.8\] Let ***W*** be the Markov chain on the homogeneous space $(G~\wr~S_n) / (S_r~\times~S_{n-r})$ as in Theorem [\[3.3\]]{}, where $\widehat{Q}$ is the probability measure on $\widehat{S}_n$ defined at [(\[1.4\])]{}. Let $k = \frac{1}{4} n \left(\log n + \log \left(
\frac{1}{p_{\min}} - 1 \right) + c\right)$. Then there exists a universal constant $b > 0$ such that $$\| \emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty}\left( \cdot \right) \|_{\mbox{\rm \scriptsize
TV}} \ \ \leq \ \ \displaystyle \mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$} \ \|
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{k}\left( (\vec{x}_0;\tilde{e}), \cdot \right) -
\emph{\textbf{P}}^{\infty} (\cdot) \|_2 \ \ \leq \ \ be^{-c/2} \ \ \
\emph{for\ all}\ c > 0.$$
The proof is analogous to that of Corollary \[2.8\]. [0.25em]{}
Corollary \[3.8\] shows that $k = \frac{1}{4} n \left( \log n + \log
\left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) + c \right)$ steps are sufficient for the $L^2$ distance, and hence also the total variation distance, to become small. A lower bound in the $L^2$ distance can also be derived by examining $2n \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right)
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{n} \right)^{4k}$, which is the contribution, when $i+j
= n-1$ and $m=2$, to the second summation of (\[3.6\]) from the proof of Corollary \[3.5\]. In the present context, the second summation of (\[3.6\]) is the second summation in the statement of Theorem \[3.3\] with $\tilde{\mu}_n(J) = (|J|/n)^2$. Notice that $k = \frac{1}{4} n
\left( \log n + \log \left( \mbox{$\frac{1}{p_{\min}}$} - 1 \right) - c
\right)$ steps are necessary for just this term to become small.
Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
================
This paper derived from a portion of the second author’s Ph.D. dissertation in the Department of Mathematical Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University.
[9]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Aldous, D.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fill, J. A.</span> (200x). *Reversible Markov Chains and Random Walks on Graphs.* Book in preparation. Draft of manuscript available via [http://stat-www.berekeley.edu/users/aldous]{}.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Diaconis, P.</span> (1988). *Group Representations in Probability and Statistics*. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, CA.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Diaconis, P.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Saloff-Coste, L.</span> (1993a). Comparison techniques for random walk on finite groups. *Ann. Probab.* **21** 2131–2156.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Diaconis, P.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Saloff-Coste, L.</span> (1993b). Comparison theorems for reversible Markov chains. *Ann. Appl. Probab.* **3** 696–730.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Diaconis, P.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shahshahani, M.</span> (1981). Generating a random permutation with random transpositions. *Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete* **57** 159–179.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Diaconis, P.</span> and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Shahshahani, M.</span> (1987). Time to reach stationarity in the Bernoulli–Laplace diffusion model. *SIAM J. Math. Anal.* **18** 208–218.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Roussel, S.</span> (1999). Phénomène de cutoff pour certaines marches aléatoires sur le groupe symétrique. *Colloquium Mathematicum*. To appear.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schoolfield Jr., C. H.</span> (1999a). Random walks on wreath products of groups. Submitted for publication. Preprint available from [http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/\~chschool/]{}.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Schoolfield Jr., C. H.</span> (1999b). A signed generalization of the Bernoulli–Laplace diffusion model. Submitted for publication. Preprint available from [http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/\~chschool/]{}.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Stanley, R. P.</span> (1986). *Enumerative Combinatorics*, Vol. I. Wadsworth and Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct a series of conformally invariant differential operators acting on weighted trace-free symmetric 2-tensors by a method similar to Graham–Jenne–Mason–Sparling’s. For compact conformal manifolds of dimension even and greater than or equal to four with vanishing ambient obstruction tensor, one of these operators is used to describe the second variation of the total $Q$-curvature. An explicit formula for conformally Einstein manifolds is given in terms of the Lichnerowicz Laplacian of an Einstein representative metric.'
address: 'Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Tokyo'
author:
- Yoshihiko Matsumoto
title: |
A GJMS construction for 2-tensors and\
the second variation of the total $Q$-curvature
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Let $(M,[g])$ be a conformal manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$. The $k^\text{th}$ GJMS operator [@Graham:1992fr] is a conformally invariant operator acting on densities $\caE(-n/2+k)\to\caE(-n/2-k)$, which is defined for all $k\in\bbZ_+$ if $n$ is odd and for integers within the range $1\le k\le n/2$ if $n$ is even. This operator has a universal expression in terms of any representative metric $g\in[g]$ with leading term the $k^\text{th}$ power of the Laplacian. The idea for the construction is realizing densities as functions on the metric cone $\caG$ and computing the obstruction of its formal harmonic extension to the ambient space $(\tilde{\caG},\tilde{g})$, where $\tilde{g}$ is an ambient metric of Fefferman–Graham [@Fefferman:1985vy; @Fefferman:2012vr]. After the appearance of [@Graham:1992fr], other GJMS-like conformally invariant differential operators have been constructed in, e.g., [@BransonGover:2005; @GoverPeterson:2006].
In this article, we establish another variant of the GJMS construction. Our operators $P_k$ act on weighted trace-free symmetric (covariant) 2-tensors: $$P_k\colon\caS_0\left(-\frac{n}{2}+2+k\right)\to\caS_0\left(-\frac{n}{2}+2-k\right).$$ Here, the values that $k$ takes are the same as in the density case, $\caS_0$ is the space of trace-free symmetric 2-tensors on $M$, and $\caS_0(w)=\caS_0\otimes\caE(w)$. The main tool of our construction is the Lichnerowicz Laplacian of the ambient metric $\tilde{g}$, which is defined by $${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}:=\tilde{\Delta}+2\smash{\widetilde{\Ric}}^\circ-2\mathring{\tilde{R}},$$ where $\tilde{\Delta}=\tilde{\nabla}^*\tilde{\nabla}$ is the connection Laplacian and $\smash{\widetilde{\Ric}}^\circ$, $\mathring{\tilde{R}}$ are the following tensorial actions of the Ricci and Riemann curvature tensors of $\tilde{g}$: $$\begin{aligned}
(\smash{\widetilde{\Ric}}^\circ\tilde{\sigma})(X,Y)
&:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\braket{\widetilde{\Ric}(X,\cdot),\tilde{\sigma}(Y,\cdot)}_{\tilde{g}}
+\braket{\widetilde{\Ric}(Y,\cdot),\tilde{\sigma}(X,\cdot)}_{\tilde{g}}\right),\\
(\mathring{\tilde{R}}\tilde{\sigma})(X,Y)
&:=\braket{\tilde{R}(X,\cdot,Y,\cdot),\tilde{\sigma}}_{\tilde{g}}.\end{aligned}$$
Our intention to study the GJMS construction for 2-tensors is because of its relation to the second variation of the total $Q$-curvature, i.e., the integral of Branson’s $Q$-curvature [@Branson:1995db]. Recall that, for 4-dimensional compact conformal manifold $(M,[g])$ of positive-definite signature, the Chern–Gauss–Bonnet formula for the total $Q$-curvature $\overline{Q}$ is $$\overline{Q}=8\pi^2\chi(M)-\frac{1}{4}\int_M\abs{W}_g^2\,dV_g,$$ where $\chi(M)$ is the Euler characteristic, $W$ is the Weyl tensor, and $g\in[g]$ is any representative. One can deduce from this that $\overline{Q}\le 8\pi^2\chi(M)$ and the equality holds if and only if $(M,[g])$ is conformally flat. It turns out that there is a partial generalization of this fact to the higher dimensions. Recall that a conformal metric $[g]$ is identified with a weighted 2-tensor $\bm{g}\in\caS(2)$. Let $\caK_{[g]}$ be the conformal Killing operator. Then we have the following theorem, which is due to Møller–Ørsted [@MollerOrsted].
\[thm:Sphere\] Let $S^n$ be the sphere of even dimension $n\ge 4$. Then, for any smooth 1-parameter family $\bm{g}_t$ of conformal metrics on $S^n$ such that $\bm{g}_0=\bm{g}_\mathrm{std}$ and $\dot{\bm{g}}_t|_{t=0}\not\in\operatorname{image}\caK_{[g_\mathrm{std}]}$, the total $Q$-curvature $\overline{Q}_t$ attains a local maximum at $t=0$.
Our main theorem contains Theorem \[thm:Sphere\] as a special case. Consider the following decomposition of $\caS_0(2)$, which is valid for any compact positive-definite conformal manifold $(M,[g])$ and a representative $g\in[g]$ (see [@Besse:1987vf 12.21]): $$\label{eq:TTDecomposition}
\caS_0(2)=\operatorname{image}\caK_{[g]}\oplus\caS^g_\mathrm{TT}(2).$$ Here $\caS^g_\mathrm{TT}(w)$ is the space of TT-tensors (trace-free and divergence-free tensors) with respect to $g$. This is an orthogonal decomposition with respect to the $L^2$-inner product, and if $g$ is Einstein, the Lichnerowicz Laplacian $\Delta_\mathrm{L}$ of $g$ respects this decomposition.
\[thm:QCurvLocalMaximum\] Let $(M,[g])$ be a compact conformally Einstein manifold of positive-definite signature with even dimension $n\ge 4$, and $g$ an Einstein representative with Schouten tensor $\tensor{P}{_i_j}=\lambda\tensor{g}{_i_j}$. Then, for any smooth 1-parameter family $\bm{g}_t$ of conformal metrics such that $\bm{g}_0=\bm{g}$, the second derivative of the total $Q$-curvature at $t=0$ is $$\label{eq:SecondDerivativeOfTotalQForConfEinstein}
\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\overline{Q}_t
=-\frac{1}{4}\int_M
\Braket{\prod_{m=0}^{n/2-1}(\Delta_\mathrm{L}-4(n-1)\lambda+4m(n-2m-1)\lambda)\varphi^g_\mathrm{TT},
\varphi^g_\mathrm{TT}}_{\bm{g}},$$ where $\varphi^g_\mathrm{TT}$ is the $\caS^g_\mathrm{TT}(2)$-component of $\varphi=\dot{\bm{g}}_t|_{t=0}$ with respect to . In particular, suppose there is an Einstein representative $g$ with $\lambda\ge 0$ such that the smallest eigenvalue $\alpha$ of $\Delta_\mathrm{L}|_{\caS_\mathrm{TT}^g(2)}$ satisfies $$\label{eq:EigenvalueCondition}
\alpha>4(n-1)\lambda.$$ Then, for any $\bm{g}_t$ for which $\varphi\not\in\operatorname{image}\caK_{[g]}$, the total $Q$-curvature attains a local maximum at $t=0$.
For $(S^n,g_\mathrm{std})$, $\lambda=1/2$ and $\Delta_\mathrm{L}=\Delta+2n$. Therefore the assumption for the latter half of Theorem \[thm:QCurvLocalMaximum\] is satisfied, and hence Theorem \[thm:Sphere\] follows.
Some ideas for the proof of Theorem \[thm:QCurvLocalMaximum\] are in order. Let $(M,[g])$ be a compact conformal manifold of even dimension $n\ge 4$ (here we may allow arbitrary signature). If we are given a smooth family $\bm{g}_t$ of conformal metrics on $M$ such that $\bm{g}_0=\bm{g}$, then the derivative $\varphi_t=\dot{\bm{g}}_t\in\caS(2)$ is trace-free with respect to $\bm{g}_t$. As shown by Graham–Hirachi [@Graham:2005cx], the derivative of $\overline{Q}_t$ is given by $$\frac{d}{dt}\overline{Q}_t=
(-1)^{n/2}\frac{n-2}{2}\int_M\braket{\caO_t,\varphi_t}_{\bm{g}_t},$$ where $\caO_t$ is the Fefferman–Graham ambient obstruction tensor of $\bm{g}_t$ [@Fefferman:1985vy; @Fefferman:2012vr]. In particular, if $(M,[g])$ has vanishing obstruction tensor, which is the case if $(M,[g])$ is conformally Einstein for instance, then $\overline{Q}_t$ stabilizes at $t=0$. In this case the second derivative of $\overline{Q}_t$ at $t=0$ is of interest. It is given by $$\label{eq:SecondDerivativeOfTotalQAndDifferentialObstruction}
\left.\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\overline{Q}_t\right|_{t=0}
=(-1)^{n/2}\frac{n-2}{2}\int_M\braket{\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi,\varphi}_{\bm{g}},$$ where $\caO'_{\bm{g}}\colon\caS_0(2)\to\caS_0(2-n)$ is the linearization at $\bm{g}$ of the obstruction tensor operator ($\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi$ is trace-free because $\bm{g}$ is obstruction-flat). This shows that it suffices to compute $\caO'_{\bm{g}}$ to derive the second variational formula of the total $Q$-curvature. The construction of our operators $P_k$ leads to the fact that $P=P_{n/2}$ is equal to $\caO'_{\bm{g}}$ up to a constant factor for obstruction-flat manifolds. (For $n=4$ and $6$, since an explicit formula of the obstruction tensor is known, one can directly compute its linearization. In higher dimensions our result is really new, because there is no such concrete formula for $\mathcal{O}$.) Thus our GJMS construction adds new knowledge of $\caO'_{\bm{g}}$, which is previously studied in [@Branson:2005; @BransonGover:2007; @BransonGover:2008].
If we specialize to the case of conformally Einstein manifolds, explicit computation is possible thanks to a well-known associated ambient metric. We will derive a formula of $P_k$ restricted to $\caS^g_\mathrm{TT}(-n/2+2+k)$ with respect to an Einstein representative $g$ with Schouten tensor $\tensor{P}{_i_j}=\lambda\tensor{g}{_i_j}$: $$\label{eq:Intro:CharacteristicGJMSOperatorOnTTTensor}
\begin{split}
&P_k|_{\caS^g_\mathrm{TT}(-n/2+2+k)}\\
&=\prod_{m=0}^{k-1}
\left(\Delta_\mathrm{L}-4(n-1)\lambda-2\left(-\frac{n}{2}+k-2m\right)\left(\frac{n}{2}+k-2m-1\right)\lambda
\right).
\end{split}$$ Then Theorem \[thm:QCurvLocalMaximum\] is an immediate consequence.
This article is organized as follows. Preliminaries about ambient metrics and some preparatory lemmas are included in Section \[sec:Preliminaries\]. In Section \[sec:GJMS\], our operators $P_k$ are constructed. One of the characterizations of $P_k$ is that it gives the obstruction to dilation-annihilating TT-harmonic extension of $\varphi\in\caS_0(-n/2+2+k)$ with respect to the ambient Lichnerowicz Laplacian ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}$. In Section \[sec:Variations\], we first show that the variation of the normal-form ambient metric modified by adding a certain tensor in the image of the Killing operator of $\tilde{g}$ is a best possible approximate solution to the harmonic extension problem mentioned above. Using this fact, we prove that the trace-free part of $\caO'_{\bm{g}}$ equals to $P$ in general. In Section \[sec:ConfEinstein\], we work on conformally Einstein manifolds and prove Theorem \[thm:QCurvLocalMaximum\].
In this article, “conformal manifolds” are of arbitrary signature unless otherwise stated. Index notation is used throughout. On ambient spaces we use $I$, $J$, $K$, $\dotsc$ as indices, while on the original manifolds $i$, $j$, $k$, $\dots$ are used.
I wish to thank Kengo Hirachi for a suggestion to take a variational approach to the $Q$-curvature and for insightful advice, and Robin Graham for discussion on our formula and letting me know the work [@MollerOrsted]. I also thank Bent Ørsted for related discussions. Moreover, Colin Guillarmou informed me that he has given another proof of with Sergiu Moroianu and Jean-Marc Schlenker in a recent work [@GuillarmouMoroianuSchlenker].
Preliminaries {#sec:Preliminaries}
=============
Let $(M,[g])$ be a conformal manifold of dimension $n$ of signature $(p,q)$ with metric cone $\caG$. With a fixed representative metric $g\in[g]$, $\caG$ is trivialized as $$\caG\cong \bbR_+\times M,\qquad
t^2g_x\mapsto (t,x).$$ Let $\tilde{\caG}$ be the associated ambient space: $$\tilde{\caG}:=\caG\times\bbR\cong \bbR_+\times M\times\bbR=\set{(t,x,\rho)}.$$ In our index notation, if $\tilde{\caG}$ is trivialized as above, we use the indices $0$ and $\infty$ for the $t$- and $\rho$-components, respectively.
The space $\caG$ carries a natural $\bbR_+$-bundle structure. The dilation $\delta_s$, $s\in\bbR^\times$, is by definition the action of $s^2\in\bbR_+$, and the infinitesimal dilation field is denoted by $T$. The spaces of the densities, weighted 1-forms, and weighted covariant symmetric 2-tensors (all of weight $w$) are denoted by $\caE(w)$, $\caT(w)$, and $\caS(w)$. By the metric cone $\caG$, these spaces are realized as follows: $$\label{eq:DensitiesAsAmbientTensors}
\begin{split}
\caE(w)&=\set{f\in C^\infty(\caG,\bbR)|Tf=wf},\\
\caT(w)&=\set{\tau\in C^\infty(\caG,T^*\caG)|T\contraction\tau=0,\quad\caL_T\tau=w\tau},\\
\caS(w)&=\set{\sigma\in C^\infty(\caG,\Sym^2T^*\caG)|T\contraction\sigma=0,\quad\caL_T\sigma=w\sigma}.
\end{split}$$ The $\bbR_+$-action extends to $\tilde{\caG}=\caG\times\bbR$ and so does $T$. In terms of the extended $T$, we define as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\caE}(w)&:=\set{\tilde{f}\in C^\infty(\tilde{\caG},\bbR)|T\tilde{f}=w\tilde{f}},\\
\tilde{\caT}(w)
&:=\set{\tilde{\tau}\in C^\infty(\tilde{\caG},T^*\tilde{\caG})|\caL_T\tilde{\tau}=w\tilde{\tau}},\\
\tilde{\caS}(w)
&:=\set{\tilde{\sigma}\in C^\infty(\tilde{\caG},\Sym^2T^*\tilde{\caG})|\caL_T\tilde{\sigma}=w\tilde{\sigma}}.\end{aligned}$$ When $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}(w)$ satisfies $(T\contraction\tilde{\sigma})|_{T\caG}=0$, then $\tilde{\sigma}|_{T\caG}$ makes sense as a section in $\caS(w)$ via the identification . We use the notation $\tilde{\sigma}|_{TM}$ to express this weighted tensor.
Let $\tilde{g}$ be a pre-ambient metric. This means that $\tilde{g}\in\tilde{\caS}(2)$ is a homogeneous pseudo-Riemannian metric of signature $(p+1,q+1)$ defined on a dilation-invariant open neighborhood of $\caG$ in $\tilde{\caG}$ such that its pullback to $\caG$ is equal to $\bm{g}\in\caS(2)$. In the sequel we only work asymptotically near $\caG$, so we may assume that all pre-ambient metrics are defined on the whole $\tilde{\caG}$. We next introduce the *straightness* condition: $$\label{eq:Straightness}
\tilde{\nabla}T=\id.$$ If this is the case, the differential of the canonical defining function $r=\abs{T}_{\tilde{g}}^2$ of $\caG$ is $$\label{eq:Straightness2}
dr=2T\contraction\tilde{g}.$$ Recall that it follows immediately from that $$\label{eq:TAmbientCurvature}
\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{\tilde{R}}{_I_J_K_L}=0,\quad
\text{and hence}\quad\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_I_J}=0.$$ The Fefferman–Graham Theorem states that there is a straight pre-ambient metric $\tilde{g}$ with $$\widetilde{\Ric}=
\begin{cases}
O(r^\infty)&\text{if $n$ is odd},\\
O(r^{n/2-1})&\text{if $n$ is even}.
\end{cases}$$ In this article, such a metric $\tilde{g}$ is called an *ambient metric*. When $n$ is odd, ambient metrics are unique modulo $O(r^\infty)$ and the action of dilation-invariant diffeomorphisms on $\tilde{\caG}$ leaving points on $\caG$ fixed (such diffeomorphisms are called *ambient-equivalence maps* in the sequel). If is $n$ even, the situation is subtle. For a 1-form $\tilde{\tau}\in\tilde{\caT}(w)$, we define $$\begin{split}
\tilde{\tau}=O^-(r^m)&\Longleftrightarrow
\tilde{\tau}=O(r^{m-1})\quad\text{and}\quad\text{$(r^{1-m}\tilde{\tau})|_{T\caG}$ vanishes}\\
&\Longleftrightarrow
\tilde{\tau}=O(r^m)\mod r^{m-1}T\contraction\tilde{g}.
\end{split}$$ We say that $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}(w)$ is $O^+(r^m)$ if
1. $\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^m)$;
2. $T\contraction\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{m+1})$ and hence $(r^{-m}\tilde{\sigma})|_{TM}$ makes sense; and
3. $(r^{-m}\tilde{\sigma})|_{TM}\in\caS(w-2m)$ is trace-free with respect to $\bm{g}$.
Then, ambient metrics are unique modulo $O^+(r^{n/2})$ and the action of ambient-equivalence maps. By [@Fefferman:2012vr Equation (3.13)], the condition $\widetilde{\Ric}=O(r^{n/2-1})$ for ambient metrics actually forces $$\widetilde{\Ric}=O^+(r^{n/2-1}).$$
Let $g\in[g]$ and consider the induced trivialization $\tilde{\caG}\cong\bbR_+\times M\times\bbR$. If a straight pre-ambient metric $\tilde{g}$ is near $\caG$ of the form $$\label{eq:NormalForm}
\tilde{g}=2\rho\,dt^2+2\rho\,dt\,d\rho+t^2g_\rho,$$ where $g_\rho$ is a 1-parameter family of metrics on $M$ with $g_0=g$, then $\tilde{g}$ is said to be in *normal form relative to $g$*. For any straight pre-ambient metric $\tilde{g}$ and a choice of $g\in[g]$, it is known [@Fefferman:2012vr Proposition 2.8] that there exists an ambient-equivalence map $\Phi$ such that $\Phi^*\tilde{g}$ is in normal form relative to $g$.
\[lem:ActionOfNablaT\] Let $\tilde{g}$ be a straight pre-ambient metric. For $\tilde{\tau}\in\tilde{\caT}(w)$ and $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}(w)$, $$\tilde{\nabla}_T\tilde{\tau}=(w-1)\tilde{\tau},\qquad
\tilde{\nabla}_T\tilde{\sigma}=(w-2)\tilde{\sigma}.$$
Let $\tilde{\xi}\in\frX(\tilde{\caG})$. Then, since the Levi-Civita connection is torsion-free, $$\begin{split}
(\tilde{\nabla}_T\tilde{\tau})(\tilde{\xi})
&=T(\tilde{\tau}(\tilde{\xi}))-\tilde{\tau}(\tilde{\nabla}_T\tilde{\xi})
=T(\tilde{\tau}(\tilde{\xi}))-\tilde{\tau}([T,\tilde{\xi}]+\tilde{\nabla}_{\tilde{\xi}}T)\\
&=T(\tilde{\tau}(\tilde{\xi}))
-\tilde{\tau}(\caL_T\tilde{\xi})-\tilde{\tau}(\tilde{\nabla}_{\tilde{\xi}}T)
=(\caL_T\tilde{\tau})(\tilde{\xi})-\tilde{\tau}(\tilde{\xi})
=(w-1)\tilde{\tau}(\tilde{\xi}).
\end{split}$$ The second equality is proved similarly.
Now let $\tilde{g}$ be a fixed ambient metric. Let $\tilde{\caS}_0(w)$ be the subspace of formally trace-free tensors of $\tilde{\caS}(w)$, and $\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}(w)$ the subspace of formally TT-tensors. Moreover, we define as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\tilde{\caS}^X(w):=
\set{\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}(w)|T\contraction\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^\infty)},\\
\tilde{\caS}_0^X(w):=\tilde{\caS}_0(w)\cap\tilde{\caS}^X(w),\qquad
\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(w):=\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}(w)\cap\tilde{\caS}^X(w).\end{gathered}$$ If $n$ is odd, these spaces are invariant under $O(r^\infty)$-modifications of $\tilde{g}$. If $n$ is even, we need some technically-defined tensor spaces. For $2-n\le w\le 2$, we set $$\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}(w)
:=\set{\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}(w)|
\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{{\lceil\frac{n-2+w}{2}\rceil}}),\quad
{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{{\lceil\frac{n-2+w}{2}\rceil}})}$$ (“aTT” is for “approximately TT”) and $$\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w)
:=\set{\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}(w)|T\contraction\tilde{\sigma}
=O^-(r^{{\lceil\frac{n-2+w}{2}\rceil}+1})},$$ where ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}$ is the divergence operator $\tensor{({\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma})}{_I}=-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}$, and ${\lceilx\rceil}$ is the smallest integer not less than $x$. Then $\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w)$ does not depend on the $O^+(r^{n/2})$-ambiguity of $\tilde{g}$. To check this, let $\tilde{g}'=\tilde{g}+A$ be another ambient metric with $A=O^+(r^{n/2})$. Then $T\contraction A=O^-(r^{n/2+1})$. Since $\tr_{\tilde{g}'}\tilde{\sigma}=\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}+O(r^{n/2})$ for any $\tilde{\sigma}$, the trace condition is not affected. The Christoffel symbol of $\tilde{g}'$ is given by $$\tensor{(\tilde{\Gamma}')}{^K_I_J}
=\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^K_I_J}-\frac{1}{2}\tensor{(\tilde{g}'^{-1})}{^K^L}\tensor{(DA)}{_L_I_J}
=\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^K_I_J}-\frac{1}{2}\tensor{(DA)}{^K_I_J}+O(r^{n/2}),$$ where $$\tensor{(DA)}{_K_I_J}
=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_K}\tensor{A}{_I_J}-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_I}\tensor{A}{_K_J}
-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_J}\tensor{A}{_K_I}.$$ Hence $$\tensor{(\delta_{\tilde{g}'}\tilde{\sigma})}{_I}
=\tensor{(\delta_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma})}{_I}
+\frac{1}{2}\tensor{(DA)}{^J^K_I}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_J_K}
+\frac{1}{2}\tensor{(DA)}{^J^K_K}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}+O(r^{n/2}).$$ Let $A=r^{n/2}\overline{A}$. Then $$\tensor{(DA)}{_K_I_J}
=nr^{n/2-1}(\tensor{T}{_K}\tensor{\overline{A}}{_I_J}
-\tensor{T}{_I}\tensor{\overline{A}}{_K_J}
-\tensor{T}{_J}\tensor{\overline{A}}{_K_I})+O(r^{n/2})$$ and, because $T\contraction\overline{A}=O^-(r)$, $$\tensor{(DA)}{_K_I^I}
=nr^{n/2-1}\tensor{T}{_K}\tensor{\overline{A}}{_I^I}+O^-(r^{n/2}).$$ Therefore, if $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(w)$, ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}'}\tilde{\sigma}={\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}+O^-(r^{n/2})
=O^-(r^{{\lceil(n-2+w)/2\rceil}})$.
\[lem:AmbientLift\] Let $\tilde{g}$ be an ambient metric and $\varphi\in\caS_0(-n/2+2+k)$, where $k\in\bbZ_+$. If $n$ is odd, then there exists $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(-n/2+2+k)$ such that $\tilde{\sigma}|_{TM}=\varphi$. If $n$ is even, there exists $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(-n/2+2+k)$ such that $\tilde{\sigma}|_{TM}=\varphi$ as long as $k\le n/2$. In both cases, the restriction $\tilde{\varphi}=\tilde{\sigma}|_\caG$ is uniquely determined.
To prove the existence part, take any $\tilde{\sigma}_{(0)}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_0(-n/2+2+k)$ for which $\tilde{\sigma}_{(0)}|_{TM}=\varphi$. We shall inductively construct $\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_0(-n/2+2+k)$ for nonnegative integers $m$ such that $$\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}=\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)}+O(r^{m-1}),\qquad
{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}=O(r^m).$$ Suppose we have $\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_0(-n/2+2+k)$ with ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)}=O(r^{m-1})$. If $\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_0(-n/2+2+k)$, then $T\contraction{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}=0$ is automatically guaranteed: $$\begin{split}
\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)})}{_I_J}
&=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}(\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)})}{_I_J})
-(\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{T}{^I})\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)})}{_I_J}\\
&=0+\tensor{\tilde{g}}{^I^J}\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)})}{_I_J}=0.
\end{split}$$ We seek for $\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}$ assuming that it is of the form $$\label{eq:TTExtension_FormOfInduction}
\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)})}{_I_J}
=\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)})}{_I_J}+2r^{m-1}\tensor{T}{_(_I}\tensor{V}{_J_)}
+r^{m-1}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}\tensor{T}{_J}-r^m\tensor{W}{_I_J},$$ where $V\in\tilde{\caT}(-n/2+2+k-2m)$ satisfies $\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{V}{_I}=0$, $\tilde{f}\in\tilde{\caE}(-n/2+k-2m)$, and $W\in\tilde{\caS}^X(-n/2+2+k-2m)$ is such that the whole expression is trace-free and vanishes if contracted with $T$ (hence $\tr_{\tilde{g}}W=\tilde{f}$, $\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{W}{_I_J}=\tensor{V}{_I}+\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}$). Minus of the divergences of the additional three terms on the right-hand side of are $$\begin{aligned}
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}(2r^{m-1}\tensor{T}{_(_I}\tensor{V}{_J_)})
&=r^{m-1}\cdot((n/2+2+k)\tensor{V}{_I}+\tensor{T}{_I}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{V}{_J})+O(r^m),\\
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}(r^{m-1}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}\tensor{T}{_J})
&=r^{m-1}\cdot(n/2+1+k)\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}+O(r^m),\\
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}(-r^m\tensor{W}{_I_J})
&=r^{m-1}\cdot(-2m)(\tensor{V}{_I}+\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I})+O(r^m).
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we first put $V=(n/2+2+k-2m)^{-1}r^{-m+1}{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)}$, and set $\tilde{f}=-(n/2+1+k-2m)^{-1}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{V}{_J}$ so that the $O(r^{m-1})$-term of the divergence of vanishes. This is possible for all $m$ if $n$ is odd, and until $m=\lfloor n/2+k\rfloor$ if $n$ is even. Applying Borel’s Lemma, the proof of the existence for $n$ odd is complete. When $n$ is even, we get $\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\sigma}_{(\lfloor(n/2+k)/2\rfloor)}$. Furthermore, if $n/2+1+k$ is an even number, then ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}$ can be made $O^-(r^{(n/2+1+k)/2})$. Anyway, ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}$ finally becomes $O^-(r^{\lceil(n/2+k)/2\rceil})$, and the existence for $n$ even is proved.
Let us once again take $\tilde{\sigma}_{(0)}$ as we did in the beginning of this proof. If $\tilde{\sigma}$ is as in the statement, then since $(T\contraction\tilde{\sigma})|_\caG=0$ and $\tilde{\sigma}|_{TM}=\varphi$, $\tilde{\sigma}$ must be written as $$\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\sigma}_{(0)}+2\tensor{T}{_(_I}\tensor{V}{_J_)}-r\tensor{W}{_I_J},$$ where $\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{V}{_I}=O(r)$. Moreover, in order $T\contraction\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^2)$ to be satisfied, $\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{W}{_I_J}$ should be $\tensor{V}{_I}+r^{-1}\tensor{T}{_I}\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{V}{_J}+O(r)$. Then $$\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}(2\tensor{T}{_(_I}\tensor{V}{_J_)}-r\tensor{W}{_I_J})
=\left(\frac{n}{2}+k\right)\tensor{V}{_I}
+\tensor{T}{_I}(\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{V}{_J}-2r^{-1}\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{V}{_J})+O(r).$$ Therefore, $\tensor{V}{_I}$ mod $O^-(r)$ is determined by the condition ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r)$. If we put $\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}$ into $\tensor{V}{_I}$, then the right-hand side will be $(n+2k-2)\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}$. Thus $\tensor{V}{_I}$ is uniquely determined in order to satisfy ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r)$.
We call $\tilde{\varphi}$ in Lemma \[lem:AmbientLift\] the *ambient lift* of $\varphi\in\caS(-n/2+2+k)$.
A GJMS construction for trace-free symmetric 2-tensors {#sec:GJMS}
======================================================
Let $(M,[g])$ be a conformal manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$ and $\tilde{g}$ an ambient metric. We shall play with the following three operators: $$\begin{aligned}
x &\colon \tilde{\caS}(w)\to\tilde{\caS}(w+2), & \tilde{\sigma}&\mapsto\frac{1}{4}r\tilde{\sigma},\\
y &\colon \tilde{\caS}(w)\to\tilde{\caS}(w-2), &
\tilde{\sigma}&\mapsto{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma},\\
h &\colon \tilde{\caS}(w)\to\tilde{\caS}(w), &
\tilde{\sigma}&\mapsto\left(\tilde{\nabla}_T+\frac{n+2}{2}\right)\tilde{\sigma}
=\left(w+\frac{n}{2}-1\right)\tilde{\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Just as in the case of the classical GJMS construction, one can verify the following.
The operators $x$, $y$, $h$ enjoy the $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$ commutation relations: $$[h,x]=2x,\qquad
[h,y]=-2y,\qquad
[x,y]=h.$$
The proof is left to the reader. Consequently we have the following identities: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SL2Commutations1}
[y^m,x]&=-my^{m-1}(h-m+1),\\
\label{eq:SL2Commutations2}
[x^m,y]&=mx^{m-1}(h+m-1),\\
\label{eq:SL2Commutations3}
y^{m-1}x^{m-1}&=(-1)^{m-1}(m-1)!h(h+1)\cdots(h+m-2)+xZ_m,\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_m$ is some polynomial in $x$, $y$, $h$.
We are going to verify that $x$, $y$, and $h$ preserve the subspaces $\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{TT}(w)$ when $n$ is odd and $\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(w)$ when $n$ even. For this we need two lemmas.
For $\tilde{f}\in\tilde{\caE}(w)$, $\tilde{\tau}\in\tilde{\caT}(w)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:LaplacianOnFunctions}
\tilde{f}=O(r^m)\Longrightarrow\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{f}=O(r^{m-1}),\\
\label{eq:LaplacianOnForms}
\tilde{\tau}=O^-(r^m)\Longrightarrow\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{\tau}=O^-(r^{m-1}).
\end{gathered}$$ In , we may also replace $\tilde{\Delta}$ with the Hodge Laplacian ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{H}}$.
First we compute $\tilde{\Delta}(r^m)$: $$\tilde{\Delta}(r^m)=-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^I}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_I}(r^m)
=-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^I}(2mr^{m-1}\tensor{T}{_I})
=-2m(2m+n)r^{m-1}.$$ Hence it is clear that $\tilde{f}=O(r^m)$ implies $\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{f}=O(r^{m-1})$ and that $\tilde{\tau}=O(r^m)$ implies $\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{\tau}=O(r^{m-1})$. So, to prove , it remains to show that $\tilde{\Delta}(r^{m-1}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I})$ is $O^-(r^{m-1})$. This is checked directly: $$\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_J}(r^{m-1}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I})
=2(m-1)r^{m-2}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}\tensor{T}{_J}+r^{m-1}\tilde{f}\tensor{\tilde{g}}{_I_J}
+r^{m-1}\tensor{T}{_I}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_J}\tilde{f}$$ and therefore $$\tilde{\Delta}(r^{m-1}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I})
=-2(m-1)(2m+n+2w)r^{m-2}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}+O(r^{m-1}).$$ By Bochner’s Formula ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{H}}\tensor{\tilde{\tau}}{_I}=\tilde{\Delta}\tensor{\tilde{\tau}}{_I}
+\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_I^J}\tensor{\tilde{\tau}}{_J}$, ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{H}}\tilde{\tau}=O^-(r^{m-1})$ is clear.
Let $(D\widetilde{\Ric})^\circ\colon\tilde{\caS}(w)\to\tilde{\caT}(w-4)$ be defined by $$\tensor{((D\widetilde{\Ric})^\circ\tilde{\sigma})}{_I}
=(\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_I}\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_J_K}
-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_J}\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_I_K}
-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_K}\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_I_J})\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{^J^K}.$$ Then it is known that, on any symmetric 2-tensor, $$\label{eq:CommutatorDivLichnerowicz}
{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\circ{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}={\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{H}}\circ{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}
+(D\widetilde{\Ric})^\circ.$$
\[lem:DRic\] When $n$ is even and $2-n\le w\le 2$, $$\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(w)\Longrightarrow
(D\widetilde{\Ric})^\circ\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{n/2-1}).$$
Let $\widetilde{\Ric}=r^{n/2-1}\tilde{S}$. Then $$\label{eq:DerivativeOfAmbientRic}
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_I}\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_J_K}
=(n-2)r^{n/2-2}\tensor{T}{_I}\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_J_K}+O(r^{n/2-1}).$$ Therefore $$(\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_I}\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_J_K})\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{^J^K}
=(n-2)r^{n/2-2}\braket{\tilde{S},\tilde{\sigma}}_{\tilde{g}}\tensor{T}{_I}+O(r^{n/2-1}).$$ On the other hand, since $T\contraction\tilde{\sigma}$ is at least $O^-(r)$, we can write $\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}=\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_J}+O(r)$. Hence, by and , $$(\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_J}\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_I_K})\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{^J^K}
=(n-2)r^{n/2-2}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{^K}\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_I_K}+O(r^{n/2-1})
=O(r^{n/2-1}).$$ Consequently, $(D\widetilde{\Ric})^\circ\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{n/2-1})$.
\[prop:MappingPropertyOfSL2\] If $n$ is odd, then for any $w$, $$\begin{gathered}
x(\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(w))\subset\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(w+2),\quad
y(\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(w))\subset\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(w-2),\quad
h(\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(w))\subset\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(w).
\end{gathered}$$ If $n$ is even, $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
x(\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w))&\subset\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w+2),&\qquad &2-n\le w\le 0,\\
y(\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w))&\subset\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w-2),& &{-n}\le w\le 2,\\
h(\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w))&\subset\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w),& &2-n\le w\le 2.
\end{aligned}$$
Since the case $n$ odd is easier to prove, we discuss the case $n$ even. It is clear that $h(\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w))\subset\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w)$. For $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w)$, $T\contraction(r\tilde{\sigma})=rT\contraction\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{{\lceil(n-2+w)/2\rceil}+2})$, $\tr_{\tilde{g}}(r\tilde{\sigma})=r\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{{\lceil(n-2+w)/2\rceil}+1})$, and $${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}(r\tilde{\sigma})
=-2T\contraction\tilde{\sigma}+r{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}
=O^-(r^{{\lceil\frac{n-2+w}{2}\rceil}+1}).$$ Hence $x\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w+2)$. It remains to show that $y\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(w-2)$. The trace of ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}$ is $\tr_{\tilde{g}}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\Delta}(\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma})
=O(r^{{\lceil(n-2+w)/2\rceil}-1})$ by . Furthermore, $$\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_K}(\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J})
=\tensor{\delta}{_K^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
+\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_K}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
=\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_K}+\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_K}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}$$ and hence $$\begin{split}
\tilde{\Delta}(\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J})
&=-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^K}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_K}
-\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^K}(\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_K}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J})\\
&=-2\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^K}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_K}
-\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^K}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_K}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
=-2\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^K}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_K}
+\tensor{T}{^J}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J};
\end{split}$$ the last equality is because of . This implies $T\contraction{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{{\lceil(n-2+w)/2\rceil}})$. Finally, and Lemma \[lem:DRic\] show ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{{\lceil(n-2+w)/2\rceil}-1})$.
\[thm:GJMSAsLaplacianPower\] Let $k\in\bbZ_+$ if $n$ odd, and $k\in\set{1,2,\dots,n/2}$ if $n$ even. For any $\varphi\in\caS_0(-n/2+2+k)$, let $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}(-n/2+2+k)$ be any extension of the ambient lift $\tilde{\varphi}$. Then ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}|_\caG$ depends only on $\varphi$ and not on the extension. Furthermore, ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}|_{TM}$ makes sense as a section in $\caS(-n/2+2-k)$.
We work on the case $n$ even only. Any two extensions of $\tilde{\varphi}$ differs by a tensor of the form $r\tilde{\tau}$, where $\tilde{\tau}\in\tilde{\caS}_0(-n/2+k)$. Equation shows that the commutator $[{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k,r]$ vanishes on $\tilde{\caS}_0(-n/2+k)$ and hence ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k(r\tilde{\tau})|_\caG=0$. In particular, using Lemma \[lem:AmbientLift\] one can take $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(-n/2+2+k)$ as an extension of $\tilde{\varphi}$. Then by Proposition \[prop:MappingPropertyOfSL2\], ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(-n/2+2-k)$ and ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}|_{TM}$ is defined.
\[thm:GJMSAsObstruction\] Let $k\in\bbZ_+$ if $n$ odd, and $k\in\set{1,2,\dots,n/2}$ if $n$ even. Let $\varphi\in\caS_0(-n/2+2+k)$ and $\tilde{\varphi}$ its ambient lift. Then there exists a solution $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{TT}(-n/2+2+k)$ if $n$ odd, and $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(-n/2+2+k)$ if $n$ even, to the problem $$\label{eq:HarmonicExtensionProblem}
{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{k-1}),\qquad
\tilde{\sigma}|_\caG=\tilde{\varphi},$$ which is unique modulo $O(r^k)$. For any such $\tilde{\sigma}$, $(r^{1-k}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma})|_{\caG}$ is independent of the ambiguity that lives in $\tilde{\sigma}$, and agrees with ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}|_{\caG}$ up to a constant factor: $$\label{eq:EqualityOfTwoOperators}
(r^{1-k}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma})|_{\caG}
=\frac{1}{4^{k-1}(k-1)!^2}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}|_{\caG}.$$
We work on the case $n$ even only. Let us begin with an arbitrary extension $\tilde{\sigma}_{(0)}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(-n/2+2+k)$ of $\tilde{\varphi}$. If an extension $\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)}$ satisfies ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)}=O(r^{m-1})$, then it has a modification $\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}=\tilde{\sigma}_{(m-1)}+r^m\tilde{\sigma}_1$, $\tilde{\sigma}_1\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{TT}(-n/2+2+k-2m)$, which is unique modulo $O(r^{m+1})$, satisfying ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}=O(r^m)$. In fact, by , we have $$\label{eq:AmbLichnerowiczAndrm}
{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}(r^m\tilde{\sigma}_1)
=4mr^{m-1}(m-k)\tilde{\tau}+r^m{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}_1.$$ Therefore $\tilde{\sigma}_1$ can be taken so that ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}_{(m)}=O(r^m)$ unless $m=k$. Hence there is $\tilde{\sigma}$ with the property stated in the theorem. Let ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=r^{k-1}\tilde{F}$, $\tilde{F}\in\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{TT}^X(-n/2+2-k)$. Then, by , ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}=4^{k-1}y^{k-1}x^{k-1}\tilde{F}=4^{k-1}(k-1)!^2\tilde{F}+O(r)$. Hence .
Except in the case where $n$ is even and $k=n/2$, $({\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma})|_{TM}$ is trace-free since $\tr_{\tilde{g}}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}$ and $T\contraction{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}$ are both $O(r)$.
Let $(M,[g])$ be a conformal manifold of dimension $n\ge 3$ and $\tilde{g}$ an ambient metric. We call $$P_k\colon\caS_0(-n/2+2+k)\to\caS_0(-n/2+2-k),\qquad
P_k\varphi=\tf_{\bm{g}}({\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}|_{TM})$$ the *GJMS operator on trace-free symmetric 2-tensors*, where $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}(-n/2+2+k)$ is any extension of the ambient lift of $\varphi$. (One can remove $\tf_{\bm{g}}$ unless $n$ is even and $k=n/2$.) In particular, when $n=\dim M\ge 4$ even, $$P=P_{n/2}\colon\caS_0(2)\to\caS_0(2-n)$$ is called the *critical GJMS operator on trace-free symmetric 2-tensors*.
\[thm:InvarianceOfGJMS\] The GJMS operators on trace-free symmetric 2-tensors do not depend on the choice of $\tilde{g}$, and hence are conformally invariant differential operators.
For the case where $n$ is even and $k=n/2$, the direct verification of the conformal invariance is not easy. We will see in Theorem \[thm:DifferentialOfObstruction\] that, up to a constant factor, $P\varphi$ is equal to $\tf_{\bm{g}}\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi$, which is clearly conformally invariant. Here, we prove the theorem in the case $n$ odd and the case $n$ even, $k\le n/2-1$.
By Theorem \[thm:GJMSAsObstruction\], we may work with $r^{1-k}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}$ instead of ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}$. Let $\tilde{g}$ be an ambient metric, $\varphi\in\caS_0(-n/2+2+k)$ and $\tilde{\sigma}$ a solution to the problem stated in Theorem \[thm:GJMSAsObstruction\]. Then, if $\Phi$ is an ambient-equivalence map, $\Phi^*\tilde{\sigma}$ solves the same problem with respect to $\Phi^*\tilde{g}$. Since $(\Phi^*r)^{1-k}\tilde{\Delta}_{\mathrm{L},\Phi^*\tilde{g}}(\Phi^*\tilde{\sigma})
=\Phi^*(r^{1-k}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\sigma)$, the restrictions of $(\Phi^*r)^{1-k}\tilde{\Delta}_{\mathrm{L},\Phi^*\tilde{g}}(\Phi^*\tilde{\sigma})$ and $r^{1-k}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\sigma$ to $TM$ coincide. Therefore we may assume that $\tilde{g}$ is in normal form.
When $n$ is odd, the assertion is now clear because $\tilde{g}$ is formally unique if it is in normal form. So we assume that $n$ is even in what follows. It suffices to show that, if $\tilde{g}$, $\Hat{\tilde{g}}$ are ambient metrics in normal form and $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(-n/2+2+k)$, $$\Hat{\tilde{\Delta}}_\mathrm{L}\tilde{\sigma}-{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(\rho^{n/2-2})\qquad
\text{and}\qquad
\Hat{\tilde{\Delta}}_\mathrm{L}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}=O(\rho^{n/2-1}).$$ Let $\tensor{D}{^K_I_J}=\tensor{\Hat{\tilde{\Gamma}}}{^K_I_J}-\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^K_I_J}$. From [@Fefferman:2012vr Equation (3.16)], one concludes that $\tensor{D}{^K_I_J}=O(\rho^{n/2-1})$ and $\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^I}\tensor{D}{^K_I_J}=O(\rho^{n/2-1})$. Therefore $$\Hat{\tilde{\Delta}}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}-\tilde{\Delta}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^K}(2\tensor{D}{^L_K_(_I}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_J_)_L})+O(\rho^{n/2-1})
=O(\rho^{n/2-1}).$$ In addition, $\widehat{\widetilde{\Ric}}=\widetilde{\Ric}+O(\rho^{n/2-1})$ and $\Hat{\tilde{R}}=\tilde{R}+O(\rho^{n/2-2})$ by [@Fefferman:2012vr Equation (6.1)]. Hence $\Hat{\tilde{\Delta}}_\mathrm{L}\tilde{\sigma}-{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(\rho^{n/2-2})$. Moreover, if $\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_I_J_K_L}=\tensor{\Hat{\tilde{R}}}{_I_J_K_L}-\tensor{\tilde{R}}{_I_J_K_L}$, then $$\begin{split}
\Hat{\tilde{\Delta}}_\mathrm{L}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=-2t^{-4}\tensor{(g^{-1}_\rho)}{^k^m}\tensor{(g^{-1}_\rho)}{^l^n}
\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_k_j_l}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_m_n}\\
&\phantom{=\;}-4t^{-3}\tensor{(g^{-1}_\rho)}{^k^m}
\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_k_j_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_m_0}
+4t^{-4}\rho\tensor{(g^{-1}_\rho)}{^k^m}
\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_k_j_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_m_\infty}\\
&\phantom{=\;}-2t^{-2}
\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_\infty_j_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_0_0}
+4t^{-3}\rho
\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_\infty_j_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_0_\infty}
-8t^{-4}\rho^2
\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_\infty_j_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_\infty_\infty}\\
&\phantom{=\;}+O(\rho^{n/2-1}).
\end{split}$$ Again by [@Fefferman:2012vr Equation (6.1)], we have $\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_j_k_l}=O(\rho^{n/2-1})$, $\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_j_k_\infty}=O(\rho^{n/2-1})$, $\tensor{\tilde{S}}{_i_\infty_k_\infty}=O(\rho^{n/2-2})$ and hence $\Hat{\tilde{\Delta}}_\mathrm{L}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}=O(\rho^{n/2-1})$.
We close this section with a lemma that is proved just like the construction of $\tilde{\sigma}$ in Theorem \[thm:GJMSAsObstruction\].
\[lem:SolvingLaplacian\] Let $k\in\bbZ_+$. For any $\tilde{f}_1\in\tilde{\caE}(-n/2-2+k)$, there exists $\tilde{f}\in\tilde{\caE}(-n/2+k)$ such that $$\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{f}=\tilde{f}_1+O(r^{k-1}).$$ Likewise, for any $\tilde{\tau}_1\in\tilde{\caT}(-n/2-1+k)$, there exists $\tilde{\tau}\in\tilde{\caT}(-n/2+1+k)$ such that $$\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{\tau}=\tilde{\tau}_1+O(r^{k-1}).$$ In both problems, we may arbitrarily prescribe the values along $\caG$; if we prescribe $\tilde{f}|_\caG$, $\tilde{\tau}|_\caG$, then $\tilde{f}$, $\tilde{\tau}$ are unique modulo $O(r^k)$.
The variations of obstruction tensor and $Q$-curvature {#sec:Variations}
======================================================
Let $\tilde{g}$ be an ambient metric for a conformal manifold $(M,[g])$ of dimension $n\ge 3$. Recall that, from general calculations on (pseudo-)Riemannian curvature tensors, the differential of the Ricci tensor operator (which we write $\Ric$ here) is $$\label{eq:DifferentialRicci}
\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}
=\frac{1}{2}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}-{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma},$$ where ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*$ is the dual of the divergence $\tensor{({\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*\tilde{\tau})}{_I_J}=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_(_I}\tensor{\tilde{\tau}}{_J_)}$ and $\caB_{\tilde{g}}$ is defined by $\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}={\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}+\frac{1}{2}d(\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma})$. Therefore, for $n$ even, a solution $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}_\mathrm{aTT}^X(2)$ to the problem in Theorem \[thm:GJMSAsObstruction\] approximately solves $\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=0$, and hence it is expected that we can read off $\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi$ from the asymptotics of $\tilde{\sigma}$. This will finally turn out to be true, but since the definition of $\caO$ depends on the existence theorem of normal-form ambient metrics, in order to capture $\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi$ our starting point has to be infinitesimal modifications of ambient metrics in normal form. The differential equation that they (approximately) satisfy is different from ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=0$. So we shall establish a method for translating solutions of the two equations.
Let $(M,[g])$ be an $n$-dimensional conformal manifold with $n\ge 4$ even and $\varphi\in\caS_0(2)$. Suppose that $\bm{g}_s$ is a family of conformal metrics (here we use $s$ for the parameter, because $t$ will denote a coordinate on $\tilde{\caG}$) with $\bm{g}_0=\bm{g}$ such that $\dot{\bm{g}}_s|_{s=0}=\varphi$. Let $g\in[g]$ be any representative metric, and $g_s$ the corresponding representatives of $\bm{g}_s$. By the method of [@Fefferman:2012vr], we can construct a family of ambient metrics $$\tilde{g}_s=2\rho\,dt^2+2t\,dt\,d\rho+t^2g^s_\rho$$ such that $g_0^s=g_s$ and $g_\rho^s$ smoothly depends on the two variables $\rho$, $s$. All these metrics satisfy $\widetilde{\Ric}_s=O(r^{n/2-1})$ and $T\contraction\widetilde{\Ric}_s=O^-(r^{n/2})$. Differentiating these equations, we conclude that $\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}=(d/ds)\tilde{g}_s|_{s=0}$ solves $$\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{n/2-1}),\qquad
T\contraction\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{n/2}).$$ Note that it satisfies $T\contraction\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}=0$, $\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}=O(r)$, and hence $$\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm})}{_I_J}
=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}(\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm})}{_I_J})
-\tensor{\tilde{g}}{^I^J}\tensor{(\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm})}{_I_J}
=O(r);$$ therefore it holds that $$\label{eq:TContractionOfBianchiOfNormalSolution}
T\contraction\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}
=T\contraction{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}
+\frac{1}{2}T(\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm})
=O(r).$$ Since the obstruction tensor $\caO=\caO_s$ is defined by $$\caO_s=c_n(r^{1-n/2}\widetilde{\Ric}_s)|_{TM},\qquad
c_n=(-1)^{n/2-1}\frac{2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2}{n-2},$$ we have $$\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi=c_n(r^{1-n/2}\widetilde{\Ric}'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm})|_{TM}.$$
\[lem:HarminizationOfNormalSolution\] Let $\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}$ be as above. Then, there exists a dilation-invariant vector field $\tilde{\xi}$ on $\tilde{\caG}$ such that $\tilde{\xi}|_\caG=0$ and $$\caB_{\tilde{g}}(\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}+\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi})=O(r^{n/2}),$$ where $\caK_{\tilde{g}}$ is the Killing operator: $\tensor{(\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi})}{_I_J}=2\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_(_I}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{_J_)}$. Such $\tilde{\xi}$ is unique modulo $O(r^{n/2+1})$ and satisfies $\tilde{g}(T,\tilde{\xi})=O(r^2)$, $\tr_{\tilde{g}}\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}=O(r)$.
The equation to be solved is $\caB_{\tilde{g}}\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}=-\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}+O(r^{n/2})$. By a straightforward calculation, $$\tensor{(\caB_{\tilde{g}}\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi})}{_I}
=\tilde{\Delta}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{_I}-\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_I_J}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{^J}.$$ Since $\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_I_J}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{^J}=O(r^{n/2})$ for any $\tilde{\xi}$ satisfying $\tilde{\xi}|_\caG=0$, the equation simplifies to $\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{\xi}=-\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}+O(r^{n/2})$. By Lemma \[lem:SolvingLaplacian\], $\tilde{\xi}$ is uniquely determined up to an $O(r^{n/2+1})$ ambiguity.
If we write $\tilde{\xi}=rV$, then $\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{\xi}=-2nV+O(r)$. On the other hand, $T\contraction\tilde{\Delta}\tilde{\xi}=-2T\contraction\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}+O(r^{n/2})$ should be $O(r)$ by . Consequently $T\contraction V=O(r)$, i.e., $T\contraction\tilde{\xi}=O(r^2)$. Moreover, $\tr_{\tilde{g}}\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}=2\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^I}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{_I}
=4\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{V}{_I}+O(r)=O(r)$.
Let $\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}+\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}\in\tilde{\caS}(2)$. It is a consequence of the fact that the Ricci operator commutes with diffeomorphisms that $\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}=\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\caL_{\tilde{\xi}}\tilde{g}
=\caL_{\tilde{\xi}}\widetilde{\Ric}$. Since $\tilde{\xi}|_\caG=0$, $\widetilde{\Ric}=O(r^{n/2-1})$, and $T\contraction\widetilde{\Ric}=O^-(r^{n/2})$, $\caL_{\tilde{\xi}}\widetilde{\Ric}$ itself is $O(r^{n/2-1})$ and $T\contraction\caL_{\tilde{\xi}}\widetilde{\Ric}=O^-(r^{n/2})$. Therefore $\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{n/2-1})$, $T\contraction\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{n/2})$. Moreover, $\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{n/2})$ and hence ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{n/2-1})$, $T\contraction{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{n/2})$. Thus we conclude $$\label{eq:ModificationOfNormalSolution}
{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{n/2-1}),\qquad
T\contraction{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{n/2}).$$
\[lem:NormalSolutionModifiedToHarmonicSolution\] Let $\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}$ and $\tilde{\xi}$ be as in Lemma \[lem:HarminizationOfNormalSolution\]. Then $\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}+\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(2)$ and it is a solution to .
It remains to show that $\tilde{\sigma}\in\tilde{\caS}^X_\mathrm{aTT}(2)$. By taking the trace of , we obtain $\tilde{\Delta}(\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma})=O(r^{n/2-1})$. In addition, since $\tr_{\tilde{g}}\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}=O(r)$, we have $(\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma})|_\caG=0$. Hence, by Lemma \[lem:SolvingLaplacian\], $\tr_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{n/2})$. Then $\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O(r^{n/2})$ implies ${\delta}_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{n/2})$. Furthermore, $$\tilde{\Delta}(\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J})
=\tensor{T}{^J}\tilde{\Delta}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
=\tensor{T}{^J}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
=O^-(r^{n/2})$$ and $$\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}
=\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{(\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi})}{_I_J}
=\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_I}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{_J}
+\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_J}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{_I}
=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_I}(\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{_J})=O(r).$$ Since $\tilde{\Delta}(r^{n/2}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I})=-2nr^{n/2-1}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}+O(r^{n/2})$ for $\tilde{f}\in\tilde{\caE}(-n)$, one can determine $\tilde{f}$ so that $\tilde{\Delta}(\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}+r^{n/2}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I})=O(r^{n/2})$. Then $\tensor{T}{^J}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_I_J}+r^{n/2}\tilde{f}\tensor{T}{_I}$ is still $O(r)$, and hence $T\contraction\tilde{\sigma}=O^-(r^{n/2+1})$ by Lemma \[lem:SolvingLaplacian\].
\[lem:LichnerowiczEncodesObstruction\] Let $\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}$ and $\tilde{\xi}$ be as in Lemma \[lem:HarminizationOfNormalSolution\] and set $\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}+\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}$. Then ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}-2\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}=O(r^{n/2-1})$, and $(r^{1-n/2}({\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}-2\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}))|_{T\caG}$ vanishes.
Recall that $$\frac{1}{2}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}-\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}
=\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}-{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}
=\caL_{\tilde{\xi}}\widetilde{\Ric}-{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}.$$ Let $\widetilde{\Ric}=r^{n/2-1}S$ and $\tilde{\xi}=rV$. We proved in Lemma \[lem:HarminizationOfNormalSolution\] that $\tensor{T}{^I}\tensor{V}{_I}=O(r)$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:ActionOfNablaT\], we compute $$\tensor{(\caL_{\tilde{\xi}}\widetilde{\Ric})}{_I_J}
=\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{^K}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_K}\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_I_J}
+2\tensor{\widetilde{\Ric}}{_K_(_I}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_J_)}\tensor{\tilde{\xi}}{^K}
=4r^{n/2-1}\tensor{S}{_K_(_I}\tensor{T}{_J_)}\tensor{V}{^K}+O(r^{n/2}).$$ Thus $(r^{1-n/2}\caL_{\tilde{\xi}}\widetilde{\Ric})|_{T\caG}$ vanishes. On the other hand, if we write $\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}=r^{n/2}\tilde{\tau}$, then $$\tensor{({\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma})}{_I}
=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_(_I}\tensor{(r^{n/2}\tilde{\tau})}{_J_)}
=nr^{n/2-1}\tensor{T}{_(_I}\tensor{\tilde{\tau}}{_J_)}+O(r^{n/2}),$$ and hence $(r^{1-n/2}{\delta}_{\tilde{g}}^*\caB_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma})|_{T\caG}=0$. This completes the proof.
\[thm:DifferentialOfObstruction\] Let $(M,[g])$ be a conformal manifold of even dimension $n$. Then the differential of the obstruction tensor $\caO'_{\bm{g}}$ is given by $$\label{eq:DifferentialObstruction}
\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi=\frac{(-1)^{n/2-1}}{2(n-2)}P\varphi
+\frac{1}{n+2}\braket{\caO,\varphi}_{\bm{g}}\bm{g}.$$
Let $\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}$, $\tilde{\xi}$ as in Lemma \[lem:HarminizationOfNormalSolution\] and $\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm}+\caK_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\xi}$. By Lemma \[lem:NormalSolutionModifiedToHarmonicSolution\], $P\varphi$ is equal to the trace-free part of $2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2(r^{1-n/2}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma})|_{TM}$. By the previous lemma, $(r^{1-n/2}{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma})|_{TM}=
(2r^{1-n/2}\Ric'_{\tilde{g}}\tilde{\sigma}_\mathrm{norm})|_{TM}=c_n^{-1}\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi$. Therefore, $$\tf_{\bm{g}}\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi=\frac{(-1)^{n/2-1}}{2(n-2)}P\varphi.$$ On the other hand, $\tr_{\bm{g}}\caO'_{\bm{g}}\varphi=\braket{\caO,\varphi}_{\bm{g}}$, for $\tr_{\bm{g}}\caO=0$ for any $\bm{g}$. Hence .
Combining the theorem above and equation , we obtain the following.
Let $(M,[g])$ be a compact conformal manifold of even dimension $n\ge 4$ with vanishing obstruction tensor. Let $\bm{g}_t$ be a family of conformal structures such that $\bm{g}_0=\bm{g}$. Then the second derivative of the total $Q$-curvature at $t=0$ is $$\left.\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\overline{Q}_t\right|_{t=0}=-\frac{1}{4}\int_M\braket{P\varphi,\varphi}_{\bm{g}},$$ where $\varphi=\dot{\bm{g}}_t|_{t=0}$ and $P\colon\caS_0(2)\to\caS_0(2-n)$ is the critical GJMS operator on trace-free symmetric 2-tensors.
Explicit calculations for conformally Einstein manifolds {#sec:ConfEinstein}
========================================================
Recall that, for $g\in[g]$ Einstein with $\tensor{\Ric}{_i_j}=2\lambda(n-1)\tensor{g}{_i_j}$ so that $\tensor{P}{_i_j}=\lambda\tensor{g}{_i_j}$, the following formula gives an ambient metric that is Ricci-flat: $$\label{eq:AmbientForConformallyEinstein}
\tilde{g}=2\rho\, dt^2+2t\,dt\,d\rho+t^2(1+\lambda\rho)^2g.$$ The inverse of $\tilde{g}$ is $$\tensor{(\tilde{g}^{-1})}{^I^J}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & t^{-1}\\
0 & t^{-2}(1+\lambda\rho)^{-2}\tensor{g}{^i^j} & 0\\
t^{-1} & 0 & -2t^{-2}\rho
\end{pmatrix}$$ and the Christoffel symbol of $\tilde{g}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^0_I_J}&=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\lambda t(1+\lambda\rho)\tensor{g}{_i_j} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^k_I_J}&=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & t^{-1}\tensor{\delta}{_j^k} & 0 \\
t^{-1}\tensor{\delta}{_i^k} &
\tensor{\Gamma}{^k_i_j} &
\lambda(1+\lambda\rho)^{-1}\tensor{\delta}{_i^k} \\
0 & \lambda(1+\lambda\rho)^{-1}\tensor{\delta}{_j^k} & 0
\end{pmatrix},\\
\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^\infty_I_J}&=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & t^{-1} \\ 0 & -(1+\lambda\rho)(1-\lambda\rho)\tensor{g}{_i_j} & 0 \\ t^{-1} & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ A direct computation shows that $\tensor{\tilde{W}}{_i_j_k_l}=t^2\tensor{W}{_i_j_k_l}$, where $\tilde{W}$ and $W$ are the Weyl tensors of $\tilde{g}$ and $g$, respectively (the latter is trivially extended to $\tilde{\caG}=\bbR_+\times M\times\bbR$). The other components of $\tilde{W}$ are zero.
\[lem:AmbientLichnerowiczOfConfEinstein\] Let $\tilde{g}$ as above, and suppose that $\tilde\sigma\in\tilde{\caS}(w)$ is of the form $$\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}=t^{w}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w}\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j},$$ where $\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j}$ is a symmetric 2-tensor on $(M,g)$. Then $$\label{eq:AmbLichnerowiczConfEinstein}
{\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}
=t^{w-2}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w-2}
(\Delta_\mathrm{L}-4(n-1)\lambda-2(w-2)(n+w-3)\lambda)\sigma,$$ where $\Delta_\mathrm{L}=\Delta+4n\lambda-2\mathring{W}$ is the Lichnerowicz Laplacian of $g$.
The first covariant derivative of $\tilde{\sigma}$ is as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=\partial_\rho\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^k_\infty_(_i}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_j_)_k}
=t^{w}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w-1}(w-2)\lambda\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j},\\
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_0}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=\partial_t\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^k_0_(_i}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_j_)_k}
=t^{w-1}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w}(w-2)\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j},\\
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_k}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=\partial_{x^k}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^l_k_(_i}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_j_)_l}
=t^{w}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w}\tensor{\nabla}{_k}\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j},\\
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_k}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_\infty}
&=-\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^l_k_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_l}
=-t^{w}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w-1}\lambda\tensor{\sigma}{_i_k},\\
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_k}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_0}
&=-\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^l_k_0}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_l}
=-t^{w-1}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w}\tensor{\sigma}{_i_k}.
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_0}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=\partial_t\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^\infty_0_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^k_0_(_i_|}
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_|_j_)_k}\\
&=t^{w-1}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w-1}(w-2)(w-3)\lambda\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j},
\end{split}\\
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_0}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_0}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{R}}{_\infty_0^k_(_i}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_j_)_k}
=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_0}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j},\\
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=\partial_\rho\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^k_\infty_(_i_|}
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_|_j_)_k}
=t^{w}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w-2}(w-2)(w-3)\lambda^2\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j},\\
\begin{split}
\tensor{g}{^k^l}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_k}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_l}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=\partial_{x^k}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_l}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^m_k_l}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_m}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^m_k_(_i_|}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_l}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_|_j_)_m}\\
&\phantom{=\;}
-\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^\infty_k_l}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^\infty_k_(_i_|}
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_l}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_|_j_)_\infty}
-\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^0_k_l}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_0}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-2\tensor{\tilde{\Gamma}}{^0_k_(_i_|}
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_l}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_|_j_)_0}\\
&=-t^{w}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w}
(\Delta\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j}-2(n(w-2)-2)\lambda\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j})
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{split}
\tilde{\Delta}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
&=-2t^{-1}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_0}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
+2t^{-2}\rho
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
-t^{-2}(1+\lambda\rho)^{-2}
\tensor{g}{^k^l}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_k}\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_l}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}\\
&=t^{w-2}(1+\lambda\rho)^{w-2}
(\Delta+4\lambda-2(w-2)(n+w-3)\lambda)\tensor{\sigma}{_i_j}.
\end{split}$$ Consequently, ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}\tilde{\sigma}=(\tilde{\Delta}-2\mathring{\tilde{W}})\tilde{\sigma}$ is given by .
\[thm:CriticalGJMSForConfEinstein\] Let $(M,[g])$ be a conformally Einstein manifold with $\dim M=n\ge 3$, and $g\in[g]$ an Einstein representative with Schouten tensor $\tensor{P}{_i_j}=\lambda\tensor{g}{_i_j}$. Then, the action of $P_k$ restricted to $\caS^g_\mathrm{TT}(-n/2+2+k)$ is given by .
Let $\varphi=t^{-n/2+2+k}\overline{\varphi}\in\caS^g_\mathrm{TT}(-n/2+2+k)$ and $\tilde{\sigma}=(1+\lambda\rho)^{-n/2+2+k}\varphi$. Then $$\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_k}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_i_j}
=t^{-n/2+2+k}(1+\lambda\rho)^{-n/2+2+k}\tensor{\nabla}{_k}\tensor{\overline{\varphi}}{_i_j},\qquad
\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_0_i}
=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_0}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_\infty_i}
=\tensor{\tilde{\nabla}}{_\infty}\tensor{\tilde{\sigma}}{_\infty_i}
=0.$$ Since $\overline{\varphi}$ is a TT-tensor on $(M,g)$, $\tilde{\sigma}$ itself is a TT-tensor with respect to $\tilde{g}$, and hence is an extension of the ambient lift of $\varphi$. We may compute ${\tilde{\Delta}_\mathrm{L}}^k\tilde{\sigma}$ by Lemma \[lem:AmbientLichnerowiczOfConfEinstein\]. By taking the value along $\caG$ and trivializing with respect to $g$, we obtain .
Now we prove our main theorem.
Let $\varphi=\caK_{[g]}\xi+\varphi^g_\mathrm{TT}$ be the decomposition of $\varphi=\dot{\bm{g}}_t|_{t=0}$ with respect to and $\Xi_t$ the flow generated by $\xi$. Then $\bm{g}'_t=\Xi_{-t}^*\bm{g}_t$ satisfies $\dot{\bm{g}}'_t|_{t=0}=\varphi^g_\mathrm{TT}$ and the total $Q$-curvature of $\bm{g}'_t$ is equal to $\overline{Q}_t$. Therefore $$\left.\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\overline{Q}_t\right|_{t=0}
=\left.\frac{d^2}{dt^2}\overline{Q}'_t\right|_{t=0}
=-\frac{1}{4}\int_M\braket{P\varphi^g_\mathrm{TT},\varphi^g_\mathrm{TT}},$$ and thus follows from Theorem \[thm:CriticalGJMSForConfEinstein\]. Under the assumption of the latter half of the theorem, any eigenvalue of $\Delta_\mathrm{L}|_{\caS_\mathrm{TT}^g(2)}-4(n-1)\lambda+4m(n-2m-1)\lambda$ is strictly positive for $0\le m\le n/2-1$. Therefore, if $\varphi^g_\mathrm{TT}\not=0$, the second derivative of $\overline{Q}_t$ at $t=0$ is negative.
[GJMS]{} A. L. Besse, *Einstein manifolds*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3), 10, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, xii+510 pp. T. P. Branson, Sharp inequalities, the functional determinant, and the complementary series, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **347** (1995), 3671–3742. T. Branson, $Q$-curvature and spectral invariants, *Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl.* **75** (2005), 11–55. T. Branson and A. R. Gover, Conformally invariant operators, differential forms, cohomology and a generalisation of Q-curvature, *Comm. Partial Differential Equations* **30** (2005), 1611–1669. T. P. Branson and A. R. Gover, The conformal deformation detour complex for the obstruction tensor, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **135** (2007), 2961–2965. T. P. Branson and A. R. Gover, Origins, applications and generalisations of the $Q$-curvature, *Acta Appl. Math.* **102** (2008), 131–146. C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham, Conformal invariants, in *The mathematical heritage of Élie Cartan (Lyon, 1984)*, Astérisque, numero hors serie, Soc. Math. France, Montrouge, 1985, 95–116. C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham, *The ambient metric*, Annals of Mathematics Studies, 178, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012, x+113 pp. A. R. Gover and L. J. Peterson, The ambient obstruction tensor and the conformal deformation complex, *Pacific J. Math.* **226** (2006), 309–351. C. R. Graham and K. Hirachi, The ambient obstruction tensor and $Q$-curvature, in *AdS/CFT Correspondence: Einstein Metrics and Their Conformal Boundaries*, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys. 8, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2005, 59–71. C. R. Graham, R. Jenne, L. J. Mason, and G. A. J. Sparling, Conformally invariant powers of the Laplacian. I. Existence, *J. London Math. Soc. (2)* **46** (1992), 557–565. C. Guillarmou, S. Moroianu, and J.-M. Schlenker, The renormalized volume and uniformisation of conformal structures, preprint, `arXiv:1211.6705`. N. M. Møller and B. Ørsted, Rigidity of conformal functionals on spheres, preprint, `arXiv:0902.4067`.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, under a one-sided Lipschitz condition on the drift coefficient we adopt (via contraction principle) a exponential approximation argument to investigate large deviations for neutral stochastic functional differential equations.'
author:
- |
[**Yongqiang Suo and Chenggui Yuan** ]{}\
\
title: '[**Large deviations for neutral stochastic functional differential equations**]{} '
---
11[±ßÖµÎÊÌâ(1)–(2)]{} ß å [a]{} ¶[P]{} ł Ł[L]{} i[[in]{}]{} H i[[i]{}]{} ł §
ß å [a]{} ¶[P]{} Ł[L]{} i[[in]{}]{} H i[[i]{}]{} ł
§ ł
AMS Subject Classification: 60F05, 60F10, 60H10.
Keywords: large deviations, neutral stochastic functional differential equations
introduction
============
As is well known, Large deviation principle (LDP for short) is a branch of probability theory that deals with the asymptotic behaviour of rare events, and it has a wide range of applications, such as mathematic finance, statistic mechanics, biology and so on. So the large deviation principle for SDEs has been investigated extensively; see, e.g.;[@BaoJ; @BYG; @MZ] and reference therein.
From the literature, we know there are two main methods to investigate the LDPs, one method is based on contraction principle in LDPs, that is, it relies on approximation arguments and exponential-type probability estimates; see e.g.,[@BZ; @FW; @GPP; @HMS; @LP; @LZ; @MZ; @RZ] and references therein. [@FW; @LZ; @RZ] concerned about the LDP for SDEs driven by Brownian motion or Poisson measure, [@HMS] investigated how rapid-switching behaviour of solution($X_t^\ep$) affects the small-noise asymptotics of $X_t^\ep$-modulated diffusion processes on the certain interval. [@GPP] investigated the LDP for invariant distributions of memory gradient diffusions.
The other one is weak convergence method, which has also been applied in establishing LDPs for a various stochastic dynamic systems; see e.g.,[@BaoJ; @BYG; @BAC; @BDP; @APA; @Bud]. According to the compactness argument in this method of the solution space of corresponding skeleton equation, the weak convergence is done for Borel measurable functions whose existence is based on Yamada-Watanabe theorem. In [@BAC; @BDP; @Bud], the authors study a large deviation principle for SDEs/SPDEs.
Compared with the weak convergence method, there are few literature about the LDP for SFDEs, [@MZ] gave result about large deviations for SDEs with point delay, and large deviations for perturbed reflected diffusion processes was investigated in [@BZ]. The aim of this paper is to study the LDP for NSFDEs, which extends the result in [@MZ].
The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we introduce some preliminary results and notation. In section 3, we state the main result about LDP for NSFDEs and give its proof.
Before giving the preliminaries, a few words about the notation are in order. Throughout this paper, $C>0$ stipulates a generic constant, which might change from line to line and depend on the time parameters.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $(\mathbb{R}^d,\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle,|\cdot|)$ be the $d$-dimensional Euclidean space with the inner product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ which induces the norm $|\cdot|$. Let $\mathbb{M}^{d\times d}$ denote the set of all $d\times d$ matrices, which equipped with the Hilbert-Schimidt norm $\|\cdot\|_{HS}$. $A^*$ stands for the transpose of the matrix $A$. For a sub-interval $\mathbb{U}\subseteq\mathbb{R}$, $C(\mathbb{U};\mathbb{R}^d)$ be the family of all continuous functions $f:\mathbb{U}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$. Let $\tau>0$ be a fixed number and $\mathscr{C}=C([-\tau,0];\mathbb{R}^d)$, endowed with the uniform norm $\|f\|_\8:=\sup_{-\tau\le\theta\le0}|f(\theta)|$. Fixed $t\ge0$, let $f_t\in\mathscr{C}$ be defined by $f_t(\theta)=f(t+\theta), \theta\in[-\tau,0]$. In terminology, $(f_t)_{t\ge0}$ is called the segment (or window) process corresponding to $(f(t))_{t\ge-\tau}$.
In this paper, we are interested in the following neutral stochastic functional differential equation (NSFDE) $$\label{eq1.1}
\d\{X^\ep(t)-G(X_t^\ep)\}=b(X_t^\ep)\d t+\ss\ep\sigma(X_t^\ep)\d W(t),~~t\in[0,T], ~~X_0^\ep=\xi\in\mathscr{C},$$ where $G,b:\mathscr{C}\rightarrow\R^d$, $\sigma:\mathscr{C}\rightarrow\R^d\times\R^d$ and $\{W(t)\}_{t\ge0}$ is a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion on some filtered probability space $(\Omega,\mathscr{F},(\mathscr{F}_t))_{t\ge0},\mathbb{P})$.
The proof of main result (Theorem \[th1\]) will be based on an extension of the contraction principle in [@DZ Theorem 4.2.23]. To make the content self-contained, we recall it as follows:
\[lem1\] Let $\{\mu_\ep\}$ be a family of probability measures that satisfies the LDP with a good rate function $I$ on a Hausdorff topological space $\mathcal{X}$, and for $m=1,2,\cdots,$ let $f_m:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}$ be continuous functions, with $(\mathcal{Y},d)$ a metric space. Assume there exists a measurable map $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow\mathcal{Y}$ such that for every $\alpha<\8$, $$\label{eq1.2}
\limsup_{m\rightarrow\8}\sup_{\{x:I(x)\le\alpha\}}d(f_m(x),f(x))=0.$$ Then any family of probability measures $\{{\widetilde}{\mu}_\ep\}$ for which $\{\mu_\ep\circ f_m^{-1}\}$ are exponentially good approximations satisfies the LDP in $\mathcal{Y}$ with the good rate function $I'(y)=\inf\{I(x):y=f(x)\}$.
We now state the classical exponential inequality for stochastic integral, which is crucial in proving the exponential approximation. For more details, please refer to Stroock [@S lemma 4.7].
\[lem2\] Let $\alpha:[0,\8)\times\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\beta:[0,\8)\times\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ be $(\mathscr{F}_t)_{t\ge0}$-progressively measurable processes. Assume that $\|\alpha(\cdot)\|_{HS}\le A$ and $|\beta|\le B$. Set $\xi(t):=\int_0^t\alpha(s)\d W(s)+\int_0^t\beta(s)\d s$ for $t\ge0$. Let $T>0$ and $R>0$ satisfy $d^{\frac{1}{2}}BT<R$. Then $$\label{eq1.3}
P\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}|\xi(t)|\ge R\Big)\le 2d\exp{\Big(\frac{-(R-d^{\frac{1}{2}}BT)^2}{2A^2dT}\Big)}.$$
LDP for NSFDE
=============
Let $H$ denote the Cameron-Martin space, i.e. $$H=\Big\{h(t)=\int_0^t\dot{h}(s)\d s:[0,T]\rightarrow\R^d;\int_0^T|\dot{h}(s)|^2\d s<+\8\Big\},$$ which is an Hilbert space endowed with the inner product as follows: $$\langle f,g\rangle_H=\int_0^T \dot{f}(s)\dot{g}(s)\d s.$$ We define $$\label{eqi}
L_T(h)=\begin{cases}\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T|\dot{h}(t)|^2\d t,&\mbox{if}~~h\in H,\\
+\8&\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ The well-known Schilder theorem states that the laws $\mu_\ep$ of $\{\ss\ep W(t)\}_{t\in[0,T]}$ satisfies the LDP on $C([0,T];\R^d)$ with the rate function $L_T(\cdot)$.
To investigate the LDP for the laws of $\{X^\ep(t)\}_{t\in[-\tau,T]}$, we give the following assumptions about coefficients.
1. There exists a constant $L>0$ such that $$\begin{split}
&2\langle\xi(0)-\eta(0)+G(\eta)-G(\xi),b(\xi)-b(\eta)\rangle\le L\|\xi-\eta\|_\8^2,
\end{split}$$ and $$\|\sigma(\xi)-\sigma(\eta)\|_{HS}^2\le L\|\xi-\eta\|_\8^2,
~~\xi,\eta\in\mathscr{C};$$
2. There exists a constant $\kappa\in(0,1)$ such that $$\label{eqg}
\begin{split}
&|G(\xi)-G(\eta)|\le\kappa\|\xi-\eta\|_\8,\\
&G(0)=0,~~~~~~\xi,\eta\in\mathscr{C}.
\end{split}$$
The one-sided Lipschitz condition on the drift coefficient in ([**H1**]{}) is different from the global Lipschitz condition in [@BaoJ]. Moreover, our method below is different from that of [@BaoJ].
\[r1\] From ([**H1**]{}), ([**H3**]{}), it is easy to see that $$\label{eqr1}
2\langle\xi(0)-G(\xi),b(\xi)\rangle\le L_2(1+\|\xi\|_\8^2),~~|G(\xi)|^2\le\kappa^2\|\xi\|^2,~\xi\in\mathscr{C}.$$
\[reme\] Let $\mu(\d\theta)\in\mathscr{P}([-\tau,0])$ and let $$\begin{split}
&G(\xi)=\alpha_1\int_{-\tau}^0\xi(\theta)\mu(\d\theta),
~~~\sigma(\xi)=\alpha_2\int_{-\tau}^0\xi(\theta)\mu(\d\theta),\\
&b(\xi)=-\alpha_3\xi(0)-\alpha_4\Big(
\xi(0)-\alpha_1\int_{-\tau}^0\xi(\theta)\mu(\d\theta)
\Big)^{1/3}+\alpha_5\int_{-\tau}^0\xi(\theta)\mu(\d\theta),
\end{split}$$ for some constants $\alpha_i,i=1,\cdots,5$ such that $\alpha_1\le\kappa$, $\Big(\alpha_3(\alpha_1-1)+\alpha_5(1+\alpha_1)\Big)\vee \alpha_2^2\le L$, then the assumptions ([**H1**]{}) and ([**H2**]{}) hold true. In fact, by the Hölder inequality, one has $$\begin{split}
&|G(\xi)-G(\eta)|^2\le\alpha_1^2\int_{-\tau}^0|\xi(\theta)-\eta(\theta)|^2\mu(\d\theta)\le\alpha_1^2\|\xi-\eta\|_\8^2\int_{-\tau}^0\mu(\d\theta)=\alpha_1^2\|\xi-\eta\|_\8^2,\\
&\mbox{noting that}\\
&-\alpha_4\langle\xi(0)-\eta(0)-(G(\xi)-G(\eta)),(\xi(0)-G(\xi))^{1/3}-(\eta(0)-G(\eta))^{1/3}\rangle\le 0,\\
&\mbox{so}\\
&\langle\xi(0)-\eta(0)-(G(\xi)-G(\eta)),b(\xi)-b(\eta)\rangle\\
&\le-\alpha_3|\xi(0)-\eta(0)|^2+\alpha_3|\xi(0)-\eta(0)||G(\xi)-G(\eta)|\\
&~~+\alpha_5|\xi(0)-\eta(0)|\int_{-\tau}^0|\xi(\theta)-\eta(\theta)|\mu(\d\theta)-\alpha_5|G(\xi)-G(\eta)|\int_{-\tau}^0|\xi(\theta)-\eta(\theta)|\mu(\d\theta)\\
&\le \alpha_3(\alpha_1-1)+\alpha_5(1+\alpha_1)\|\xi-\eta\|_\8^2,\\
&\|\sigma(\xi)-\sigma(\eta)\|_{HS}^2\le\alpha_2^2\int_{-\tau}^0|\xi(\theta)-\eta(\theta)|^2\mu(\d\theta)\le \alpha_2^2\|\xi-\eta\|_\8^2.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, the assumptions hold if the constants $\alpha_i, i=1, \ldots, 5$ satisfy the conditions above.
Let $F(h)$ be the unique solution of the following deterministic equation: $$\label{eq1.4}
\begin{cases}
&F(h)(t)-G(F_t(h))=F(h)(0)-G(F_0(h))+\int_0^t b\Big(F_s(h)\Big)\d s\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\int_0^t\sigma\Big(F_s(h)\Big)\dot{h}(s)\d s,~~~t\in[0,T],\\
&F_0(h)=\xi(\theta),~~\theta\in[-\tau,0].
\end{cases}$$ Herein, $F_t(h)(\theta)=F(h)(t+\theta)$, $\theta\in[-\tau,0]$.
The main result of this section is stated as follows.
\[th1\] Under the assumptions ([**H1**]{})-([**H2**]{}), it holds that $\{\mu_\ep,\ep>0\}$, the law of $X^\ep(\cdot)$ on $C([-\tau,T];\R^d)$, satisfies the large deviation principle with the rate function below $$\label{eq1.5}
I(f):=\inf\Big\{L_T(h);F(h)=f,h\in H\Big\},~~~f\in C([-\tau,T];\mathbb{R}^d),$$ where $L_T(h)$ is defined as in . That is,
1. for any closed subset $C\subset C([-\tau, T];\mathbb{R}^d)$, $$\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow0}\log\mu_\ep(C)\le-\inf_{f\in C}I(f),$$
2. for any open subset $G\subset C([-\tau, T];\mathbb{R}^d)$, $$\liminf_{\ep\rightarrow0}\log\mu_\ep(G)\ge-\inf_{f\in G}I(f).$$
Before giving the proof of Theorem \[th1\], we prepare some lemmas.
We construct $X^{\ep,n}(\cdot)$ by exploiting an approximate scheme, that is, for a real positive number $s$, let $[s]=\sup\{k\in \Z:k\le s\}$ be its integer part. For any $n\in N_0$, we consider the following NSFDE $$\label{eq1.6}
\d \{X^{\ep,n}(t)-G(X_t^{\ep,n})\}=b(X_t^{\ep, n})\d t+\ss\ep\sigma({\widehat}{X}_t^{\ep,n})\d W(t),~~t\ge0,~~X_0^{\ep,n}=\xi,$$ where, for $t\ge 0$, $${\widehat}{X}_t^{\ep,n}(\theta):=X^{\ep,n}((t+\theta)\wedge t_n), ~~~ t_n:=[nt]/n, n\ge1, \theta\in[-\tau,0].$$ According to [@M Theorem 2.2, p.204], has a unique solution by solving piece-wisely with the time length $1/n$.
In the sequel, we consider two cases separately.
[**Case 1:** ]{}. We assume that $b,\sigma$ are bounded, i.e.
1. There exists a constant $M>0$ such that $$|b(\xi)|\vee\|\sigma(\xi)\|_{HS}\le M, \forall \xi\in\mathscr{C}.$$
Next, we show that $\{X^{\ep,n},\ep>0\}$ defined by approximates to $\{X^\ep,\ep>0\}$.
\[lem3\] Assume ([**H1**]{}), ([**H2**]{}), and ([**H3**]{}) hold, then for any $\delta>0$, one has $$\label{eqq1}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\8}\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,n}(t)|>\delta\Big)=-\8.$$
For notation brevity, we set $Z^{\ep,n}(t):=X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,n}(t), t\ge0$ and $Y^{\ep,n}(t):=X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,n}(t)-(G(X_t^\ep)-G(X_t^{\ep,n})), t\ge0$. Noting $X^{\ep,n}_0=X^{n}_0=\xi,$ we write $Y^{\ep,n}(t)$ as follows: $$Y^{\ep,n}(t)=\int_0^t(b(X_s^\ep)-b(X_s^{\ep,n}))\d s
+\ss\ep\int_0^t(\sigma(X_s^\ep)-\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n}))\d W(s).$$ It is easy to see from that $$\begin{split}
|Z^{\ep,n}(t)|&\le|Y^{\ep,n}(t)|+|G(X_t^\ep)-G(X_t^{\ep,n})|\\
&\le|Y^{\ep,n}(t)|+\kappa\|X_t^\ep-X_t^{\ep,n}\|_\8,
\end{split}$$ and noting $X_0^\ep=X_0^{\ep,n}=\xi, \xi\in\mathscr{C}$, it yields that $$\label{eqa}
\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,n}(t)|\le \frac{1}{1-\kappa}\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Y^{\ep,n}(t)|.$$ For $\rho>0$, we define $\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep
=\inf\{t\ge 0: \|X_t^{\ep,n}-{\widehat}{X}_t^{\ep,n}\|_\8>\rho\}
$, $Z^{\ep,n_{\rho}}=Z^{\ep,n}(t\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep)$, $\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep=\inf\{t\ge0: |Z^{\ep,n_\rho}(t)|\ge\delta\}$, and compute $$\label{eq1.7}
\begin{split}
P\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,n}(t)|>\delta\Big)&= P\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,n}(t)|>\delta,\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T\Big)
+P\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,n}(t)|>\delta,\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep> T\Big)\\
&\le P(\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)+P\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,n}(t)|>\delta,\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep> T\Big)\\
&\le P(\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)+P(\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T).
\end{split}$$ Observe that $$\begin{split}
X_t^{\ep,n}(\theta)-{\widehat}{X}_t^{\ep,n}(\theta)&=X^{\ep,n}(t+\theta)-X^{\ep,n}((t+\theta)\wedge t_n)\\
&=(X^{\ep,n}(t+\theta)-X^{\ep,n}(t+\theta))I_{\{(t+\theta)<t_n\}}
+(X^{\ep,n}(t+\theta)-X^{\ep,n}(t_n))I_{\{t_n\le(t+\theta)\}}\\
&=(X^{\ep,n}(t+\theta)-X^{\ep,n}(t_n))I_{\{t_n\le(t+\theta)\}}\\
&=G(X_{t+\theta}^{\ep,n})-G(X_{t_n}^{\ep,n})
+\Big(\int_{t_n}^{t+\theta}b(X_s^{\ep,n})\d s+\int_{t_n}^{t+\theta}\ss\ep\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n})\d W(s)\Big).
\end{split}$$ This, together with , yields $$\label{eq1.8}
\sup_{0\le t\le T}\|X_t^{\ep,n}-{\widehat}{X}_t^{\ep,n}\|_\8\le\frac{1}{1-\kappa}\sup_{0\le t\le T}\sup_{t_n-t\le\theta\le 0}\Big|\int_{t_n}^{t+\theta}b(X_s^{\ep,n})\d s+\int_{t_n}^{t+\theta}\ss\ep\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n})\d W(s)\Big|.$$ Taking ([**H3**]{}) into consideration and utilizing Lemma \[lem2\], one gets that $$P\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}\|X_t^{\ep,n}-{\widehat}{X}_t^{\ep,n}\|_\8\ge\rho\Big)
\le2d\exp\Big(-\frac{(n\rho(1-\kappa)-\ss\d M)^2}{2nM^2(1-\kappa)^2d\ep}\Big),$$ provided that $\frac{\ss dM}{(1-\kappa)n}<\rho$. Which, together with the definition of stopping time $\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep$, it follows that $$\label{eq1.11}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\8}\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P(\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)=-\8.$$ For $\lambda>0$, let $\phi_\lambda(y)=(\rho^2+|y|^2)^\lambda$, an application of Itô’s formula yields $$\label{equ}
\phi_\lambda(Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(t))=\rho^{2\lambda}+M^{\ep,n_\rho}(t)+\int_0^{t\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}\gamma_\lambda^\ep(s)\d s,$$ where $M^{\ep,n_\rho}(t): =2\lambda\int_0^{t\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}
\ss\ep\langle Y^{\ep,n}(s),\sigma(X_s^{\ep,n})-\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n})\d W(s)\rangle$ is a martingale. Moreover, by ([**H1**]{}), we see that $$\label{eq1.9}
\begin{split}
\gamma_\lambda^\ep(s):&=2\lambda(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\langle Y^{\ep,n}(s),b(X_s^\ep)-b(X_s^{\ep,n})\rangle\\
&~~+2\lambda(\lambda-1)\ep(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-2} |(\sigma(X_s^\ep)-\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n}))^*Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2\\
&~~+\lambda\ep (\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\|\sigma(X_s^\ep)-\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n})\|_{HS}^2\\
&\le2L\lambda(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\|Z_s^{\ep,n}\|_\8^2+\lambda(2\lambda-1)\ep(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1} \|(\sigma(X_s^\ep)-\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n}))\|_{HS}^2\\
&\le C_1(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\|Z_s^{\ep,n}\|_\8^2+C_2(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1} \|X_s^{\ep,n}-{\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n}\|_\8^2,
\end{split}$$ where $C_1=2L\lambda[(2\lambda-1)\ep+1],~~C_2=2L\lambda\ep(2\lambda-1)$.
Using the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy (BDG for short) inequality, we obtain $$\label{eq1.10}
\begin{split}
&\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}M^{\ep,n_\rho}(t)\Big)\\
&\le8\ss{2\ep}\lambda\Big(\E\int_0^{T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{2\lambda-2}
|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2\|\sigma(X_s^\ep)-\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n})\|_{HS}^2\d s\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\le\frac{1}{2}\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^\lambda\Big)
+64\lambda^2\ep\E\int_0^{T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}
\|\sigma(X_s^\ep)-\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n})\|_{HS}^2\d s\\
&\le\frac{1}{2}\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^\lambda\Big)
+128L\lambda^2\ep\E\int_0^{T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\|Z_s^{\ep,n}\|_\8^2\d s\\
&~~~~+128\lambda^2\ep\E\int_0^{T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}
\|\sigma(X_s^{\ep,n})-\sigma({\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n})\|_{HS}^2\d s\\
&\le\frac{1}{2}\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^\lambda\Big)
+128L\lambda^2\ep\E\int_0^{T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\|Z_s^{\ep,n}\|_\8^2\d s\\
&~~~~+128L\lambda^2\ep\E\int_0^{T\wedge\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}
\|X_s^{\ep,n}-{\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n}\|_\8^2\d s.
\end{split}$$
Combining and and reformulating , one has $$\begin{split}
&\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}\phi_\lambda(Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(t))\Big)\\
&\le2\rho^{2\lambda}+4L\lambda(66\lambda\ep-\ep+1)
\int_0^T\E(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\|Z_s^{\ep,n_\rho}\|_\8^2\d s\\
&~~~~+4L\lambda\ep(68\lambda-1)\int_0^T\E(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}
\|X_s^{\ep,n_\rho}-{\widehat}{X}_s^{\ep,n_\rho}\|_\8^2\d s\\
&\le2\rho^{2\lambda}
+4L\lambda(66\lambda\ep-\ep+1)\int_0^T\E\Big(\sup_{0\le u\le s}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(u)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\|Z_u^{\ep,n_\rho}\|_\8^2\Big)\d s\\
&~~~~+4L\lambda\ep(68\lambda-1)\int_0^T\E\Big(\sup_{0\le u\le s}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(u)|^2)^{\lambda-1}
\|X_u^{\ep,n_\rho}-{\widehat}{X}_u^{\ep,n_\rho}\|_\8^2\Big)\d s\\
&\le2\rho^{2\lambda}+(C_3+C_4)\int_0^T\E\Big(\sup_{0\le u\le s}(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(u)|^2)^{\lambda}\Big)\d s,
\end{split}$$ where $C_3=4\lambda(66\lambda\ep-\ep+1)
\frac{L}{(1-\kappa)^2}$, $C_4=4L\lambda\ep(68\lambda-1)$. In the last step, we utilized the fact that $Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(t)=0, t\in[-\tau,0]$ and .
Choosing $\lambda=\frac{1}{\ep}$ and setting $\Phi^{\ep,n_\rho}(t):=(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(t\wedge\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep)|^2)^{1/\ep}$, by the Gronwall inequality, we obtain $$\begin{split}
\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}\Phi^{\ep,n_\rho}(t)\Big)
\le2\rho^{2\lambda}\e^{(C_3+C_4)T}
\le2\rho^{2/\ep}\e^{C_5T/\ep},
\end{split}$$ where $C_5=L\Big(\frac{268}{(1-\kappa)^2}+272\Big)$. Noting that $$\Phi^{\ep,n_\rho}(t)=(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(t)|^2)^{1/\ep}
I_{\{t\le\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep\}}
+(\rho^2+|Y^{\ep,n_\rho}(\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep)|^2)^{1/\ep}I_{\{\xi_{n_\rho^\ep<t}\}},$$ so $$(\rho^2+(1-\kappa)^2\delta^2)^{1/\ep}P(\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)\le \E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}\Phi^{\ep,n_\rho}(t)\Big),$$ then we have $$P(\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)\le\Big(\frac{2^\ep\rho^2}{\rho^2+(1-\kappa)^2\delta^2}\Big)^{1/\ep}\e^{C_5T/\ep}.$$ Thus, $$\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log P(\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)\le\log\Big(\frac{\rho^2}{\rho^2+(1-\kappa)^2\delta^2}\Big)+C_5T.$$ Finally, given $L>0$, choose $\rho$ sufficiently small such that $\log\Big(\frac{\rho^2}{\rho^2+(1-\kappa)^2\delta^2}\Big)+C_5T\le -2L$. Next, utilizing , choose $N$ such that $\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P(\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)\le -2L$ for $n\ge N$. Then, for $n\ge N$ there is an $0<\ep_n<1$ such that $P(\tau_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)\le\e^{-L/\ep}$ and $P(\xi_{n_\rho}^\ep\le T)\le\e^{-L/\ep}$ for $0<\ep\le\ep_n$, so leads to $$P\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,n}(t)|\ge\delta\Big)\le 2\e^{-L/\ep},~~0<\ep\le\ep_n.$$ Thus, $$\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,n}(t)|>\delta\Big)\le -L,~~~~n\ge N.$$ The proof of the lemma is complete.
For $n\ge1$, define the map $F^n(\cdot):C_0([0,T],\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow C_\xi([-\tau,T],\mathbb{R}^d)$ by $$\begin{cases}
&F^n(\omega)(t)-G(F_t^n(\omega))=F^n(\omega)(t_n)-G(F_{t_n}(\omega))+\int_{t_n}^tb(F_s^n(\omega))\d s\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+\sigma({\widehat}{F}_s^n(\omega))(\omega(t)-\omega(t_n)),~~t_n\le t\le t_n+\frac{1}{n},\\
&F^n(\omega)(t)=\xi(t),~~-\tau\le t\le 0,
\end{cases}$$ where $F_s^n(\omega)(\theta)=F^n(\omega)(s+\theta)$ and ${\widehat}{F}_s^n(\omega)(\theta)={\widehat}{F}^n(\omega)((s+\theta)\wedge s_n)$.
Notice that, $X^{\ep,n}(t)=F^n(\ss\ep W)(t)$, which is a continuous map. Herein, $W$ is a standard Brownian motion. For $h\in H$, we define $$\label{eq1.12}
\begin{cases}
&F^n(h)(t)-G(F_t^n(h))=F^n(h)(0)-G(F_0^n(h))+\int_0^t b\Big(F_s^n(h)\Big)\d s\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+\int_0^t\sigma\Big({\widehat}{F}_s^n(h)\Big)\dot{h}(s)\d s, t\in[0,T],\\
&F_0^n(h)=\xi\in\mathscr{C} .
\end{cases}$$ The next lemma shows that the measurable map $F(h)(\cdot)$ can be approximated well by the continuous maps $F^n(h)(\cdot)$.
\[lem4\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \[th1\], we have $$\label{eq1.15}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\8}\sup_{\{h: L_T(h)\le\alpha\}}\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}\Big|F^n(h)(t)-F(h)(t)\Big|=0,$$ where $\alpha<\infty$ is a constant.
For notation brevity, we set $M^n(t):=F^n(h)(t)-G(F_t^n(h))$, by fundamental inequality $(a+b)^2\le[1+\eta](a^2+\frac{b^2}{\eta})$ and ([**H2**]{}), we derive $$\begin{split}
|F^n(h)(t)|^2&=|F^n(h)(t)-G(F_t^n(h))+G(F_t^n(h))|^2\\
&\le(1+\eta)\Big(\frac{|G(F_t^n(h))|^2}{\eta}+|F^n(h)(t)-G(F_t^n(h))|^p\Big)\\
&\le(1+\eta)\Big(\frac{\kappa^2\|F_t^n(h)\|_\8^2}{\eta}+|F^n(h)(t)-G(F_t^n(h))|^2\Big).
\end{split}$$ Letting $\eta=\frac{\kappa}{1-\kappa}$, we then have $$\label{eq1}
\begin{split}
\sup_{0\le t\le T}|F^n(h)(t)|^2&\le \frac{\kappa}{1-\kappa}\|\xi\|_\8^2+\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2}\sup_{0\le t\le T}|M^n(t)|^2.
\end{split}$$
On the other hand, it is easy to see that $$\label{eq2}
|M^n(t)|^2\le(1+\kappa)^2\|F_t^n(h)\|_\8^2.$$
By ([**H1**]{}), ([**H2**]{}), we obtain from that $$\begin{split}
&|M^n(t)|^2\le (1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2+\int_0^t
2\langle M^n(s),b(F_s^n(h))+\sigma({\widehat}{F}_t^n(h))\dot{h}(s)\rangle\d s\\
&\le(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2+L_2\int_0^t(1+\|F_s^n(h)\|_\8^2)\d s+\int_0^t|M^n(s)|^2\d s+\int_0^t|\sigma({\widehat}{F}_t^n(h))\dot{h}(s)|^2\d s\\
&\le(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2+L_2\int_0^t(1+\|F_s^n(h)\|_\8^2)\d s+\int_0^t|M^n(s)|^2\d s\\
&+L_2\int_0^t(1+\|{\widehat}{F}_t^n(h)\|_\8^2)|\dot{h}(s)|^2\d s.
\end{split}$$ Noting that $\|{\widehat}{F}_t^n(h)\|_\8=\sup_{-\tau\le \theta\le 0}{F}^n(h)((t+\theta)\wedge t_n) \le\sup_{-\tau\le \theta\le 0}{F}^n(h)(t+\theta)$, which together with ,, yields that $$\begin{split}
&\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|F^n(h)(t)|^2\\
&\le\|\xi\|_\8^2+\sup_{0\le t\le T}|F^n(h)(t)|^2\\
&\le\|\xi\|_\8^2+\frac{\kappa}{1-\kappa}\|\xi\|_\8^2+
\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2}\sup_{0\le t\le T}|M^n(t)|^2\\
&\le \frac{1-\kappa+(1+\kappa)^2}{(1-\kappa)^2}\|\xi\|_\8^2
+\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2}\Big[
(L_2+(1+\kappa)^2)\int_0^T\|F_s^n(h)\|_\8^2\d s\\
&~~~~+L_2\int_0^T\|F_s^n(h)\|_\8^2|\dot{h}(s)|^2\d s+L_2\int_0^T|\dot{h}(s)|^2\d s
\Big],
\end{split}$$ by the Gronwall inequality, we get $$\begin{split}
\sup_{n\ge 1}\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}\Big|F^n(h)(t)\Big|^2&\le
\Big(\frac{1-\kappa+(1+\kappa)^2}{(1-\kappa)^2}\|\xi\|_\8^2
+\frac{2L_2L_T(h)}{(1-\kappa)^2}\Big)
\exp\Big\{\frac{(L_2+(1+\kappa)^2)T+2L_2L_T(h)}{(1-\kappa)^2}\Big\}\\
&\le C_1(1+L_T(h))\exp\{C_2(1+L_T(h))\},
\end{split}$$ where $C_1=\Big(\frac{1-\kappa+(1+\kappa)^2}{(1-\kappa)^2}\|\xi\|_\8^2\Big)\vee\Big(\frac{2L_2}{(1-\kappa)^2}\Big)$, $C_2=\Big(\frac{(L_2+(1+\kappa)^2)T}{(1-\kappa)^2}\Big)\vee\Big(\frac{2L_2}{(1-\kappa)^2}\Big)$.
In particular, $$\label{eq1.13}
M_\alpha=\sup_{h;L_T(h)\le\alpha}\sup_{n\ge 1}\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}
\Big|F^n(h)(t)\Big|^2\le C_1(1+\alpha)\exp\{C_2(1+\alpha)\}<\8.$$ Hence, in the same way as the argument of , we arrive at $$\label{eq1.14}
\begin{split}
\sup_{0\le t\le T}\|F_t^{n}(h)-{\widehat}{F}_t^{n}(h)\|_\8&\le\frac{1}{1-\kappa}\sup_{0\le t\le T}\sup_{t_n-t\le\theta\le 0}\Big|\int_{t_n}^{t+\theta}b(F_s^{n}(h))\d s+\int_{t_n}^{t+\theta}\sigma({\widehat}{F}_s^{n}(h))\dot{h}(s)\d s\Big|\\
&\le \frac{1}{1-\kappa}\sup_{0\le t\le T}\Big(\int_{t_n}^t|b(F_s^n(h))|\d s+\int_{t_n}^t|\sigma({\widehat}{F}_s^n(h))\dot{h}(s)|\d s\Big)\\
&\le C_\alpha M_\alpha\Big(\frac{1}{n}\Big)^{1/2}\rightarrow 0, ~~\mbox{as}~n\rightarrow\8
\end{split}$$ uniformly over the set $\{h;L_T(h)\le\alpha\}$.
For notation brevity, we set $D^n(h)(t):=F^n(h)(t)-F(h)(t)-(G(F_t^n(h))-G(F_t(h)))$, similarly, it is easy to see from ([**H1**]{}),([**H2**]{}) that $$\label{eq3}
\sup_{0\le t\le T}|F^n(h)(t)-F(h)(t)|^2\le\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2}\sup_{0\le t\le T}|D^n(h)(t)|^2,$$ and $$\label{eq4}
|D^n(h)(t)|^2\le(1+\kappa)^2\|F_t^n(h)-F_t(h)\|_\8^2.$$ Using and , we deduce $$\begin{split}
|D^n(h)(t)|^2
&\le\int_0^t2|\langle D^n(h)(s),b(F_s^n(h))-b(F_s(h))\rangle|\d s\\
&~~+\int_0^t2|\langle D^n(h)(s),[\sigma({\widehat}{F}_s^n(h)-\sigma(F_s^n(h))+\sigma(F_s^n(h))-\sigma(F_s(h))]\dot{h}(s)\rangle|\d s\\
&\le L\int_0^t\| F_s^n(h)-F_s(h)\|_\8^2\d s+\int_0^t|D^n(h)(s)|^2\d s\\
&~~+L\int_0^t |F^n(h)(s)-F(h)(s)|^2|\dot{h}(s)|^2\d s
+L\int_0^t\|{\widehat}{F}_s^n(h))-F_s^n(h))\|_\8^2|\dot{h}(s)|^2\d s,
\end{split}$$ which, together with , and , yields that $$\begin{split}
\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|F^n(h)(t)-F(h)(t)|^2&\le
\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2} \Big\{(L+(1+\kappa)^2)\int_0^T\| F_s^n(h)-F_s(h)\|_\8^2\d s\\
&~~+L\int_0^T\| F_s^n(h)-F_s(h)\|_\8^2|\dot{h}(s)|^2\d s+2L\alpha C_\alpha M_\alpha\Big(\frac{1}{n}\Big)^{1/4}\Big\},
\end{split}$$ it follows from the Gronwall inequality that, $$\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|F^n(h)(t)-F(h)(s)|^2\le \frac{2L\alpha C_\alpha M_\alpha\Big(\frac{1}{n}\Big)^{1/4}}{(1-\kappa)^2}\exp\Big\{\frac{(L+(1+\kappa)^2)T+2L\alpha}{(1-\kappa)^2}\Big\}.$$ Hence, the desired assertion is followed by taking $n\rightarrow\8$.
[**Proof of Theorem \[th1\] in case 1**]{}
Notice that $X^{\ep,n}(s)=F^n(\ep^{1/2}W)(s)$, where $W$ is the Brownian motion. Then by the contraction principle in large deviations theory, we get that the law of $X^{\ep,n}(s)$ satisfies an LDP. Then Lemma \[lem3\] states that $X^{\ep,n}(s)$ approximates exponentially to $X^\ep(s)$. Furthermore, Lemma \[lem4\] shows that the extension of contraction principle to measurable maps $F(h)(\cdot)$ can be approximated well by continuous maps $F^n(h)(\cdot)$, i.e. Lemma \[lem3\], so the proof of case 1 of Theorem \[th1\] follows from Lemma \[lem1\].
Next, we consider
[**Case 2: $b,\sigma$ are unbounded.**]{}
\[lemr\] Under ([**H1**]{}), ([**H2**]{}), and for $R>0$, we have $$\label{eq1.16}
\lim_{R\rightarrow\8}\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R\Big)=-\8.$$
For notation brevity, we set $Y^\ep(t):=X^\ep(t)-G(X^\ep(t))$, from ([**H2**]{}) and fundamental inequality, it yields that $$\label{eqs}
|Y^\ep(t)|^2\le(1+\kappa)^2\|X_t^\ep\|_\8^2,$$ and $$\label{eqv}
\begin{split}
&\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|^2\le\frac{1}{1-\kappa}\|\xi\|_\8^2+\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2}\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Y^\ep(t)|^2.
\end{split}$$ For $\lambda>0$, applying the Itô formula, ([**H1**]{}),([**H2**]{}) and yield $$\label{eq1.17}
\begin{split}
(1+|Y^\ep(t)|^2)^\lambda&\le(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)^\lambda+\lambda\int_0^t(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}2\langle Y^\ep(s),b(X_s^\ep)\rangle\d s\\
&~~+2\lambda(\lambda-1)\ep\int_0^t(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^{\lambda-2}|\sigma(X_s^\ep)Y^\ep(s)|^2\d s\\
&~~+\lambda\ep\int_0^t(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\|\sigma(X_s^\ep)\|_{HS}^2\d s+M^{\ep,\lambda}(t)\\
&\le(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)^\lambda+M^{\ep,\lambda}(t)\\
&~~+\lambda L_2(1+2\lambda\ep-\ep)\int_0^t(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}(1+\|X_s^\ep\|_\8^2)\d s\\
&\le(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)^\lambda+M^{\ep,\lambda}(t)\\
&~~+\lambda L_2C_1(1+2\lambda\ep-\ep)\int_0^t\Big(\sup_{0\le u\le s}(1+|Y^\ep(u)|^2)^{\lambda}\Big)\d s,
\end{split}$$ where $C_1=(1+\frac{\|\xi\|_\8^2}{(1-\kappa)})\vee(\frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2})$, $M^{\ep,\lambda}(t)=2\lambda\ep\int_0^t(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}\langle Y^\ep(s),\sigma(X_s^\ep)\d W(s)\rangle$, and in the last step, we used .
Noting that $\|X_s^\ep\|_\8^2\le \|\xi\|_\8^2+\Big(\sup_{0\le u\le s}|X^\ep(u)|^2\Big)$, by ([**H1**]{}), and the BDG inequality, we obtain $$\label{eq1.19}
\begin{split}
&\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}M^{\ep,\lambda}(t)\Big)\\
&\le8\ss{2\ep}\lambda\bigg(\E\int_0^T(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^{2\lambda-1}\|\sigma(X_s^\ep)\|_{HS}^2\d s\bigg)^{1/2}\\
&\le\frac{1}{2}\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^\lambda\Big)+64L_2\lambda^2\ep\E\int_0^T(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^{\lambda-1}(1+\|X_s^\ep\|_\8^2)\d s\\
&\le\frac{1}{2}\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}(1+|Y^\ep(s)|^2)^\lambda\Big)+64L_2\lambda^2C_1\ep\E\int_0^T\Big(\sup_{0\le u\le s}(1+|Y^\ep(u)|^2)^{\lambda}\Big)\d s.
\end{split}$$
Substituting into , and reformulating , we arrive at $$\begin{split}
&\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}(1+|Y^\ep(t)|^2)^\lambda\Big)\\
&\le2(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)^\lambda
+2L_2C_1\lambda[66\lambda\ep+1-\ep]\int_0^T\E\Big(\sup_{0\le u\le s}(1+|Y^\ep(u)|^2)^\lambda\Big)\d s.
\end{split}$$ For $R>0$, we define $\xi_R^\ep=\inf\{t\ge0: |X^\ep(t)|>R\}$, utilising BDG’s inequality yields that $$\E\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}(1+|Y^\ep(t\wedge \xi_R^\ep)|^2)^\lambda\Big)\le
2(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)^\lambda\exp\{2L_2C_1\lambda[66\lambda\ep+1-\ep]T\},$$ which implies that $$\E\Big\{\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}(1+|Y^\ep(t\wedge \xi_R^\ep)|^2)^\lambda\Big)I_{\{\xi_R^\ep\le T\}}\Big\}\le
2(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)^\lambda\exp\{2L_2C_1\lambda[66\lambda\ep+1-\ep]T\},$$ $$\P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R\Big)\le \P(\xi_R^\ep\le T)\le
\frac{2(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)^\lambda\exp\{2L_2C_1\lambda[66\lambda\ep+1-\ep]T\}}
{\Big(1+[R-\frac{\kappa}{1-\kappa}\|\xi\|_\8^2](1-\kappa)^2\Big)^\lambda},$$ choosing $\lambda=\frac{1}{\ep}$ yields that $$\begin{split}
\ep\log \P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R\Big)
&\le\log\frac{2(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)}
{\Big(1+[R-\frac{\kappa}{1-\kappa}\|\xi\|_\8^2](1-\kappa)^2\Big)}
+\ep2L_2C_1\lambda[66\lambda\ep+1-\ep]T\\
&\le\log\frac{2(1+(1+\kappa)^2\|\xi\|_\8^2)}
{\Big(1+[R-\frac{\kappa}{1-\kappa}\|\xi\|_\8^2](1-\kappa)^2\Big)}
+2L_2C_1(67-\ep)T,
\end{split}$$ $$\lim_{R\rightarrow\8}\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R\Big)=-\8.$$ The proof is therefore complete.
For $R>0$, define $m_R=\sup\{|G(x)|,|b(x)|,\|\sigma(x)\|_{HS}; \|x\|_\8\le R\}$, and $G_i^R=(-m_R-1)\vee G_i\wedge(m_R+1)$, $b_i^R=(-m_R-1)\vee b_i\wedge(m_R+1)$, $\sigma_{i,j}^R=(-m_R-1)\vee \sigma_{i,j}\wedge(m_R+1)$, $1\le i,j\le d$. Let $G_R=(G_1^R,G_2^R,\cdots,G_d^R)$, $b_R=(b_1^R,b_2^R,\cdots,b_d^R)$ and $\sigma_R=(\sigma_{i,j}^R)_{1\le i,j\le d}$. Then for $\|x\|_\8\le R$, $$G_R(x)=G(x),~~~~b_R(x)=b(x), ~~~~\sigma_R(x)=\sigma(x).$$
Also, $G_R$, $b_R$ and $\sigma_R$ satisfy the assumptions ([**H1**]{}) and ([**H2**]{}). Let $X^{\ep,R}(\cdot)$ be the solution to the NSFDE $$\d\{X^{\ep,R}(t)-G(X_t^{\ep,R})\}=b_R(X_t^{\ep, R})\d t+\ss\ep\sigma_R(X_t^{\ep,R})\d W(t), t>0,$$ with the initial datum $X_0^{\ep,R}=\xi(\theta),~~\theta\in[-\tau,0]$.
We recall a Lemma in [@DZ], which is a key point in the proofs of following Lemmas.
\[lema\] Let $N$ be a fixed integer. Then, for any $a_\ep^i\ge0$, $$\label{eq}
\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log\Big(\sum_{i=1}^Na_\ep^i\Big)=\max_{i=1}^N\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log a_\ep^i.$$
The lemma below states that $X^{\ep,R}(\cdot)$ is the uniformly exponential approximation of $X^\ep(\cdot)$ on the interval $[-\tau, T]$.
\[leml\] Assume ([**H1**]{}), ([**H2**]{}) hold, then for any $T>0,~~\delta>0$, one has that: $$\label{eq1.20}
\lim_{R\rightarrow\8}\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P
\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)|>\delta\Big)=-\8.$$
For notation simplicity, we set $Z^{\ep,R}(t):=X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)$ and $Y^{\ep,R}(t):=X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)-(G(X_t^\ep)-G(X_t^{\ep,R}))$.
From ([**H2**]{}), it is easy to see that $$\sup_{0\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,R}(t)|\le\sup_{0\le t\le T}\Big(\frac{1}{1-\kappa}|Y^{\ep,R}(t)|\Big).$$ Define $\xi_{R_1}^\ep:=\inf\{t\ge0:|X^\ep(t)|\ge R_1\}$. For any $R\ge R_1$, we have $$\label{eq1.21}
\begin{split}
Y^{\ep,R}(t\wedge\xi_{R_1}^\ep)=\int_0^{t\wedge\xi_{R_1}^\ep}(b_R(X_s^\ep)-b_R(X_s^{\ep,R}))\d s
+\ss\ep\int_0^{t\wedge\xi_{R_1}^\ep}(\sigma_R(X_s^\ep)-\sigma_R(X_s^{\ep,R}))\d W(s).
\end{split}$$ Setting $Z_{R_1}^{\ep}(t):=Z^{\ep,R}(t\wedge\xi_{R_1}^\ep)$, $Y_{R_1}^{\ep}(t):=Y^{\ep,R}(t\wedge\xi_{R_1}^\ep)$ and $\xi_{R,\delta}^\ep:=\inf\{t\ge 0:|Z_{R_1}^{\ep}(t)|\ge\delta\}$. Then, we have $$\label{eq1.22}
\begin{split}
&P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,R}(t)|>\delta\Big)\\
&=P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,R}(t\wedge\xi_{R_1}^\ep)|>\delta, I_{\{\xi_{R_1}^\ep\ge T\}}\Big)
+P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,R}(t\wedge\xi_{R_1}^\ep)|>\delta, I_{\{\xi_{R_1}^\ep\le T\}}\Big)\\
&\le P(\xi_{R_1}^\ep\le T)+P(\xi_{R,\delta}^\ep\le T)\\
&\le P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R_1\Big)+P(\xi_{R,\delta}^\ep\le T).
\end{split}$$ By mimicking the argument in Lemma \[lem3\] for $t\le T\wedge\xi_{R_1}^\ep$, one gets $$\mathbb{E}\Big(\sup_{0\le t\le T}\big(\rho^2+|Y_{R_1}^\ep(t)|^2\big)^{1/\ep}\Big)\le 2\rho^{2/\ep}\e^{CT/\ep}.$$ This implies that $$P(\xi_{R,\delta}^\ep\le T)\le\Big(\frac{2^\ep\rho^2}{\rho^2+(1-\kappa)^2\delta^2}\Big)^{1/\ep}\e^{CT/\ep}.$$ Taking Logarithmic function into consideration, we have $$\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P(\xi_{R,\delta}^\ep\le T)\le\log\Big(\frac{\rho^2}{\rho^2+(1-\kappa)^2\delta^2}\Big)+CT.$$ This, together with , and , implies $$\begin{split}
&\lim_{R\rightarrow\8}\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|Z^{\ep,R}(t)|>\delta\Big)\\
&\le\lim_{R\rightarrow\8}\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log \Big(P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R_1\Big)+\lim_{R\rightarrow\8}\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}P(\xi_{R,\delta}^\ep\le T)\Big)\\
&\le\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R_1\Big)\vee\Big\{\log\Big(\frac{\rho^2}{\rho^2+(1-\kappa)^2\delta^2}\Big)+CT\Big\}.
\end{split}$$ The conclusion follows from letting first $\rho\rightarrow 0$ and then $R_1\rightarrow\8$ by Lemma \[lemr\].
For $h$ with $L_T(h)<\8$, let $F^R(h)$ be the solution of the equation below $$F^R(h)(t)-G(F_t^R(h))=F^R(h)(0)-G(F_0^R(h))+\int_0^tb_R(F_s^R(h))\d s+\int_0^t\sigma_R(F_s^R(h))\dot{h}(s)\d s$$ with the initial datum $F_0^R(h)=\xi(\theta),~~\theta\in[-\tau,0]$. Define $$I_R(f)=\inf\Big\{\frac{1}{2}\int_0^T|\dot{h}(t)|^2\d t;~~F^R(h)=f\Big\},$$ for each $f\in C([-\tau,T];\R^d)$. If $\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|F(h)(t)|\Big)\le R$, then $F(h)=F^R(h)$. $$I(f)=I_R(f), ~~\mbox{for all}~ f~\mbox{with} ~~\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|f(t)|\Big)\le R.$$ [**Proof of Theorem \[th1\] in case 2**]{}
For $R>0$, and a closed subset $C\subset C([-\tau,T];\R^d)$, set $C_R:=C\cap\{f;\|f\|_\8\le R\}$. $C_R^\delta$ denotes the $\delta$-neighborhood of $C_R$. Denote by $\mu^{\ep,R}$ the law of $X_R^\ep$. Then we have $$\begin{split}
\mu_\ep(C)&=\mu_\ep(C_{R_1})+\mu_\ep\Big(C,\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R_1\Big)\\
&\le\mu_\ep(C_{R_1})+P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R_1\Big)\\
&\le P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)|>\delta\Big)
+\mu_\ep^R\Big(C_{R_1}^\delta\Big)
+P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R_1\Big).
\end{split}$$ Taking the large deviation principle for $\{\mu_\ep^R,\ep>0\}$ yields from \[lema\] that $$\begin{split}
&\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log\mu_\ep(C)\\
&\le\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log
\Big\{P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)|>\delta\Big)
+\Big(-\inf_{f\in C_{R_1}^\delta}I_R(f)\Big)\\
&~~+P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R_1\Big)
\Big\}\\
&\le\Big(-\inf_{f\in C_{R_1}^\delta}I_R(f)\Big)
\vee\Big(\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log P\big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)|>R_1\big)\Big)\\
&~~~~\vee\Big(\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log P\big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)|>\delta\big)\Big).
\end{split}$$ Then we obtain the upper bound (i) in Theorem \[th1\], that is $$\limsup_{\ep\rightarrow 0}\ep\log\mu_\ep(C)\le -\inf_{f\in C}I(f),$$ by taking first $R\rightarrow\8$, and $\delta\rightarrow0$, then $R_1\rightarrow\8$. Let $G$ be an open subset of $C([-\tau,T];\R^d)$. Then for any $\phi_0\in G$, and taking $\delta>0$, we define $B(\phi_0,\delta)=\{f;\|f-\phi_0\|_\8\le\delta\}\subset G$. Then using the large deviation principle for $\{\mu_\ep^R;\ep>0\}$, one gets $$\begin{split}
-I_R(\phi_0)&\le\liminf_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log\mu_\ep^R\Big(B(\phi_0,\frac{\delta}{2})\Big)\\
&\le\liminf_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log\Big\{ P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^{\ep,R}(t)-\phi_0|\le\frac{\delta}{2},
\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)|\le\frac{\delta}{2}\Big)\\
&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ P\Big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^{\ep,R}(t)-\phi_0|\le\frac{\delta}{2},
\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)|\ge\frac{\delta}{2}\Big)\Big\}\\
&\le\Big(\liminf_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log\mu_\ep(G)\Big)\vee\Big(\liminf_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log P\big(\sup_{-\tau\le t\le T}|X^\ep(t)-X^{\ep,R}(t)|\ge\frac{\delta}{2}\big)\Big).
\end{split}$$ Noting that $I_R(\phi_0)=I(\phi_0)$ provided that $\|\phi_0\|_\8\le R$. Then we have $$-I(\phi_0)\le\liminf_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log\mu_\ep(G), ~\mbox{as}~~R\rightarrow\8.$$ Owing to the arbitrary of $\phi_0$, it follows that $$-\inf_{f\in G}I(f)\le\liminf_{\ep\rightarrow0}\ep\log\mu_\ep(G),$$ which is the lower bound (i) in Theorem \[th1\], thus, the proof of Theorem \[th1\] is complete.
[17]{}
Bao, J., Yin, G., Yuan, C., Asymptotic analysis for functional stochastic differential equations, Springer, Cham, (2016).
Bao, J., Yuan, C., Large deviations for neutral functional SDEs with jumps, Stochastics. 87 (2015), no. 1, 48-70.
Bo, L., Zhang, T., Large deviations for perturbed reflected diffusion processes, Stochastics: An International Journal of Probability and Stochastics Processes, 2009, 81(6): 531-543.
Budhiraja, A., Chen, J., Dupuis, P., Large deviations for stochastic partial differential equations driven by Poisson random measure, Stochastic Process. Appl. 123 (2013), no. 2, 523-560.
Budhiraja, A., Dupuis, P., Fischer, M., Large deviation properties of weakly interacting processes via weak convergence methods, Ann. Probab. 40 (2012), no. 1, 74-102.
Budhiraja,A., Dupuis, P., Ganguly, A., Large deviations for small noise diffusions in a fast Markovian environment, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.02948.
Budhiraja, A., Nyquist, P., Large deviations for multidimensional state-dependent shot-noise processes, J. Appl. Probab. 52 (2015), no. 4, 1097-1114.
Dembo,A., Zeitouni,A., Large deviations techniques and applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1998.
Freidlin, M., Random perturbations of reaction-diffusion equations: the quasideterministic approximation, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 305 (1988), no. 2, 665-697.
Gadat, S., Panloup, F.; Pellegrini, C., Large deviation principle for invariant distributions of memory gradient diffusions, Electron. J. Probab. 18 (2013), no. 81, 34 pp.
Huang, G., Mandjes, M., Spreij, P.,Large deviations for Markov-modulated diffusion processes with rapid switching, Stochastic Process. Appl. 126 (2016), no. 6, 1785-1818.
Liptser, R.S., Pukhalskii, A.A., Limit theorems on large deviations for semimartingales, Stochastics Stochastics Rep. 38 (1992), no. 4, 201-249.
Liu, K.; Zhang, T., A large deviation principle of retarded Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes driven by LšŠvy noise, Stoch. Anal. Appl. 32 (2014), no. 5, 889-910.
Mao, X., Stochastic differential equations and applications, Second Ed, Horwood Publishing Limited, Chichester, 2008.
Mo, C., Luo, J., Large deviations for stochastic differential delay equations, Nonlinear Anal. 80 (2013), 202-210.
Mohammed, S. A., Zhang, T., Large deviations for stochastic systems with memory, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B 6 (2006), no. 4, 881-893.
Röckner, M., Zhang, T., Stochastic evolution equations of jump type: existence, uniqueness and large deviation principles, Potential Anal. 26 (2007), no. 3, 255-279.
Stroock, D.W., An introduction to the theory of large deviations, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We point out that the low temperature saturation of the electron phase decoherence time in a disordered conductor can be explained within the existing theory of weak localization provided the effect of quantum (high frequency) fluctuations is taken into account. Making use of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem we evaluate the quantum decoherence time, the crossover temperature below which thermal effects become unimportant, and the weak localization correction $\delta \sigma$ at $T=0$. For 1d systems the latter is found to be $\delta \sigma
\propto 1/ \sqrt{N}$, where $N$ is the number of conducting channels.
address: |
$^{1}$ Physics Department, Chalmers University of Technology, S-41296 Göteborg, Sweden\
$^2$ I.E.Tamm Department of Theoretical Physics, P.N.Lebedev Physics Institute, Leninskii pr. 53, 117924 Moscow, Russia\
$^3$ Institut für Theoretische Festkörperphysik, Universität Karlsruhe, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
author:
- 'Dmitrii S. Golubev$^{1,2}$ and Andrei D. Zaikin$^{2,3}$'
title: Quantum Decoherence in Disordered Mesoscopic Systems
---
= 10000
[2]{}
Quantum interference between electrons has a strong impact on electron transport in a disordered metal, leading to the so-called weak localization correction to the system conductance [@AA]. This correction is large provided the electrons moving in the metal remain coherent. On the other hand, this phase coherence can persist only for a finite time and is eventually destroyed due to various processes, such as electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions, spin-flip scattering, etc. This characteristic decoherence time $\tau_{\varphi}$ plays a prominent role in the theory of weak localization [@AA; @CS].
In the absence of magnetic impurities and if the temperature of the system is sufficiently low the decoherence time $\tau_{\varphi}$ is determined by electron-electron interactions. It was demonstrated in Ref. [@AAK] (see also [@CS; @SAI]) that for this dephasing mechanism the decoherence time increases with temperature as $\tau_{\varphi} \propto T^{2/(d-4)}$, where $d$ is the system dimension. This theoretical prediction was verified in several experiments [@Gio; @Pooke] over a certain temperature interval.
Does the divergence of $\tau_{\varphi}$ in the zero temperature limit imply that coherence is not destroyed at $T=0$? Recent experiments [@Webb] clearly suggest a negative answer, indicating that at very low temperatures the time $\tau_{\varphi}$ saturates at a finite level showing no tendency for further increase with decreasing $T$. The authors [@Webb] argued that this saturation is not caused by heating or magnetic impurities but rather is a fundamental consequence of zero-point fluctuations of electrons. A saturation of $\tau_{\varphi}$ at low $T$ was also observed in earlier works (see e.g. [@Gio; @Pooke]).
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the observed saturation of $\tau_{\varphi}$ at lowest temperatures [@Webb] can be explained within the existing theory of weak localization [@CS] if one takes into account quantum fluctuations of the electric field in a disordered conductor.
We essentially follow the analysis elaborated by Chakravarty and Schmid [@CS] and consider the propagation of an electron with the kinetic energy $m\dot{\bbox{r}}^2/2$ in a potential of randomly distributed impurities $U_{imp}(\bbox{r})$. In addition to that the electron interacts with the fluctuating electric field $\bbox{ E} (\bbox{r}, t)=-\nabla V (\bbox{r}, t)$ produced by other electrons. These electrons play the role of an effective environment.
Let us express the propagating electron amplitude in terms of the Feynman path integral. Within the quasiclassical approximation (which is sufficient as long as the elastic mean free path $l$ exceeds the Fermi wavelength $p_Fl \gg 1$) the path integral can be replaced by the sum over the classical trajectories obeying the equation of motion $$m\ddot{\bbox{r}}= -\nabla U_{imp}(\bbox{r}) - e \nabla V (\bbox{r}, t)
\label{cl}$$ for each realization of random potentials $U_{imp}(\bbox{r})$ and $V (\bbox{r}, t)$. Averaging over disordered configurations of impurities [@CS] yields the effective picture of electron diffusion at the scales bigger than $l$. Fluctuations of the electric field $\nabla V (\bbox{r}, t)$ lead to the phase decoherence. Defining the phase difference between a classical electron path $\bbox{r}(t')$ and a time reversed path $\bbox{r}(t-t')$ $$\delta \varphi (\bbox{r}, t) =- e\int_0^{t}dt'
[V(\bbox{r}(t'), t')-V(\bbox{r}(t-t'), t')]
\label{delta}$$ (which is nonzero provided $V$ fluctuates in space and time) and averaging with respect to fluctuations of $V$, for not very small $t$ one gets [@CS] $$\langle (\delta \varphi (\bbox{r},t))^2 \rangle /2 =
t/\tau_{\varphi}(T),
\label{fl}$$ where $$\frac{1}{\tau_{\varphi} (T)}=
\frac{e^2}{a^{3-d}}\int dt\int\frac{d\omega d^dq}{(2\pi)^{d+1}}
\langle|V_{q,\omega}|^2\rangle e^{-Dq^2|t|-i\omega t},
\label{tau}$$ $a$ is the film thickness for $d=2$ and $a^2=s$ is the wire cross section for $d=1$.
The correlation function for voltages in (\[tau\]) can be determined with the aid of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@LL]. For the sake of definiteness let us consider a quasi-one-dimensional conductor. Then one finds $$\langle|V_{q,\omega}|^2\rangle=
\frac{\omega\coth\left(\frac{\omega}{2T}\right)}
{\frac{\omega^2C^2}{\sigma q^2}+\sigma q^2(1+\frac{CD}{\sigma })^2}.
\label{VV}$$ Here $\sigma = 2e^2N_0Ds$ is the classical Drude conductance, $D$ is the diffusion coefficient, and $C$ is the capacitance of a linear conductor per unit length. In (\[VV\]) we neglected retardation and skin effects which may become important only at very high frequencies. Substituting (\[VV\]) into (\[tau\]) and integrating over $t$ and $q$ after a trivial algebra we find $$\frac{1}{\tau_{\varphi}(T)}=\frac{e^2\sqrt{2D}}{\sigma }
\int\limits_{1/\tau_{\varphi}}^{1/\tau_{e}}
\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\frac{\coth (\omega /2T)}{\sqrt{\omega}}.
\label{tau1}$$ In eq. (\[tau1\]) we made use of the condition $C \ll \sigma /D$ which is usually well satisfied (perhaps except for extremely thin wires) indicating the smallness of capacitive effects in our system. Eq. (\[tau1\]) yields $$\frac{1}{\tau_{\varphi}}=
\frac{e^2}{\pi\sigma }\sqrt{\frac{2D}{\tau_e}}
\left[2T\sqrt{\tau_e\tau_\varphi} + 1\right].
\label{tau2}$$ The first term in the square brackets comes from the low frequency modes $\omega <T$ whereas the second term is due to high frequency ($\omega >T$) fluctuations of the electric field in a disordered conductor. At sufficiently high temperature the first term dominates and the usual expression [@AAK] $\tau_{\varphi} \sim (\sigma /e^2D^{1/2}T)^{2/3}$ is recovered. As $T$ is lowered the number of the low frequency modes decreases and eventually vanishes in the limit $T \to 0$. At $T \lesssim T_q \sim 1/\sqrt{\tau_{\varphi}\tau_e}$ the expression (\[tau2\]) is dominated by the second term and $\tau_{\varphi}$ saturates at the value $$\tau_{\varphi} \approx \pi \sigma /e^2v_F
\label{tau4}$$ (we disregard the numerical prefactor of order one). The estimate for the crossover temperature $T_q$ reads $$T_q \sim ev_F/\sqrt{\sigma l}.
\label{Tq}$$ Making use of eq. (\[tau4\]) it is also easy to find the weak localization correction $\delta \sigma$ to the Drude conductance in the limit $T=0$. For $T \lesssim T_q$ we obtain $$\frac{\delta \sigma }{\sigma}=-\frac{e^2}{\pi \sigma }\sqrt{D\tau_{\varphi}}
\approx - \frac1{p_Fs^{1/2}},
\label{delsig}$$ i.e. $\delta \sigma \approx - \sigma /\sqrt{N}$, where $N \sim p_F^2s$ is the effective number of conducting channels in a 1d mesoscopic system.
For 2d and 3d systems the same analysis yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\tau_\varphi} & = & \frac{e^2}{4\pi\sigma \tau_e}
[1+2T\tau_e\ln(T\tau_\varphi)], \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \quad{\rm 2d},
\nonumber \\
\frac{1}{\tau_\varphi} & = & \frac{e^2}
{3\pi^2\sigma\sqrt{2D}\tau_e^{3/2}}[1+6(T\tau_e)^{3/2}], \quad{\rm 3d},
\label{11}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma =2e^2N_0Da^{3-d}$ is the conductance of a $d$-dimensional system. The result (\[11\]) demonstrates that for 2d and 3d systems saturation of $\tau_{\varphi}$ is expected already at relavitely high temperatures: the corresponding crossover temperature $T_q$ is of the order of the inverse elastic time in the 3d case and $T_q \sim v_F/l \ln (p_F^2al)^2$ for a 2d system. The latter value agrees well with the experimental results [@Gio].
The physical origin of the decoherence time saturation at low temperatures is quite transparent: in the limit $T \to 0$ the dephasing effect is due to quantum fluctuations of the electric field produced by electrons in a disordered conductor. This decoherence effect is by no means surprizing. In fact, it is well known that even at $T=0$ interaction of a quantum particle with an external quantum bath leads to the loss of quantum coherence and – under certain conditions – to localization of this particle (see e.g. [@CLS; @SZ]).
Our analysis clearly suggests that at sufficiently low temperatures the decoherence time $\tau_{\varphi}$ is [*not*]{} equal to the inelastic mean free time $\tau_{i}$, which is known to become infinite at zero temperature for almost all processes, including electron-electron interaction. In order to find $\tau_{i}$ it is sufficient to proceed within the standard quasiclassical approach and to solve the kinetic equation for the electron distribution function. The collision integral in this equation contains the product of the occupation numbers for different energy levels $n_k(1-n_q)$, which vanishes at $T\to 0$ due to the Pauli principle. As a result $\tau_{i}$ diverges in the zero temperature limit.
In terms of the path integral analysis this procedure amounts to expanding the electron effective action on the Keldysh contour in the parameter $\bbox{r}_{-}(t')=\bbox{r}_1(t')-\bbox{r}_2(t')$ assuming this parameter to be small ($\bbox{r}_{1(2)}(t')$ is the electron coordinate on the forward (backward) part of the Keldysh contour). This procedure is formally very different from one used to calculate the weak localization correction to conductivity [@CS]. In the latter case time reversed pathes $\bbox{r}_1(t')$ and $\bbox{r}_2(t-t')$ are assumed to be close to each other whereas $\bbox{r}_{-}(t')$ can be arbitrarily large. This formal difference is just an illustration of the well know fact, that weak localization is an essentially quantum phenomenon. Therefore, the standard quasiclassical kinetic analysis of $\tau_i$ in terms of the collision integral – especially at the lowest temperatures – appears to be insuffient for calculation of the decoherence time.
It is also interesting to point out that the expression for the electron-electron inelastic time $\tau^{ee}_i$ (see e.g. [@AA]) is determined by the integral which (apart from an unimportant numerical prefactor) coincides with the high frequency part ($\omega >T$) of the integral (\[tau\],\[VV\]). In the case of $\tau^{ee}_i$ the integral has the high frequency cutoff at the electron energy $\epsilon \sim T$, and one obtains [@AA] $1/\tau^{ee} \propto \epsilon^{d/2} \propto T^{d/2}$. Comparing this expression for $1/\tau^{ee}_i$ with our results for the inverse decoherence time $1/\tau_{\varphi}$ we arrive at the conclusion that the former is [*never*]{} important as compared to the latter: at high $T>T_q$ the inverse decoherence time is determined by the low frequency Nyqist noise $\omega \ll T$, whereas at low $T<T_q$ the main contribution to $1/\tau_{\varphi}$ comes from the high frequency modes of the electric field fluctuations $\omega \gg T$. In both cases we have $1/\tau_{\varphi} \gg 1/\tau^{ee}_i$.
We would like to emphasize that our results are obtained within the standard theoretical treatment of weak localization effects [@CS] combined with the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. One can elaborate a more general analysis starting from the microscopic Hamiltonian for electrons in a disordered metal with Coulomb interaction, introducing the quantum field $V$ by means of a Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation (see e.g. [@SZ]) and deriving the effective action for one electron after integration over the remaining electron degrees of freedom which play the role of the bath. In the quasiclassical limit $p_Fl \gg 1$ one arrives at the same results as those obtained here.
Note that the decoherence time saturation at low $T$ has been also discussed in a very recent preprint by Vavilov and Ambegaokar [@VA]. These authors describe the dephasing effect of electromagnetic fluctuations by means of the effective Caldeira-Leggett bath of oscillators coupled to the electron coordinate. As compared to our treatment, there are at least two important differences: (i) the model [@VA] does not account for spacial fluctuations of the electromagnetic field in the sample and (ii) even at lowest temperatures the authors [@VA] treated fluctuations of the bath as a white noise with temperature $T$ (cf. eq. (11) of Ref. [@VA]). Within this model saturation of the decoherence time at $T=0$ was obtained only due to the finite sample size: the corresponding value $\tau_{\varphi}$ [@VA] tends to infinity as the sample length becomes large. In contrast, our results (\[tau1\]-\[delsig\]) do not depend on the length of the conductor.
Our result for the quantum decoherence time (\[tau4\]) also appears to be different from that presented by Mohanty, Jariwala and Webb (eq. (2) of Ref. [@Webb]). Note, however, that numerical values for $\tau_{\varphi}$ obtained from our eq. (\[tau4\]) for the samples Au-1,3,4,6 of [@Webb] are in a surprizingly good agreement with the corresponding estimates derived in Ref. [@Webb]. The latter in turn agree with the experimental data obtained in [@Webb].
Weak localization corrections to the conductance of 1d wires have been also investigated by Pooke [*et al.*]{} [@Pooke]. At very low temperatures these authors observed a finite length $L_\varphi=\sqrt{D\tau_\varphi}$, which scales as $\sqrt{\sigma}$ (with other parameters being fixed) in agreement with our eq. (\[tau4\]).
In 2d films the decoherence time saturation at low $T$ was experimentally found in Ref. [@Gio]. The authors attributed this effect to spin-spin scattering. In our opinion (which seems to be shared by the authors [@Gio]) this explanation is not quite satisfactory because it does not allow to understand the linear dependence of $1/\tau_{\varphi}$ on the sheet resistance of the film detected in [@Gio]. In contrast, this dependence can be easily explained within the analysis developed here. The result (\[11\]) is in a quantitative agreement with the experimental findings [@Gio].
In conclusion, we point out that the low temperature saturation of the electron decoherence time found in recent experiments with mesoscopic conductors can be explained within the existing theory of weak localization provided the effect of intrinsic quantum fluctuations of the electric field is properly accounted for. Our results agree well with the experimental data.
We would like to thank C. Bruder, A. Schmid and G. Schön for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within SFB 195 and by the INTAS-RFBR Grant No. 95-1305.
B.L. Altshuler, A.G. Aronov, D.E. Khmelnitskii, and A.I. Larkin, in [*Quantum Theory of Solids*]{}, Ed. I.M. Lifshitz (Mir Publishers, Moscow, 1982), p. 130. S. Chakravarty and A. Schmid, Phys. Rep. [**140**]{}, 193 (1986). B.L. Altshuler, A.G. Aronov, and D.E. Khmelnitskii, J. Phys. C [**15**]{}, 7367 (1982). A. Stern, Y. Aharonov, and Y. Imry, Phys. Rev. A [**41**]{}, 3436 (1990). J.J. Lin and N. Giordano, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{} 1071 (1987). D.M. Pooke [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Cond. Mat. [**1**]{}, 3289 (1989). P. Mohanty, E.M.Q. Jariwala, and R.A. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3366 (1997). E.M. Lifshitz and L.P. Pitaevskii, [*Statistical Physics*]{}, Vol. 2 (Pergamon, New York, 1980). S. Chakravarty and A.J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**53**]{}, 5 (1984); A. Schmid, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{}, 1506 (1983). G. Schön and A.D. Zaikin, Phys. Rep. [**198**]{}, 237 (1990). M. Vavilov and V. Ambegaokar, preprint (cond-mat/9709241).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[**Yu.A.Markov [^1] and M.A.Markova**]{}'
date: |
*Institute of System Dynamics\
and Control Theory Siberian Branch\
of Academy of Scienses of Russia,\
P.O. Box 1233, 664033 Irkutsk, Russia*
title: 'Gauge invariance of nonlinear Landau damping rate of Bose excitations in quark-gluon plasma'
---
=-.5in =-.7in =.1in
$${\bf Abstract}$$
On the basis of the approximate dynamical equations describing the behavior of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) in the semiclassical limit and Yang-Mills equation, the kinetic equation for longitudinal waves (plasmons) is obtained. With the Ward identities the gauge invariance of obtained nonlinear Landau damping rate is proved. The physical mechanisms defining nonlinear scattering of a plasmon by QGP particles are analyzed. The problem on a connection of nonlinear Landau damping rate of longitudinal oscillations with damping rate, obtained in the framework of hard thermal loops approximation, is considered. It is shown that the gauge-dependent part of nonlinear Landau damping rate for the plasmons with zero momentum vanishes on mass-shell.
[**1. INTRODUCTION**]{}\
In recent 15-20 years, a theoretical investigations of properties of quark-gluon plasma has been of great interest. It is connected with intensive looking for a QGP in the experiments with collision of ultrarelativistic heavy ions and application concerning the physics of the early universe.
Two methods to study of the nonequilibrium phenomena in a QGP are used: method of temperature Green functions and kinetic approach. Significant progress has been achieved in the development of the first method. The effective perturbative theory was constructed in the papers \[1\] by Pisarski and Braaten, Frenkel and Taylor on the basis of the resummation of so-called hard thermal loops (HTL’s), and the problem on the sign and gauge dependence of the damping rate of the long wavelength excitations in QGP was solved. Independent solution of “the plasmon puzzle” problem was received by Kobes, Kunstatter, and Rebhan \[2\]. The damping rate for heavy quarks interacting with light thermal quarks and gluons, was found in \[3\], for soft plasmon and plasmino - in $[4, \,5]$. The damping rate for energetic fermions and bosons was derived by Lebedev and Smilga $[6]$ with extension of the program of resummation outlined in Ref. \[1\], by means of inclusion of higher order effects in a hard propagator. The alternative derivation of damping rate for energetic fermions, based on introduction of an infrared cutoff was deduced by Burgess, Marini, and Rebhan \[7\]. The progress of the thermal QCD makes possible a new look at the existing of kinetic theory of QGP, developed by Heinz, Winter, Elze, Vasak and Gyullasy, Mrówczyński and others \[8\], and it has given impetus to its further development.
In spite of the fact that the language and methods of these aproaches are very different, there are close similarities between HTL approach and transport theory. Originally the kinetic theory was used by Silin to derive HTL in the photon’s self-energy \[9\]. HTL’s in the quark and gluon self-energies can be computed similarly. Moreover, Kelly, Liu, Lucchesi and Manuel \[10\] have shown that the generating functional of HTL’s (with an arbitrary number of soft external bosonic legs) can be derived from the classical kinetic theory of QGP. This points to the classical nature of the hard thermal effects. For hard excitations, the damping rate has been computed by Heiselberg and Pethick \[11\] from a Boltzmann - like equation, with the collision terms included.
A further step in development of kinetic theory was made by Blaizot and Iancu \[12\]. In contrast to the early papers on transport theory of QGP \[8\], these authors use from outset the ideas developed in thermal QCD in deriving of the kinetic equations. The equations obtained by them on the basis of a truncation of the Schwinger-Dyson hierarchy isolate consistently the dominant terms in the coupling constant $g$ in a set of equations, which describe the response of plasma to weak and slowly varying disturbances, and encompass all HTL’s (conserning recent investigations in this area, see also papers \[13-16\]). However, here it should be noted that if the influence of the average fermionic field is neglected, then the expression for current induced by soft gauge fields, obtained in \[12\] (and the nonlinear equation of motion, connected with it) fully coincide with the corresponding expression obtained in \[10\] from usual classical kinetic theory on the basis of consistent expansion of distribution function in powers of the coupling constant. This somewhat justifies use of the (semi)classical kinetic equations found in \[8\], in spite of the fact that intermediate approximation schemes in which these equations were derived, mix leading and nonleading contributions with respect to the powers of $g$ and so, are not entirely consistent.
Such close interlacing of two methods of investigation of nonequilibrium phenomena in QGP leads to the question: can we calculate the damping rate of soft bosonic modes corresponding to the hard thermal result \[4\], remaining in the framework of classical (semiclassical) kinetic theory only? Xiaofei and Jiarong \[17\] were the first to put this question. Because of obtained results, they have given a positive answer.
As was shown by Heinz and Siemens \[18\], in linear approximation the Landau damping is absent in QGP. In fact, the only mechanism, with that one can connect the damping following from the kinetic theory with one from HTL approach, is so-called nonlinear Landau damping. It bounds up with the nonlinear effects of waves interaction and particles in QGP. The multiple time-scale method which has proved successful in study of the nonlinear properties of electromagnetic (Abelian) plasma \[19\], was used in \[17\] for determination of this association. By means of this method the nonlinear shift of the mass-shell of the longitudinal modes in the temporal gauge has been obtained by Xiaofei and Jiarong. Its imaginary part defines required nonlinear Landau damping rate. Futher, the limiting expression of the derived damping rate for ${\bf k}=0$-mode was obtained, and numerical computations for approximate estimate were performed. The value derived by this means is in close agreement with similar numerical one obtained by Braaten and Pisarski \[4\] in the framework of effective perturbative theory.
However, under close examination of above-mentioned paper we found certain mistakes in computations, which were of both principle and nonprinciple character. As it was shown in our early paper \[20\], the elimination of these inaccuracies finally leads not only to a numerical modification of the limiting value of nonlinear Landau damping rate obtained in \[17\], but what is more important, it changes the sign of obtained expression. This points to some prematurity of the statements in \[17\] on obtained connection between nonlinear Landau damping rate and damping rate from the HTL-approach.
In this paper, that is further development the ideas outlined in Ref. \[20\], we consider the above problem, using the approach based on obtaining of kinetic equation for waves in quark-gluon plasma developed by Kadomtsev, Silin, Tsytovich and others \[21\] in connection with ordinary plasma. We have shown that nonlinear Landau damping rate $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ (which even is not of fixed sign for arbitrary value of ${\bf k}$) for longitudinal waves in QGP defines two various processes: the effective spectral pumping of energy from short to long waves (with complete conservation of excitations energy), and properly nonlinear dissipation of plasma waves energy in the medium. The main conclusion of this work is that there is a need to compare the piece of $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ that corresponds to nonlinear dissipation of waves energy and is a positive for any value of a wave vector ${\bf k}$ and, in particular for ${\bf k}=0$ - mode, with damping rate of soft boson modes from HTL-approximation.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. 2 we derive a system of self-consistent equations in the covariant gauge for regular (coherent) and random parts of both the distribution functions of QGP particles and gauge field. In Sec. 3 the first order approximation of the colour current is considered and the correlation function of random oscillations is introduced. In Sec. 4 we discuss the consistency with gauge symmetry of used approximation scheme. In sec. 5 the second and the third orders approximation of the colour current are studied, and the terms leading in the coupling constant are separated. In Sec. 6 the kinetic equation for longitudinal waves in QGP is derived. In Sec. 7 the nonlinear Landau damping rate is rewritten in the term of HTL-amplitudes. In Sec. 8 by the effective Ward identities, the gauge invariance of obtained damping rate is proved. In Sec. 9 the physical mechanisms defining the nonlinear scattering of waves by plasma particles are considered. In Sec. 10 association of the nonlinear Landau damping rate with damping rate, obtained on the basis of hard thermal loops approximation is discussed. In Sec. 11 the estimation of a value of the nonlinear Landau damping rate of plasmons at rest (at vanishing three-momentum) is made. In Sec. 12 it is shown that the gauge-dependent piece of nonlinear Landau damping rate vanishes on mass-shell. In Conclusion possible ways of further development of the scrutinized theory are discussed.\
[**2. THE INITIAL EQUATIONS. THE RANDOM-PHASE APPROXIMATION**]{}\
We use metric $g^{\mu \nu} = diag(1,-1,-1,-1)$ and choose units such that $c=k_{B}=1$. The gauge field potentials are $N_{c} \times N_{c}$-matrices in a color space defined by $A_{\mu}=A_{\mu}^{a}t^{a}$ with $N_{c}^{2}-1$ hermitian generators of $SU(N_{c})$ group in the fundamental representation. The field strength tensor $F_{\mu \nu}=F_{\mu \nu}^{a}t^{a}$ with $$F_{\mu \nu}^{a} = \partial_\mu A_{\nu}^{a} - \partial_\nu A_{\mu}^{a}+
gf^{abc}A_{\mu}^{b}A_{\nu}^{c}
\eqno{(2.1)}$$ obeys the Yang-Mills (YM) equation in a covariant gauge $$\partial_\mu F^{\mu \nu}(X) - ig[A_{\mu}(X),F^{\mu \nu}(X)] -
\xi^{-1} \partial^\nu \partial^\mu A_{\mu}(X) = -j^{\nu}(X),
\eqno{(2.2)}$$ where $ \xi$ is a gauge parameter. $j^{\nu}$ is the colour current $$j^{\nu} = gt^{a} \int d^{4}p \, p^{\nu}[
{\rm Sp} \,t^{a}(f_{q} - f_{\bar{q}})+{\rm Tr} \, (T^{a}f_{g})],
\eqno{(2.3)}$$ where $T^{a}$ are hermitian generators of $SU(N_{c})$ in the adjoint representation $((T^{a})^{bc}=-if^{abc}, {\rm Tr}(T^{a}T^{b})=N_{c} \delta^{ab})$. We denote the trace over color indices in adjoint representation as ${\rm Tr}$. Distribution functions of quarks $f_{q}$, antiquarks $f_{\bar{q}}$, and gluons $f_{g}$ satisfy the dynamical equations which in the semiclassical limit (neglecting spin effects) are \[8\] $$p^{\mu}{\cal D}_{\mu}f_{q,{\bar{q}}} \pm \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu} \{ F_{\mu
\nu}, \frac{\partial f_{q,{\bar{q}}}}{\partial p_{\nu}} \} = 0,
\eqno{(2.4)}$$ $$p^{\mu} \tilde{\cal D}_{\mu}f_{g}
+ \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu} \{ {\cal F}_{\mu
\nu}, \frac{\partial f_{g}}{\partial p_{\nu}} \} = 0,$$ where ${\cal D}_{\mu}$ and $\tilde{\cal D}_{\mu}$ are covariant derivatives which act as $${\cal D}_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} - ig[A_{\mu}(X), \cdot \, ],$$ $$\tilde{\cal D}_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} - ig[{\cal A}_{\mu}(X), \cdot \, ],$$ \[ , \] denotes commutator, $ \{ , \} $ denotes anticommutator, and ${\cal A}_{\mu}$, ${\cal F}_{\mu \nu}$ are defined as ${\cal A}_{\mu}=
A_{\mu}^{a}T^{a}, {\cal F}_{\mu \nu} = F_{\mu \nu}^{a}T^{a}$. Upper sign in the first equation (2.4) refers to quarks and lower one - to antiquarks.
We begin with consideration of dynamical equations (2.4). The distribution functions $f_{q,{\bar{q}}}$ and $f_{g}$ can be decomposed into two parts: regular and random ones, where latter are generated by spontaneous fluctuations in the plasma $$f_{s} = f_{s}^{R} + f_{s}^{T} \; , \; s=q, \bar{q}, g,
\eqno{(2.5)}$$ so that $$\langle f_{s} \rangle = f_{s}^{R} \;, \; \langle f_{s}^{T} \rangle = 0.
\eqno{(2.6)}$$ Here, angular brackets $ \langle \cdot \rangle$ indicate a statistical ensemble of averaging. The initial values of parameters which characterize the collective degree of a plasma freedom is such statistical ensemble. For almost linear collective motion to be considered below it may be initial values of oscillation phases.
Further we set $$A_{\mu} = A_{\mu}^{R} + A_{\mu}^{T} \;,\; \langle A_{\mu}^{T} \rangle = 0,
\eqno{(2.7)}$$ by definition. The regular (background) part of the field $A_{\mu}^{R}$ will be considered equal to zero. The condition for which the last assumption holds, will be closer considered in Sec. 4.\
Averaging the equation (2.4) over statistical ensemble, in view of (2.5)-(2.7), we obtain the equations for the regular parts of the distribution functions $f_{q, \bar{q}}^{R}$ and $f_{g}^{R}$ $$p^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} f_{q, \bar{q}}^{R} = igp^{\mu}
\langle [A_{\mu}^{T},f_{q,{\bar{q}}}^{T}] \rangle \mp \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
\langle \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle \mp
\frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
\{ \langle (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL} \rangle ,
\frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{R}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \mp$$ $$\mp \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
\langle \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL}, \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle ,
\eqno{(2.8)}$$ $$p^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} f_{g}^{R} = igp^{\mu}
\langle [{\cal A}_{\mu}^{T},f_{g}^{T}] \rangle - \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
\langle \{ ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{g}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle
- \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
\{ \langle ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL} \rangle, \frac{\partial f_{g}^{R}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -$$ $$- \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
\langle \{ ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL}, \frac{\partial f_{g}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle .$$ Here, indices $"L"$ and $"NL"$ denote the linear and nonlinear parts with respect to field $A_{\mu}^{a}$ of the strength tensor (2.1).
Subtracting (2.8) from (2.4), we define the equations for $f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}$ and $f_{g}^{T}$ $$p^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T} = igp^{\mu}(
[A_{\mu}^{T},f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}] -
\langle [A_{\mu}^{T},f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}] \rangle)
\mp \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu} \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L},
\frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{R}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \mp$$ $$\mp \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
( \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -
\langle \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle) \mp
\frac{1}{2} g p^{\mu}
\{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL} -
\langle (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL} \rangle , \frac{\partial
f_{q, \bar{q}}^{R}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \mp$$ $$\mp \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
( \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL}, \frac{\partial
f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -
\langle \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL}, \frac{\partial
f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle ),
\eqno{(2.9)}$$ $$p^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} f_{g}^{T} = igp^{\mu}(
[{\cal A}_{\mu}^{T},f_{g}^{T}] -
\langle [{\cal A}_{\mu}^{T},f_{g}^{T}] \rangle)
- \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu} \{ ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L},
\frac{\partial f_{g}^{R}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -$$ $$- \frac{1}{2} gp^{\mu}
( \{ ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{g}^{T}}
{ \partial p_{\nu}} \} -
\langle \{ ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{g}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle) -
\frac{1}{2} g p^{\mu}
\{ ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL} -
\langle ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL} \rangle , \frac{\partial
f_{g}^{R}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -$$ $$- \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
( \{ ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL}, \frac{\partial
f_{g}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -
\langle \{ ({\cal F}_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL}, \frac{\partial
f_{g}^{T}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle ).$$ The system of equations (2.8) and (2.9) is suitable for investigation of nonequilibrium processes in QGP such that the excitation energy of waves is small quantity in relation to the total energy of particles. In this case it can be used expansion in powers of oscillations amplitude of the random functions $f_{s}^{T}$ $$f_{s}^{T}= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f_{s}^{T(n)} \;, \; s=q, \bar{q}, g,
\eqno{(2.10)}$$ where $f_{s}^{T(n)}$ collects the contributions of the $n$-th power in $A_{\mu}^{T}$. Substituting expansion (2.10) into (2.9), and collecting terms of the same order in $A_{\mu}^{T}$, we derive the system of equations $$p^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(1)} = \mp \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
\{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L},
\frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{R}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \},
\eqno{(2.11)}$$ $$p^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(2)} = igp^{\mu}(
[A_{\mu}^{T},f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(1)}] -
\langle [A_{\mu}^{T},f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(1)}] \rangle) \mp
\eqno{(2.12)}$$ $$\mp \frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
( \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(1)}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -
\langle \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(1)}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle) \mp
\frac{1}{2} g p^{\mu}
\{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL} -
\langle (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL} \rangle , \frac{\partial
f_{q, \bar{q}}^{R}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} ,$$ $$p^{\mu} \partial_{\mu} f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(3)} = igp^{\mu}(
[A_{\mu}^{T},f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(2)}] -
\langle [A_{\mu}^{T},f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(2)}] \rangle) \mp
\frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
( \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(2)}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -
\eqno{(2.13)}$$ $$- \langle \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{L}, \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(2)}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle) \mp
\frac{1}{2}gp^{\mu}
( \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL}, \frac{\partial
f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(1)}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} -
\langle \{ (F_{\mu \nu}^{T})_{NL}, \frac{\partial
f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(1)}}
{\partial p_{\nu}} \} \rangle ) \; etc..$$ Similar equations are obtained for $f_{g}^{T(n)} \;, \; n=1,2,3, \ldots.$
The nonlinear colour current is expressed as $$j_{\mu}=j_{\mu}^{R} + j_{\mu}^{T} \;, \; \langle j_{\mu} \rangle =
j_{\mu}^{R} \;, \; j_{\mu}^{T}= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} j_{\mu}^{T(n)},
\eqno{(2.14)}$$ where $$j_{\mu}^{T(n)}= gt^{a} \int d^{4}p \, p_{\mu}[{\rm Sp} \, t^{a}(f_{q}^{T(n)}-
f_{\bar{q}}^{T(n)}) + {\rm Tr} \, (T^{a}f_{g}^{T(n)})].
\eqno{(2.15)}$$
Now we turn to the Yang-Mills equation (2.2), connecting the gauge field with the colour current. Averaging Eq. (2.2) and subtracting the averaged equation from (2.2) in view of Eqs. (2.7) and (2.14), we find (for $A_{\mu}^{R}=0$) $$\partial_{\mu}(F^{T \mu \nu})_{L} - \xi^{-1} \partial^{\nu}
\partial^{\mu}A_{\mu}^{T} + j^{T(1) \nu} =
\eqno{(2.16)}$$ $$= -(j_{NL}^{T \nu} - \langle j_{NL}^{T \nu} \rangle) +
ig \partial_{\mu}([A^{T \mu},A^{T \nu}] - \langle [A^{T \mu},
A^{T \nu}] \rangle )+$$ $$+ ig([A^{T}_{\mu},(F^{T \mu \nu})_{L}] - \langle [A_{\mu}^{T},
(F^{T \mu \nu})_{L}] \rangle ) +
g^{2}([A_{\mu}^{T},[A^{T \mu},A^{T \nu}]] -
\langle [A_{\mu}^{T},[A^{T \mu},A^{T \nu}]] \rangle ) .$$ Here, in the l.h.s. we collect all linear terms with respect to $A_{\mu}^{T}$ and we denote: $j_{NL}^{T \nu} \equiv
j^{T(2) \nu} + j^{T(3) \nu} + \ldots.$ To account for nonlinear interaction between waves and particles in QGP (in first non-vanishing approximation over the energy of waves), it is sufficiently to restrict the consideration to third order in powers of $A_{\mu}^T$ in expansion (2.10).
We introduce the following assumption. Eqs. (2.8) represent the kinetic equations for averaged distribution functions. The correlation functions in the r.h.s. of these equations have meaning of the collision terms due to particle-wave interaction and describe the influence of plasma waves to a background state. Recently research of similar equations has attracted detailed attention \[16\], since on scale large wavelengths of collective excitations $(\lambda \sim 1/g^2 T)$ they lead to $\mbox{B\"odeker's}$ effective theory \[13\]. We suppose that a characteristic time of nonlinear relaxation of the oscillations is small quantity as compared with a time of relaxation of the distribution particles $f_{s}^{R}$. Therefore we neglect by change of regular part of the distribution functions with space and time, assuming that these functions are specified and describe the global equilibrium in QGP $$f_{q, \bar{q}}^{R} \equiv f_{q, \bar{q}}^{0} = 2
\frac{2N_{f} \theta(p_{0})}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \delta(p^{2})
\frac{1}{{\rm e}^{(pu)/T \mp \mu} + 1}, \,
f_{g}^{R} \equiv f_{g}^{0} = 2
\frac{2 \theta(p_{0})}{(2 \pi)^{3}} \delta(p^{2})
\frac{1}{{\rm e}^{(pu)/T } - 1},
\eqno{(2.17)}$$ where $N_{f}$ - being the number of flavours for massless quarks, $u_{\mu}$ is the four-velocity of the plasma at temperature $T$, and $ \mu $ is the quark chemical potential.\
[**3. THE LINEAR APPROXIMATION. THE CORRELATION FUNCTION OF THE RANDOM OSCILLATIONS**]{}\
We will now come to the derivation of kinetic equation for waves. The initial equation is Eq. (2.16). The l.h.s. of Eq. (2.16) contains a linear approximation of the colour current, explicit form of which is easily defined from Eq. (2.11). We prefere to work in momentum space; the corresponding equations are obtained by using $$A^{T}_{\mu}(x)= \int d^{4}k A^{T}_{\mu}(k) \, {\rm e}^{-i kX},$$ and similar translations for $f^{T}_{q, \bar{q}}, \, f^{T}_{g}$. The result of Fourier transformation for Eq. (2.11) is $$f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(1)}(k,p)= \mp g \frac{\chi^{\nu \lambda}(k,p)}
{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon} \frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{0}}
{\partial p^{\lambda}} A^{T}_{\nu}(k) \, , \,
f_{g}^{T(1)}(k,p)= - g \frac{\chi^{\nu \lambda}(k,p)}
{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon} \frac{\partial f_{g}^{0}}
{\partial p^{\lambda}}{\cal A}^{T}_{\nu}(k),
\eqno{(3.1)}$$ $$\epsilon \rightarrow +0.$$ Here $ \chi^{\nu \lambda}(k,p)=(pk)g^{\nu \lambda} - p^{\nu}k^{\lambda}$. Substituting (3.1) into (2.15) (more precisely, in Fourier transformation of (2.15), we define a well-known form \[8, 22\] current approximation which is linear with respect to a gauge field $$j^{T(1) \mu}(k)= \Pi^{\mu \nu}(k)A^{T}_{\nu}(k),
\eqno{(3.2)}$$ where $$\Pi^{\mu \nu}(k)=g^{2} \int \, d^{4}p \, \frac{p^{\mu}(p^{\nu}(k
\partial_{p})-(kp) \partial^{\nu}_{p}){\cal N}_{eq}}{pk + i p_{0}
\epsilon}$$ is the high temperature polarization tensor, and ${\cal N}_{eq}= \frac{1}{2} (f_{q}^{0} + f_{\bar{q}}^{0}) + N_{c}
f_{g}^{0}$.
Further we rewrite Eq. (2.16) in the momentum space. Taking into account (3.2), we obtain $$[k^{2}g^{\mu \nu} - (1+ \xi^{-1})k^{\mu}k^{\nu}- \Pi^{\mu \nu}(k)]
A^{Tb}_{\nu}(k)= j_{NL}^{Tb \mu}(k) - \langle j_{NL}^{Tb \mu}(k) \rangle +$$ $$+ f^{bcd} \int S^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda}_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}
(A^{Tc}_{\nu}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{Td}(k_{2})-
\langle A_{\nu}^{Tc}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{Td}(k_{2}) \rangle)
\delta(k-k_{1}-k_{2}) dk_{1}dk_{2}+
\eqno{(3.3)}$$ $$+ f^{bcf}f^{fde} \int \Sigma^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}
_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}
(A^{Tc}_{\nu}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{Td}(k_{2})A_{\sigma}^{Te}(k_{3})-
\langle A_{\nu}^{Tc}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{Td}(k_{2})A_{\sigma}^{Te}(k_{3})
\rangle)$$ $$\delta(k-k_{1}-k_{2}-k_{3}) \, dk_{1}dk_{2}dk_{3},$$ where $$S^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda}_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}=- ig(k^{\nu}
g^{\mu \lambda}+ k_{2}^{\nu}g^{\mu \lambda}- k_{2}^{\mu}g^{\nu \lambda}) \;,
\; \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}=
g^{2}g^{\nu \lambda}g^{\mu \sigma}.
\eqno{(3.4)}$$
Let us multiply Eq. (3.3) by the complex conjugate amplitude $A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})$ and average it $$[k^{2}g^{\mu \nu} - (1+ \xi^{-1})k^{\mu}k^{\nu}- \Pi^{\mu \nu}(k)]
\langle A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})A^{Tb}_{\nu}(k) \rangle
= \langle A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})j_{NL}^{Tb \mu}(k) \rangle +$$ $$+ f^{bcd} \int S^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda}_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}
\langle A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})A_{\nu}^{Tc}(k_{1})
A_{\lambda}^{Td}(k_{2}) \rangle
\delta(k-k_{1}-k_{2}) dk_{1}dk_{2}+
\eqno{(3.5)}$$ $$+ f^{bcf}f^{fde} \int \Sigma^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}
_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}
\langle A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})A_{\nu}^{Tc}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{Td}(k_{2})
A_{\sigma}^{Te}(k_{3}) \rangle
\delta(k-k_{1}-k_{2}-k_{3}) dk_{1}dk_{2}dk_{3}.$$
We introduce the correlation function of the random oscillations $$I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k^{\prime},k)= \langle A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})
A_{\nu}^{Tb}(k) \rangle.
\eqno{(3.6)}$$ In conditions of the stationary and homogeneous of QGP, when the correlation function (3.6) in the coordinate representation depends on the difference of coordinates and time $ \triangle X=X^{\prime}
- X$ only, we have $$I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k^{\prime},k)=I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k^{\prime})
\delta (k^{\prime}-k).
\eqno{(3.7)}$$
By the effects of the nonlinear interaction of waves and particles, the state of QGP becomes weakly inhomogeneous and weakly nonstationary. The medium nongomogeneity and nonstationary lead to a delta-function broadering, and $I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}$ depends on both arguments.
Let us introduce $I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k^{\prime},k)=I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}
(k, \triangle k)$, $\triangle k = k^{\prime} - k$ with $\mid\triangle k / k\mid \ll 1$ and insert the correlation function in the Wigner form $$I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k,x)= \int I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k, \triangle k)
{\rm e}^{- i \triangle kx} d \triangle k,$$ slowly depending on $x$. In Eq. (3.5) we change $k \rightleftharpoons
k^{\prime} \;, \; a \rightleftharpoons b $, complex conjugate and subtract obtained equation from Eq. (3.5), beforehand expanding of the polarization tenzor into Hermitian and anti-Hermitian parts $$\Pi^{\nu \sigma}(k)= \Pi^{H \nu \sigma}(k) + \Pi^{A \nu \sigma}(k) \;,
\; \Pi^{H \nu \sigma}(k)= \Pi^{\ast H \sigma \nu}(k) \;, \;
\Pi^{A \nu \sigma}(k)= - \Pi^{\ast A \sigma \nu}(k).$$
We assume that anti-Hermitian part of $ \Pi^{A}$ is small in comparison with $ \Pi^{H}$ and it is a value of the same smallness order, as the nonlinear terms in the r.h.s.. Therefore it can be suggested that $ \Pi^{A \nu \sigma}(k) \simeq \Pi^{A \nu \sigma}(k^{\prime})$, and the term with $ \Pi^{A}$ can be rearranged to the r.h.s.. The remaining terms in the l.h.s. we expanded in a series in powers of $ \triangle k$ to first smallness order. This corresponds to ${\it gradient \, expansion}$ procedure usually used in derivation of kinetic equations $[8, \,12, \,14]$. Multiplying obtained equation by ${\rm e}^{- i \triangle kx}$ and integrating over $ \triangle k$ with regard to $$\int \triangle k_{\lambda} \, I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k, \triangle k)
\, {\rm e}^{- i \triangle kx} d \triangle k=
i \frac{\partial I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k,x)}{\partial x^{\lambda}},$$ we obtain finally $$\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{\lambda}}[k^{2}g^{\mu \nu}
-(1+ \xi^{-1})k^{\mu}k^{\nu} -
\Pi^{H \mu \nu}(k)] \frac{\partial I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}}{\partial x^{\lambda}}
=2 i \Pi^{A \mu \nu}I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}-$$ $$- i \int dk^{\prime} \{
\langle A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})j_{NL}^{Tb \mu}(k) \rangle -
\langle A_{\mu}^{Tb}(k)j_{NL}^{\ast Ta \mu}(k^{\prime}) \rangle \} -$$ $$- i \{ f^{bcd} \int \, dk^{\prime}dk_{1}dk_{2} \,
S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda} \langle
A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})A_{\nu}^{Tc}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{Td}
(k_{2}) \rangle \delta (k-k_{1}-k_{2}) -$$ $$- f^{acd} \int \, dk^{\prime}dk_{1}dk_{2} \,
S_{k^{\prime},k_{1},k_{2}}^{\ast (I) \mu \nu \lambda}
\langle
A_{\mu}^{Tb}(k)A_{\nu}^{T \ast c}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{T \ast d}
(k_{2}) \rangle \delta (k^{\prime}-k_{1}-k_{2}) \} -
\eqno{(3.8)}$$ $$- i \{ f^{bcf}f^{fde} \int \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda
\sigma} \langle A_{\mu}^{T \ast a}(k^{\prime})A_{\nu}^{Tc}(k_{1})
A_{\lambda}^{Td}(k_{2})A_{\sigma}^{Te}(k_{3}) \rangle
\delta (k-k_{1}-k_{2}-k_{3}) dk_{1}dk_{2}dk_{3}-$$ $$-f^{acf}f^{fde} \int \Sigma_{k^{\prime},k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}
^{\ast (I) \mu \nu \lambda
\sigma} \langle A_{\mu}^{Tb}(k)A_{\nu}^{T \ast c}(k_{1})
A_{\lambda}^{T \ast d}(k_{2})A_{\sigma}^{T \ast e}(k_{3}) \rangle
\delta (k^{\prime}-k_{1}-k_{2}-k_{3}) dk_{1}dk_{2}dk_{3} \},$$ where $j_{NL}^{Ta \mu}(k)=j^{T(2)a \mu}(k) +
j^{T(3)a \mu}(k)$.
We make several remarks relative to obtained Eq. (3.8). The term with $\Pi^{A}$ introducing in the r.h.s. of Eq. (3.8) corresponds to the linear Landau damping. However, as was shown by Heinz and Siemens \[18\], linear Landau damping for waves in QGP is absent and hence this term vanishes. Futher, the terms with $\Sigma^{(I)}$ can be omitted also. These terms will be enter into kinetic equation for plasmons (Sec. 5) with ${\rm Im} \, \Sigma^{(I)}$ that vanishes by reality of the function $\Sigma^{(I)}$.\
[**4. CONSISTENCY WITH GAUGE SYMMETRY**]{}\
In this Section we shall discuss the consistency of approximation scheme which we use with requirements of the non-Abelian gauge symmetry.
The initial dynamical equations (2.4) and Yang-Mills equation (2.2) (without the gauge-fixing condition) transform covariantly under local transformations $$\bar{A}_{\mu} (X) = h (X) ( A_{\mu} (X) + \frac{i}{g} \partial_{\mu} )
h^{\dagger} (X) , \;
h (X) = \exp \, (i \theta^a (X) t^a) ,$$ with parameter $\theta^a (X)$. We also have transformations of the quark, antiquark and gluon distribution functions \[8\] $$\bar{f}_{q, \bar{q}} (p, X) = h (X) f_{q, \bar{q}} (p, X) h^{\dagger} (X) , \;
\bar{f}_{g} (p, X) = H (X) f_{g} (p, X) H^{\dagger} (X) ,$$ where $H^{ab} (X) = {\rm Sp} [t^a h(X) t^b h^{\dagger} (X)]$.
As known (see, e.g. \[16\]), after the splitting of (2.5), (2.7) the resulting equations left two symmetries, the ${\it background \; gauge \;
symmetry}$, $$\bar{A}_{\mu}^{R} (X) = h (X) ( A_{\mu}^{R} (X) + \frac{i}{g} \partial_{\mu} )
h^{\dagger} (X) , \;
\bar{A}_{\mu}^{T} (X) = h (X) A_{\mu}^{T} (X) h^{\dagger} (X) ,
\eqno{(4.1)}$$ and the ${\it fluctuation \; gauge \; symmetry}$, $$\bar{A}_{\mu}^{R} (X) = 0 , \;
\bar{A}_{\mu}^{T} (X) = h (X) ( A_{\mu}^{R} (X) + \bar{A}_{\mu}^{T} (X) +
\frac{i}{g} \partial_{\mu} )
h^{\dagger} (X) .
\eqno{(4.2)}$$
The condition which we impose on regular part of a gauge field $A_{\mu}^{R}$ and requirement that the statistical average of the fluctuation vanishes $\langle A_{\mu}^{T} \rangle = 0$, break both of types symmetry (4.1) and (4.2). Thus in the case of a gauge transformation (4.1) we obtain $\bar{A}_{\mu}^{R} \neq 0$, and in the case of (4.2) we come to noninvariance of the constraint $\langle A_{\mu}^{T} \rangle = 0$. Moreover, introduced correlation function (3.6) also have explicitly a gauge noncovariant character. This leads to the fact that calculations in the preceding Sections are gauge noncovariant, and therefore their value is doubted.
Nevertheless, there is the special case, when preceding (and following) conclusions are justified. This is the case of a colourless fluctuation, for which $I^{ab}_{\mu \nu}(k,x)= \delta^{ab}I_{\mu \nu}(k,x)$. We can obtain a gauge invariant equation for $I_{\mu \nu}(k,x)$ only in this restriction, in spite of the fact that the intermediate calculations spoil non-Abelian gauge symmetry of the initial equations (2.2)-(2.4).
In principle, we shall be able to maintain explicit background gauge symmetry (4.1) at each step of our calculations, as it has been done, for example, by Blaizot and Iancu \[14\] for derivation of the Boltzmann equation describing the relaxation of ultrasoft $( \lambda \sim 1/g^2T)$ colour excitations. First of all we assume that $A^{R}_{\mu} \neq 0$. Then as the gauge-fixing condition for the random field $A^{T}_{\mu}$, we choose the background field gauge $${\cal D}^{R}_{\mu}(X) A^{R \, \mu}(X) =0, \;
{\cal D}^{R}_{\mu}(X) \equiv \partial_{\mu} - igA^{R}_{\mu}(X),
\eqno{(4.3)}$$ which is manifestly covariant with respect to the gauge transformations of the background gauge field $A^{R}_{\mu}(X)$. We lastly define a gauge covariant Wigner function as in Refs. $[8, \,14]$ $$\acute{I}^{ab}_{\mu \nu}(k,x)=
\int \, \acute{I}^{ab}_{\mu \nu}(s,x) \, {\rm e}^{iks} {\rm d}s, \;
s \equiv X_1 - X_2, \, x \equiv \frac{1}{2}(X_1 + X_2),$$ where $$\acute{I}^{ab}_{\mu \nu}(s,x) \equiv
U^{a a^{\prime}}(x,x + \frac{s}{2}) \,
I^{a^{\prime}b^{\prime}}(x + \frac{s}{2},x - \frac{s}{2}) \,
U^{b^{\prime}b}(x - \frac{s}{2},x),$$ instead of the usual Wigner function $I_{\mu \nu}^{a b} (k, x)$, whose “poor” transformation properties follow from initial definition $I^{ab}_{\mu \nu}(X_1,X_2) = \langle
A^{T a}_{\mu}(X_1)A^{T b}_{\nu}(X_2) \rangle$. The function $U(x,y)$ is the non-Abelian parallel transporter $$U(x,y) = {\rm P}
\exp \Big\{ -ig \int_{\gamma} {\rm d}z^{\mu} A^{R}_{\mu}(z) \Big\}.$$ The path $\gamma$ is the straight line joining $x$ and $y$.
The derivation of the kinetic equation for plasmons in this approach becomes quite cumbersome and non-trivial. For example, in the l.h.s. of equations for random parts of distributions (2.11)-(2.13), the covariant derivative ${\cal D}^{R}_{\mu}$ will be used instead of the ordinary one $\partial_{\mu}$. Besides, we cannot suppose that regular parts of distributions functions are specified and equal to equilibrium Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions (2.17). It is necessary also take into account their change using kinetic equations (2.8) with the collision terms in the r.h.s. of (2.8), which describe the reaction of the soft fluctuation on the background distributions. The correlators in the r.h.s. of Eq. (2.8) can be expressed in terms of the function $I_{\mu \nu}^{a b}$ and the distributions of hard particles $f_{s}^{R} (p, X) , s = q, \bar{q}, g$ , only.
However, if we restrict our consideration to study of colourless excitations and replace the distribution functions of hard particles by their equilibrium values (2.17), then it leads to effective vanishing of terms explicitly contained the mean field $A^{R}_{\mu}$. This follows e.g., from the analysis of derivation of Boltzmann equation by Blaizot and Iancu \[14\]. Therefore the most simple way of derivation of kinetic equations for soft colourless QGP excitations is assume $A^{R}_{\mu} = 0$ and use prime gauge noncovariant correlator (3.6). In this case the background field gauge (4.3) is reduced to a covariant one. The kinetic equation obtained by this means is gauge invariant if all contributions at the leading order in $g$ to the probability of nonlinear wave scattering by hard thermal particles are taken into account (see also discussion in Conclusion).
In fact, the requirement of nontriviality of a colour structure of Wigner function $I_{\mu \nu}^{a b} (k, x)$ leads to necessity of existence of nonvanishing mean field $A_{\mu}^{R}$ and/or the external colour current and conversely, the existence of mean field in QGP results in colour structure $I_{\mu \nu}^{a b} (k, x)$, which is different from the identity.\
[**5. THE SECOND AND THIRD APPROXIMATIONS OF THE COLOUR CURRENT**]{}\
Now we conserned with computation of the nonlinear corrections to the current in the r.h.s. of basic Eq. (3.8).
At first we define $f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(2)}$. We carry out the Fourier transformation of Eq. (2.12) and substituting the obtained $f^{T(1)}_{q, \bar{q}}$ from (3.1) into derived expression, we find $$f_{q, \bar{q}}^{T(2)}= \mp g^{2} \frac{[t^{b},t^{c}] p^{\nu}p^{\lambda}}
{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon} \int \, \frac{(k_{2} \partial_{p} f_{q, \bar{q}}
^{0})}{pk_{2} + ip_{0} \epsilon}
(A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{c}(k_{2})
- \langle A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{c}(k_{2}) \rangle)
\delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2}) dk_{1}dk_{2} +
\eqno{(5.1)}$$ $$+ \frac{g^{2}}{2} \frac{ \{ t^{b},t^{c} \} }
{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon} \int \, \chi^{\nu \lambda}(k_{1},p)
\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{\lambda}} \left(
\frac{\chi ^{\sigma \rho}(k_{2},p)}{pk_{2} + ip_{0} \epsilon} \,
\frac{\partial f_{q, \bar{q}}^{0}}{\partial p^{\rho}} \right)
(A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{c}(k_{2})
- \langle A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{c}(k_{2}) \rangle )$$ $$\delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2}) \, dk_{1}dk_{2}.$$ From here on the suffix “T” for a gauge field is omitted. The expression for $f_{g}^{T(2)}(k,p)$ is obtained from (5.1) by choosing upper sign and replacements $f_{q}^{0} \rightarrow f_{g}^{0},
t^{a} \rightarrow T^{a}$. Substituting obtained expressions $f^{T(2)}_{s},
s=q, \bar{q},g$ into (2.15) (for $n=2$), we find required current correction $$j^{T(2)a \mu}(k)= -ig^{3}f^{abc} \int \, d^{4}p \,
\frac{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}p^{\lambda}}
{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon} \, \frac{(k_{2} \partial_{p} {\cal N}_{eq}
)}{pk_{2} + ip_{0} \epsilon} \,
(A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{c}(k_{2})
- \langle A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{c}(k_{2}) \rangle)
\eqno{(5.2)}$$ $$\delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2}) \, dk_{1}dk_{2} +$$ $$+ \frac{g^{3}}{4}d^{abc} \int \, d^{4}p \, \frac{p^{\mu} \chi^{\nu \lambda}
(k_{1},p)}{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon} \frac{\partial}{\partial
p^{\lambda}} \left(
\frac{\chi ^{\sigma \rho}(k_{2},p)}{pk_{2} + ip_{0} \epsilon} \,
\frac{\partial (f_{q}^{0}-f_{\bar{q}}^{0})}{\partial p^{\rho}} \right)
(A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{c}(k_{2})-
\langle A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{c}(k_{2}) \rangle)$$ $$\delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2}) \, dk_{1}dk_{2}.$$ The contribution of gluons to the expression with symmetric structure constant $d^{abc}$ here drops out. This is connected with the fact that in calculation of trace of anti-commutators we have: ${\rm Sp} \, t^{a}
\{ t^{b},t^{c} \}= \frac{1}{2}d^{abc}$ - for quarks and antiquarks, and ${\rm Tr} \, T^{a} \{ T^{b},T^{c} \} =0$ - for gluons. The symmetry of contributions can be restored if we note that besides usual gluon current $j_{g}^{\mu}(x)= gt^{a} \int \, d^{4}p \, p^{\mu} {\rm Tr}
(T^{a}f_{g}(x,p))$, the dynamical equation for gluons admits a covariant conserving quantity $$\zeta gt^{a} \int \, d^{4}p \, {\rm Tr}({\cal P}^{a}f_{g}(x,p)),
\eqno{(5.3)}$$ where $({\cal P}^{a})^{bc}=d^{abc}$ and $ \zeta$ is a certain arbitrary constant. The covariant continuity of (5.3) is evident from the identity: $[{\cal P}^{a},T^{b}]=if^{abc} {\cal P}^{c}$. On addition of (5.3) to (2.3) we have contributions to the nonlinear current corrections only. Adding (5.3) to the second current iteration (2.15) and taking into account the equality $${\rm Sp} \, {\cal P}^{a} \{ T^{b},T^{c} \}= N_{c}d^{abc},$$ we derive more general expression for $j^{T(2)}$, instead of (5.2) $$j^{T(2)a \mu}(k)= \int \, S^{abc \mu \nu \lambda}_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}
(A^{b}_{\nu}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{c}(k_{2})-
\langle A^{b}_{\nu}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{c}(k_{2}) \rangle)
\delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2}) dk_{1}dk_{2},
\eqno{(5.4)}$$ where $\, S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{abc \mu \nu \lambda}=
f^{abc}S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda}+
d^{abc}S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{(III) \mu \nu \lambda}$, $$S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda}=
-ig^{3} \int \, d^{4}p \, \frac{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}p^{\lambda}}
{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon} \, \frac {(k_{2} \partial_{p} {\cal N}_{eq})}
{pk_{2} + ip_{0} \epsilon},
\eqno{(5.5)}$$ $$S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{(III) \mu \nu \lambda}=
\frac{g^{3}}{2} \int \, d^{4}p \, \frac{p^{\mu} \chi^{\nu \sigma}(k_{1},p)}
{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon} \, \frac{\partial}{\partial p^{\sigma}}
\left( \frac {\chi^{\lambda \rho}(k_{2},p)}
{pk_{2} + ip_{0} \epsilon} \, \frac{\partial \tilde{{\cal N}}_{eq}}
{\partial p^{\rho}} \right),
\eqno{(5.6)}$$ $$\tilde{\cal N}_{eq}= \frac{1}{2}(f_{q}^{0} - f_{\bar{q}}^{0}) +
\zeta N_{c}f_{g}^{0}.$$
The tensor structure of $S^{(III) \mu \nu \lambda}_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}$ exactly coincides with appropriate expression obtained in calculation of $j^{T(2) \mu}$ in Abelian plasma \[21\], and hence piece of current with $d^{abc}$ has a meaning of Abelian part of the colour current $j^{T(2)a \mu}$. The term with $S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda}$ is purely non-Abelian, i.e. it has no Abelian counterpart.
Let us estimate orders of $S^{(II)}$ and $S^{(III)}$. Following usual terminology \[1\], we call an energy or a momentum “soft” when it is of order $gT$, and “hard” when it is of order $T$. We will be considered, as in Ref. \[12\], that collective excitations carrying soft momenta, i.e. $k \sim gT$, and plasma particles have the typical hard energies: $p \sim T$. In a coordinate representation the first of conditions denotes that oscillation amplitude $A^{a}_{\mu}$ and distribution functions of hard particles $f_{s}(X,p), s=q, \bar{q},g$ change on the scale $X \sim 1/gT$. On this basis, we have the following estimate for $S^{(II)}$ $$S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda} \sim g^{2}T.
\eqno{(5.7)}$$ Here, we considered that by virtue of the definitions (2.17) ${\cal N}_{eq} \sim 1/T^{2}$.
In expression (5.6) the integral of energy with gluon distribution function is infrared divergent. In a similar manner \[17\], we regulate it by introducing an electric mass cutoff of order $gT$, and only take the leading term in $g$. Then it can be found that in (5.6), the part related to the gluon distribution function is of order $g^{2}T
(g \ln g)$ and the other part related to the quark and antiquark distribution functions is of order $g^{3}T$, i.e. $$S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{(III) \mu \nu \lambda} \sim g^{2}T(g \ln g)+
g^{3}T.$$
Hence, $S^{(II)}$ which is purely non-Abelian, is of lower order in the coupling constant than $S^{(III)}$, which has an Abelian counterpart. This fact was first seen in Ref. \[17\].
The expression for a colour current in third order in field is defined by means of reasoning similar previous ones. Performing the Fourier transformation of equation (2.13), taking into account (3.1), (5.1) and equalities $${\rm Tr} \, ( \{ T^{a},T^{b} \} \{ T^{d},T^{e} \} )=
N_{c}d^{abc}d^{cde} + 4 \delta^{ab} \delta^{ed} + 2 \delta^{ad}
\delta^{eb} + 2 \delta^{ae} \delta^{bd},
\eqno{(5.8)}$$ $${\rm Tr} \, ( \{ {\cal P}^{a},T^{b} \} \{ T^{d},T^{e} \} )=0,$$ we find the required form of $j^{T(3)a \mu}$ $$j^{T(3)a \mu}(k)= \int \, \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{abde \mu
\nu \lambda \sigma}(
A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{3})A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{e}(k_{2})-
A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{3}) \langle A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{1})
A_{\sigma}^{e}(k_{2}) \rangle -$$ $$- \langle A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{3})A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{e}(k_{2}) \rangle )
\delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2} - k_{3}) \, dk_{1}dk_{2}dk_{3} +
\eqno{(5.9)}$$ $$+ d^{abc}f^{cde} \int \, R_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{ \mu
\nu \lambda \sigma}(
A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{3})A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{e}(k_{2})-
\langle A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{3})A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{e}(k_{2}) \rangle )$$ $$\delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2} - k_{3}) \, dk_{1}dk_{2}dk_{3}.$$ Here, $$\Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{abde \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}=
f^{abc}f^{cde} \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda
\sigma}+
f^{abc}d^{cde} \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(III) \mu \nu \lambda
\sigma}+
\delta^{ab} \delta^{de} \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(IV) \mu \nu \lambda
\sigma}+
d^{abc}f^{cde} \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(V) \mu \nu \lambda
\sigma} +$$ $$+ d^{abc}d^{cde} \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(VI) \mu \nu \lambda
\sigma}+
( \delta^{ab} \delta^{de} + \delta^{ad} \delta^{be} + \delta^{ae} \delta^{db})
\Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(VII) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma},$$ $$\Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma} =
-g^{4} \int \, d^{4}p \,
\frac{p^{\mu}p^{\nu}p^{\lambda}p^{\sigma}}{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon}
\, \frac{1}{p(k_{1} +k_{2}) + ip_{0} \epsilon}
\, \frac{(k_{2} \partial_p {\cal N}_{eq})}{pk_{2} + ip_{0} \epsilon},
\eqno{(5.10)}$$ $$\Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(IV) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}=
- \frac{g^{4}}{2N_{c}} \int \, d^{4}p \frac{p^{\mu} \chi^{\nu \tau}(k_{3},p)}
{pk + ip_{0} \epsilon}
\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{\tau}} \Big(
\frac{\chi^{\lambda \alpha}(k_{1},p)}{p(k_{1} + k_{2}) + ip_{0} \epsilon}
\, \frac{\partial}{\partial p^{\alpha}} \Big(
\frac{\chi^{\sigma \rho}(k_{2},p)}{pk_{2} + ip_{0} \epsilon}
\frac{\partial {\cal N}_{eq}}{\partial p^{\rho}} \Big) \Big),
\eqno{(5.11)}$$ $$\Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(VI) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}=
\frac{N_{c}}{2} \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(IV) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}.$$ The expression for $ \Sigma^{(VII)}$ is obtained from (5.11) by exception of quark and antiquark contributions. The availability of the term with $ \Sigma^{(VII)}$ is reflection of more complicated colour structure of the gluon kinetic equation in comparison with quark and antiquark equations, that manifests here, in appearance of additional terms in (5.8) as compared with $${\rm Sp}( \{ t^a,t^b \} \{t^d,t^e \}) =
\frac{1}{2}d^{abc}d^{cde} + \frac{1}{N_c} \delta^{ab} \delta^{de}.$$
The terms with $ \Sigma^{(III)}, \Sigma^{(V)}$ and $R$ are defined as the interference of Abelian and non-Abelian contributions. For colourless fluctuations of QGP, which we study in a given paper, the correlation function (3.6) is proportional to the identity. This leads to the absence of the interference of Abelian and non-Abelian contributions. For this reason their explicit form is not given here.
At the end of this Section we estimate the order of $ \Sigma^{(II)}$ and $ \Sigma^{(IV)}$. It follows from the expression (5.1) that $$\Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}
\sim g^{2}.
\eqno{(5.12)}$$ Cutting off, as in the previous Section, integration limit for the gluon distribution function, we find $$\Sigma^{(IV)} \sim \Sigma^{(VI)} \sim g^{3} + g^{4} \;,
\; \Sigma^{(VII)} \sim g^{3}.$$ By this means, purely non-Abelian contribution of $ \Sigma^{(II)}$ is of lower order in the coupling constant than Abelian - $ \Sigma^{(IV)},
\Sigma^{(VI)}$ and $ \Sigma^{(VII)}$.\
[**6. THE KINETIC EQUATION FOR LONGITUDINAL WAVES**]{}\
Now we turn to initial equation for waves (3.8). We substitute obtained nonlinear corrections of induced current by field (5.4) and (5.9) into this equation.
Because of a nonlinear wave interaction the phase correlation effects take plays. By virtue of their smallness, fourth-order correlators can be approximately divided into product of the correlation functions $\langle A^{\ast}(k^{\prime}) A(k) \rangle$. For third-order correlation functions this decomposition vanishes, and it should be considered a weak correlation of phases fields. For this purpose we use the nonlinear equation of a field (3.3), taking into account only the terms of the second order in $A$, in the r.h.s. of (3.3) $$[k^{2}g^{\mu \nu} - (1 + \xi^{-1})
k^{\mu}k^{\nu} - \Pi^{\mu \nu}(k)]A_{\nu}^{a}(k)=$$ $$= f^{abc} \int \, S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{\mu \nu \lambda}
(A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{c}(k_{2}) -
\langle A_{\nu}^{b}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{c}(k_{2}) \rangle)
\delta(k - k_{1} - k_{2}) dk_{1}dk_{2}.
\eqno{(6.1)}$$ The approximate solution of this equation is in the form $$A_{\mu}^{a}(k)=A_{\mu}^{(0)a}(k) - {\cal D}_{\mu \nu}(k)f^{abc} \int \,
S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{\nu \lambda \sigma}(
A_{\lambda}^{(0)b}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{(0)c}(k_{2}) -$$ $$- \langle A_{\lambda}^{(0)b}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{(0)c}(k_{2}) \rangle )
\delta(k - k_{1} - k_{2}) dk_{1}dk_{2},
\eqno{(6.2)}$$ where $S_{k, k_1, k_2}^{\mu \nu \lambda} \equiv
S_{k, k_1, k_2}^{(I) \mu \nu \lambda} +
S_{k, k_1, k_2}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda}$ and $A_{\mu}^{(0)a}(k)$ is a solution of homogeneous Eq. (6.1) corresponding free fields, and $${\cal D}_{\mu \nu}(k)=-[k^{2}g_{\mu \nu} - (1 + \xi^{-1})k_{\mu}k_{\nu} -
\Pi_{\mu \nu}(k)]^{-1}
\eqno{(6.3)}$$ represents the medium modified (retarded) gluon propagator.
Now we substitute (6.2) into third-order correlation functions entering to Eq. (3.8). Because $A^{(0)}$ represents amplitudes of entirely uncorrelated waves, the correlation function with three $A^{(0)}$ drops out. In this case every term in $ \langle A_{\mu}^{\ast a}(k^{\prime})A_{\nu}^{c}
(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{2}) \rangle $ and $ \langle A_{\mu}^{b}(k)A_{\nu}^{\ast c}
(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{\ast d}(k_{2}) \rangle $ should be defined more exactly. In the correlation functions of four amplitudes, within the accepted accuracy, it can not make distinctions between the fields $A$ and $A^{(0)}$.
Finally Eq. (3.8) becomes $$\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{\lambda}}[k^{2}g^{\mu \nu} -
(1 + \xi ^{-1})k^{\mu}k^{\nu} - \Pi^{H \mu \nu}(k)]
\frac{\partial I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}}{\partial x^{\lambda}}=$$ $$= -i \int \, dk^{\prime} dk_{1} dk_{2} dk_{3} \{
f^{bcf}f^{fde} \delta(k - k_{1} - k_{2} - k_{3}) \tilde{\Sigma}_{k,
k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma}( \langle
A_{\mu}^{\ast a}(k^{\prime})A_{\nu}^{c}(k_{3})A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{1})
A_{\sigma}^{e}(k_{2}) \rangle -$$ $$- \langle A_{\mu}^{\ast a}(k^{\prime})A_{\nu}^{c}(k_{3}) \rangle
\langle A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{e}(k_{2}) \rangle ) -$$ $$- f^{acf}f^{fde} \delta(k^{\prime} - k_{1} - k_{2} - k_{3})
\tilde{\Sigma}_{k^{\prime},
k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{\ast \mu \nu \lambda \sigma}( \langle
A_{\mu}^{b}(k)A_{\nu}^{\ast c}(k_{3})A_{\lambda}^{\ast d}(k_{1})
A_{\sigma}^{\ast e}(k_{2}) \rangle -$$ $$- \langle A_{\mu}^{b}(k)A_{\nu}^{\ast c}(k_{3}) \rangle
\langle A_{\lambda}^{\ast d}(k_{1})A_{\sigma}^{\ast e}(k_{2}) \rangle ) \} +
\eqno{(6.4)}$$ $$+ if^{bcd}f^{aef} \int \, dk^{\prime} \int \, dk_{1}dk_{2}
dk^{\prime}_{1}dk^{\prime}_{2} \, ({\cal D}^{\ast}_{\rho \alpha}(k^{\prime}) -
{\cal D}_{\alpha \rho}(k)) S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{\rho \mu \nu}
S_{k^{\prime},k_{1}^{\prime},k_{2}^{\prime}}^{\ast \alpha \lambda \sigma} (
\langle A_{\mu}^{c}(k_{1})A_{\nu}^{d}(k_{2})$$ $$A_{\lambda}^{\ast e}(k_{1}^{\prime})A_{\sigma}^{\ast f}(k_{2}^{\prime})
\rangle - \langle A_{\mu}^{c}(k_{1})A_{\lambda}^{d}(k_{2}) \rangle
\langle A_{\lambda}^{\ast e}(k_{1}^{\prime})
A_{\sigma}^{\ast f}(k_{2}^{\prime}) \rangle )
\delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2}) \delta (k^{\prime} - k_{1}^{\prime}
- k_{2}^{\prime}).$$ Here, we keep the terms of leading order in $g$ only and set $$\tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma}
\equiv \Sigma_{k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}}^{(II) \mu \nu \lambda \sigma} -
(S_{k,k_{3},k_{1} + k_{2}}^{\mu \nu \rho} -
S_{k,k_{1} + k_{2},k_{3}}^{\mu \rho \nu}){\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(k_{1}
+k_{2})S_{k_{1} + k_{2},k_{1},k_{2}}^{\alpha \lambda \sigma}.
\eqno{(6.5)}$$
It follows from the definition (6.3) that the propagator is of the order $\sim 1/g^{2}T^{2}$. Taking into account (3.4), (5.7) and (5.12), we see that all terms in the r.h.s. of (6.4) are of the same order. This explains the fact that in the expansion of the current (2.14) the following term - $j^{T(3)}$ should be retained in addition to the first nonlinear correction $j^{T(2)}$: it leads to the effects of the same order of magnitude.
Let us make the correlation decoupling of the fourth-order correlators in the r.h.s. of Eq. (6.4) in the terms of the pair ones by the rule $$\langle A(k_{1})A(k_{2})A(k_{3})A(k_{4}) \rangle =
\langle A(k_{1})A(k_{2}) \rangle \langle A(k_{3})A(k_{4}) \rangle +
\langle A(k_{1})A(k_{3}) \rangle \langle A(k_{2})A(k_{4}) \rangle +$$ $$+ \langle A(k_{1})A(k_{4}) \rangle \langle A(k_{2})A(k_{3}) \rangle.$$
Taking into account that the spectral densities in the r.h.s. of Eq. (6.4) can be considered as stationary and homogeneous those, i.e. having the form (3.7), and setting $I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}= \delta^{ab} I_{\mu \nu}$, we find instead of Eq. (6.4) $$\frac{\partial}{\partial k_{\lambda}}[k^{2}g^{\mu \nu} - (1 + \xi^{-1})
k^{\mu}k^{\nu} - \Pi^{H \mu \nu}(k)]
\frac{\partial I_{\mu \nu}}{\partial x^{\lambda}} =$$ $$= 2N_{c} \int \, dk_{1} \, {\rm Im}(
\tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k,k_{1},- k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma} -
\tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k_{1},k,- k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \sigma \lambda})
I_{\mu \lambda}(k) I_{\nu \sigma}(k_{1}) +
\eqno{(6.6)}$$ $$+ N_{c}{\rm Im}({\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(k)) \int \, dk_{1}dk_{2}
\, (S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{\rho \mu \nu} - S_{k,k_{2},k_{1}}^{\rho \nu \mu})
(S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{\ast \alpha \lambda \sigma}
- S_{k,k_{2},k_{1}}^{\ast \alpha \sigma \lambda})I_{\mu \lambda}(k_{1})
I_{\nu \sigma}(k_{2}) \delta (k - k_{1} - k_{2}).$$
As it is known \[23, 24\], in global equilibrium QGP the oscillations of three typies can be extended: the longitudinal, transverse and nonphysical (4-D longitudinal) ones. In this connection we define the Wigner function $I_{\mu \nu}(k,x)=I_{\mu \nu}$ in the form of expansion $$I_{\mu \nu}=P_{\mu \nu}I_{k}^{t} + Q_{\mu \nu}I_{k}^{l} +
\xi D_{\mu \nu}I_{k}^{n} \; , \; I_{k}^{(t,l,n)} \equiv I^{(t,l,n)}(k,x).
\eqno{(6.7)}$$ The Lorentz matrices in (6.7) are members of the basis \[24, 25\] $$P_{\mu \nu} (k) = g_{\mu \nu} -
D_{\mu \nu}(k) -
Q_{\mu \nu}(k), \,
Q_{\mu \nu}(k) =
\frac{\bar{u}_{\mu} (k) \bar{u}_{\nu} (k)}{\bar{u}^2(k)}, \,
C_{\mu \nu} (k) =
- \frac{(\bar{u}_{\mu} (k) k_{\nu} +
\bar{u}_{\nu} (k) k_{\mu})}{\sqrt{- 2 k^2 \bar{u}^2(k)}},$$ $$D_{\mu \nu} = k_{\mu} k_{\nu}/k^2, \,
\bar{u}_{\mu} (k) = k^2 u_{\mu} - k_{\mu} (k u).$$ The effective gluon propagator (6.3) can be written in more conveniet form $${\cal D}_{\mu \nu}(k)= -
P_{\mu \nu}(k) \Delta^t(k) -
Q_{\mu \nu}(k) \Delta^l(k) +
\xi D_{\mu \nu}(k) \Delta^0(k),
\eqno{(6.8)}$$ where $\Delta^{t,l}(k) = 1/(k^2 - \Pi^{t,l}(k)),
\Pi^t = \frac{1}{2} \Pi^{\mu \nu} P_{\mu \nu},
\Pi^l = \Pi^{\mu \nu} Q_{\mu \nu};
\Delta^0(k) = 1/(( \omega + i \epsilon)^2 - {\bf k}^2)$. The shift $i \epsilon$ is introduced in $\Delta^0(k)$ to provide the right analytical properties. At finite temperature, the velocity of plasma introduces a preferred direction in space-time which breaks manifest Lorentz invariance. Let us assume that we are in the rest frame of the heat bath, so that $u_{\mu}=(1,0,0,0).$
Further derivation of kinetic equation for longitudinal oscillations involves the same type of manipulations as in the theory of electromagnetic plasma, so we can afford to be sketchy.
Now we omit nonlinear terms and anti-Hermitian part of the polarization tensor in Eq. (3.5). Further substituting the function $\delta^{ab}Q_{\mu \nu}(k)I_{k}^{l} \delta(k^{\prime} - k)$ instead of $I_{\mu \nu}^{ab}(k^{\prime},k)$, we lead to the equation $${\rm Re} \, ( \varepsilon^{l}(k)) \, I_{k}^{l} =0.$$ Here, we use relation $$\Delta^{-1 \,l}(k) = k^2 {\varepsilon}^{l}(k),
\eqno{(6.9)}$$ where $${\varepsilon}^{l}(k) = 1 + \frac{3 \omega_{pl}^2}{{\bf k}^2}
\big[ 1 - F( \frac{\omega}{\vert {\bf k} \vert}) \big] \; , \;
F(x) = \frac{x}{2} \big[ \ln \bigg{\vert} \frac{1 + x}{1 - x} \bigg{\vert}
- i \pi \theta(1 - \vert x \vert) \big] \;$$ is the longitudinal colour electric permeability and $\omega_{pl}^2 =
\frac{1}{18} g^2 T^2 (N_{f} + 2N_{c})$ is a plasma frequency. The solution of this equation has the structure $$I_{k}^{l}=I_{\bf k}^{l} \delta ( \omega - {\omega}_{\bf k}^{l}) +
I_{- \bf k}^{l} \delta( \omega + {\omega}_{\bf k}^{l}) \; , \;
{\omega}_{\bf k}^{l} >0,
\eqno{(6.10)}$$ where $I_{\bf k}^{l}$ is a certain function of a wave vector ${\bf k}$ and ${\omega}_{\bf k}^{l} \equiv {\omega}^{l}({\bf k})$ is a frequency of the longitudinal eigenwaves in QGP.
The equation describing the variation of spectral density of longitudinal oscillations is obtained from Eq. (6.6) by replacement: $I_{\mu \nu} \rightarrow Q_{\mu \nu}(k)I_{k}^{l}$, where $I_{k}^{l}$ is defined by (6.10). $\delta$-functions in (6.10) enable us to remove integration over frequency and thus we have instead of Eq. (6.6) $$\left( k^{2} \frac{\partial {\rm Re} {\varepsilon}^{l}(k)}
{\partial k_{\lambda}} \right)_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}}
\frac{\partial I_{\bf k}^{l}}{\partial x^{\lambda}}=
2N_{c}I_{\bf k}^{l} \int \, d{\bf k}_{1} \, I_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}
\big( {\rm Im} \,
[( \tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k,k_{1},-k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma} -
\tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k_{1},k,-k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \sigma \lambda}) +$$ $$+ ( \tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k,-k_{1},k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma} -
\tilde{\Sigma}_{k,-k_{1},k,k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \sigma \lambda})]
Q_{\mu \lambda}(k)Q_{\nu \sigma}(k_{1}) \big)_{\omega= \omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \,
\omega_{1}= \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}} +
\eqno{(6.11)}$$ $$+ N_{c} \int_{0}^{\infty} d \omega
\int \, d{\bf k}_{1} d{\bf k}_{2} I_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}
I_{{\bf k}_2}^{l} (
G_{k,k_1,k_2} + G_{k,-k_1,k_2} + G_{k,k_1,-k_2} + G_{k,-k_1,-k_2}
)_{\omega_{1}= \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}, \,
\omega_{2}= \omega_{{\bf k}_{2}}^{l}} \, ,$$ where $$G_{k,k_1,k_2} = {\rm Im}({\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(k))
(S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{\rho \mu \nu} - S_{k,k_{2},k_{1}}^{\rho \nu \mu})
(S_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}^{\ast \alpha \lambda \sigma}
- S_{k,k_{2},k_{1}}^{\ast \alpha \sigma \lambda})Q_{\mu \lambda}(k_{1})
Q_{\nu \sigma}(k_{2}) \delta(k - k_{1} -k_{2}).$$
Let us consider the terms in the r.h.s. of Eq. (6.11). The integral with the function $G_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}$ is different from zero if the conservation laws are obeyed $${\bf k}={\bf k}_{1} + {\bf k}_{2},$$ $$\omega_{\bf k}^{l} = \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^{l} +
\omega_{{\bf k}_2}^{l}.$$ These conservation laws describe a decay of one longitudinal wave into two longitudinal waves. However for a dispersion law of the longitudinal oscillations in QGP, these resonance equations have no solutions, i.e. this nonlinear process is forbidded. Therefore the integral with $G_{k,k_{1},k_{2}}$ vanishes. Remaining integrals with $G$-functions differ from $G_{k, k_1, k_2}$ in that some of the interacting waves are not radiated but absorped. They also vanish.
The expression $$( \tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k,-k_{1},k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma} -
\tilde{\Sigma}_{k,- k_{1},k,k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \sigma \lambda} ) \,
Q_{\mu \lambda}(k)Q_{\nu \sigma}(k_{1}) \mid_{\omega=
\omega_{\bf k}^{l} , \, \omega_{1}= \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^{l}},
\eqno{(6.12)}$$ contains the factors $$1/(pk + ip_{0} \epsilon) \, , \, 1/(pk_{1} + ip_{0} \epsilon) \, ,
\, 1/(p(k - k_{1}) + ip_{0} \epsilon) .$$ Imaginary parts of first two factors should be setting equal to zero, because they are connected with linear Landau damping of longitudinal waves (which is absent in QGP), and therefore, the imaginary part of the expression (6.12) will be defined as $${\rm Im} \frac{1}{p(k - k_{1}) + ip_{0} \epsilon}
\bigg{\vert}_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \,
\omega_{1}= \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}} =
- \frac{i \pi}{p_{0}} \delta (\omega_{\bf k}^{l} - \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}
- {\bf v}({\bf k} - {\bf k}_{1})).$$ It follows that nonlinear term in the r.h.s. of (6.11) with the function (6.12) is different from zero if the conservation law is obeyed $$\omega_{\bf k}^{l} - \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}
- {\bf v}({\bf k} - {\bf k}_{1})=0.
\eqno{(6.13)}$$ This conservation law describes the process of scattering of plasmon by the hard thermal particle in QGP.
Let us consider in more detail the term in (6.12) (see definition (6.5) with propagator ${\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(k - k_{1})$. By expansion (6.8) this propagator represents the nonlinear interaction of longitudinal waves with longitudinal ones through three types of intermediate oscillations: the transverse, longitudinal and nonphysical oscillations depending on a gauge parameter. The term with $$\left( P_{\rho \alpha}(k - k_1) \Delta^{t}(k - k_1) \right)_{\omega =
\omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \, \omega_{1} = \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}$$ in general, describes two fundamentally different nonlinear processes:
1. if $( \omega_{\bf k}^{l} - \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l},
{\bf k} - {\bf k}_{1})$ is a solution of the dispersion equation $\Delta^{t}(k - k_{1})=0$, then this term describes the fusion process of two longitudinal oscillations in transverse eigenwave;
2. otherwise, it defines the process of nonlinear scattering of longitudinal waves in longitudinal those through the transverse virtual oscillation (for a virtual wave in distinction to the eigenwave, a frequency $\omega$ and a wave vector ${\bf k}$ are not connected with each other by the dispersion dependence $\omega \neq \omega({\bf k})$).
The equality $\Delta^{l}(k - k_{1}) \vert_{\omega = \omega^{l}_{\bf k},
\, \omega_1 = \omega^{l}_{{\bf k}_1}} = 0$ does not hold for longitudinal oscillations, as we see above and therefore, the term $$\left( Q_{\rho \alpha}(k - k_{1}) \Delta^l(k - k_1) \right)_{\omega =
\omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \omega_{1} = \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}$$ defines only the process of scattering of longitudinal waves in longitudinal those through the longitudinal virtual oscillation.
The contribution of nonphysical intermediate oscillations $$\left( \xi \, D_{\rho \alpha}(k - k_1) \Delta^{0}(k - k_1) \right)_{\omega=
\omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \omega_1 = \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^{l}}$$ will be considered in Sec. 12.
The remaining terms in the Eq. (6.11) with $\tilde{\Sigma}$ are distinguished from above considered ones by a sign of $k_{1}$, and describe the processes of simultaneous radiation or absorption by particles of two plasmons.
Summing the preceding and going to the function $$W_{\bf k}^{l}= - \left( \omega k^{2} \frac{\partial {\rm Re}
\varepsilon^{l}(k)}{\partial \omega} \right)_{\omega =
\omega_{\bf k}^{l}} I_{{\bf k}}^{l} \, ,$$ having the physical meaning of spectral density of longitudinal oscillations energy, we find from (6.11) the required kinetic equation for longitudinal waves in QGP $$\frac{\partial W_{\bf k}^{l}}{\partial t} +
{\bf V}_{\bf k}^{l} \, \frac{\partial W_{\bf k}^{l}}
{\partial {\bf x}} = - \hat{\gamma} \{
( \frac{W_{\bf k}^{l}}{\omega_{\bf k}^{l}}) \} \, W_{\bf k}^{l},
\eqno{(6.14)}$$ where $${\bf V}_{\bf k}^{l} = \frac{\partial \omega_{\bf k}^{l}}
{\partial {\bf k}} =
- \Big[ \big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \,
\varepsilon^{l}(k)}{\partial {\bf k}} \big)
\Big/ \big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k)}
{\partial \omega} \big) \Big]_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}}$$ is the group velocity of longitudinal oscillations and $$\hat{\gamma} \{ \Big( \frac{W_{\bf k}^{l}}{\omega_{\bf k}^{l}} \Big) \}
\equiv \gamma^{l}({\bf k}) = 2N_{c} \int \, d{\bf k}_{1}
\Big( \frac{W_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}{\omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}} \Big)
\bigg[ \frac{1}{k^{2}k^{2}_{1}}
\Big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k)}
{\partial \omega} \Big)^{-1}
\Big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k_{1})}
{\partial \omega_{1}} \Big)^{-1}
\eqno{(6.15)}$$ $${\rm Im}[( \tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k,-k_{1},k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma} -
\tilde{\Sigma}_{k,-k_{1},k,k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \sigma \lambda}) +
( \tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k,k_{1},-k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma} -
\tilde{\Sigma}_{k,k_{1},k,-k_{1}}^{\mu \nu \sigma \lambda})]
Q_{\mu \lambda}(k)Q_{\nu \sigma}(k_{1}) \bigg]_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l},
\, \omega_{1}= \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}$$ presents the damping rate caused by nonlinear effects and being the linear functional of spectral density of energy.
One can write (6.14) in more convenient form if the spectral density of number of longitudinal oscillations is represented as $$N_{\bf k}^{l} = W_{\bf k}^{l}/ \omega_{\bf k}^{l}.$$ It fulfils the role of distribution function of plasmons number. Then instead of (6.14) we have $$\frac{{\rm d} N_{\bf k}^{l}}{{\rm d}t} \equiv
\frac{\partial N_{\bf k}^{l}}{\partial t} +
{\bf V}_{\bf k}^{l} \, \frac{\partial N_{\bf k}^{l}}
{\partial {\bf x}} = - \hat{\gamma} \, \{
N_{\bf k}^{l} \} \, N_{\bf k}^{l} \, .
\eqno{(6.16)}$$\
[**7. HTL-AMPLITUDES. WARD IDENTITIES**]{}\
Befor proceeding to an queshion on a gauge dependence of obtained nonlinear Landau damping rate (6.15), we rewrite derived expression in the terms of HTL-amplitudes \[1, 12\]. This makes possible to extend a procedure of a gauge invariance proof of the damping rate for QGP collective excitations in quantum theory \[1\] to our case.
We present the integration measure ${\rm d}^4p$ as ${\rm d} p^0 \vert{\bf p} \vert^2
{\rm d} \vert {\bf p} \vert {\rm d} \Omega$, where ${\rm d} \Omega$ is the angular measure. Using the definition of equilibrium distributions (2.17) (for $\mu=0$) and taking into account $$\int \limits_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \vert {\bf p} \vert^2 \,
{\rm d} \vert {\bf p} \vert
\int \limits_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} p_0 {\rm d} p_0
\frac{d {\cal N}_{eq}(p_0)}{d p_0} = - \frac{3}{4 \pi}
\left( \frac{\omega_{pl}}{g} \right)^2,$$ we perform the integral over ${\rm d} p_0$ and the radial integral over ${\rm d} \vert {\bf p} \vert$ in the expressions for $S^{(II)}$-function (5.5) and $\Sigma^{(II)}$-function (5.10). Futher we rewrite the expression (6.15) as follows $$\gamma^{l}({\bf k}) =
-2 g^2 N_{c} \int {\rm d} {\bf k}_1 \Big( \frac{W^{l}_{{\bf k}_1}}{\omega^{l}_
{{\bf k}_1}} \Big)
\Big[ \frac{1}{{k^2}{k^2_1}}
\Big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k)}{\partial \omega} \Big)^{-1}
\Big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k_1)}{\partial \omega_1}
\Big)^{-1} \Big]_{on-shell} {\rm Im} \, \tilde{T} ({\bf k}, {\bf k}_1),
\eqno{(7.1)}$$ where $$\tilde{T}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1) \equiv
\eqno{(7.2)}$$ $$\equiv
\{ \delta \Gamma^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma}(k,k_1,-k,-k_1) \, -
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,-k_1,-k+k_1){\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}
(k - k_1) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha \lambda \sigma}(k - k_1,-k,k_1) \, -$$ $$- \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,k_1,-k-k_1){\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}
(k + k_1) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha \lambda \sigma}(k + k_1,-k,-k_1) \}
Q_{\mu \lambda}(k)Q_{\nu \sigma}(k_1) \vert_
{\omega = \omega^{l}_{\bf k}, \;
\omega_1 = \omega^{l}_{{\bf k}_1}}$$ and $$\delta \Gamma^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma}(k, k_1, k_2,k_3)=
3 \, \omega^2_{pl} \int \, \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \,
\frac{v^{\mu}v^{\nu}v^{\lambda}v^{\sigma}}{vk + i \epsilon} \, \Big[
\frac{1}{v(k + k_1) + i \epsilon} \Big( \frac{\omega_{2}}{vk_2 - i \epsilon} -$$ $$- \frac{\omega_3}{vk_3 - i \epsilon} \Big)
- \frac{1}{v(k + k_3) + i \epsilon} \Big( \frac{\omega_{1}}{vk_1 - i \epsilon} -
\frac{\omega_2}{vk_2 - i \epsilon} \Big) \Big] \; , \; (v^{\mu} = (1,{\bf {\bf v}}))
\eqno{(7.3)}$$ present HTL-corrections to the bare four-gluon vertex $[1, 12]$. $$\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,k_1,k_2) \equiv
\Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,k_1,k_2) +
\delta \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,k_1,k_2)
\eqno{(7.4)}$$ is the effective three-gluon vertex \[1, 12\], that is a sum of the bare three-gluon vertex $$\Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,k_1,k_2) =
g^{\mu \nu} (k - k_1)^{\rho} + g^{\nu \rho} (k_1 - k_2)^{\mu}+
g^{\mu \rho} (k_2 - k)^{\nu}
\eqno{(7.5)}$$ and corresponding HTL-correction $$\delta \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,k_1,k_2) =
3 \, \omega^2_{pl} \int \, \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \,
\frac{v^{\mu}v^{\nu}v^{\rho}}{vk + i \epsilon} \,
\Big( \frac{\omega_2}{vk_2 - i \epsilon} -
\frac{\omega_1}{vk_1 - i \epsilon} \Big).
\eqno{(7.6)}$$ The polarization tensor in these notations takes the form $$\Pi^{\mu \nu}(k) = 3 \, \omega_{pl}^{2}
\left( u^{\mu}u^{\nu} - \omega \int \, \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi}
\frac{v^{\mu}v^{\nu}}{vk + i \epsilon} \right).$$
For writing the expression (7.1), for example, in the temporal gauge $A_{0}^a=0$, it is sufficiently to replace the projection operators $Q_{\mu \lambda}(k)$ and $Q_{\nu \sigma}(k_1)$ by $$\tilde{Q}_{\mu \lambda}(k) = Q_{\mu \lambda}(k) +
\frac{\sqrt{-2k^2 {\bar{u}}^2}}{k^2(ku)}C_{\mu \lambda}(k) +
\frac{\bar{u}^2(k)}{k^2(ku)^2}D_{\mu \lambda}(k)=
\frac{\tilde{u}_{\mu}(k) \tilde{u}_{\lambda}(k)}{\bar{u}^2(k)},$$ $$\tilde{u}_{\mu}(k) \equiv \frac{k^2}{(ku)}(k_{\mu} - u_{\mu}(ku)),$$ (similarly for $Q_{\nu \sigma}(k_1)$), and the propagator (6.8) by $$\tilde{\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(k) = {\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(k) -
\Big( \frac{\sqrt{-2k^2 {\bar{u}}^2}}{k^2(ku)}C_{\rho \alpha}(k) +
\frac{\bar{u}^2(k)}{k^2(ku)^2}D_{\rho \alpha}(k) \Big) \Delta^{l}(k) -$$ $$- \xi D_{\rho \alpha}(k) \Delta^{0}(k) -
\xi_{0} \frac{k^2}{(ku)^2} D_{\rho \alpha}(k),
\eqno{(7.7)}$$ where $\xi_{0}$ is a gauge parameter in the temporal gauge.
To establish the gauge invariance of nonlinear Landau damping rate $\gamma^{l}({\bf k})$ there is a need to show that expression ${\rm Im} \, \tilde{T}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)$, where function $\tilde{T}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)$ defined by (7.2) in a covariant gauge equals to similar expression in the temporal gauge.
We prove a gauge invariance for more general expression that in a covariant gauge has the form $$\,^{\ast} \tilde{\Gamma}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) \equiv
\eqno{(7.8)}$$ $$\equiv \{ \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \sigma \lambda \nu}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) -
{\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(-k_1 +k_2) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}
(k,-k_3,k_1 - k_2) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha \lambda \sigma}(-k_1 + k_2,k_1,-k_2) -$$ $$- {\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(-k_1 +k_3) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \sigma \rho}(k,-k_2,k_1 - k_3)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha \lambda \nu}(-k_1 + k_3,k_1,-k_3) \}
\bar{u}_{\mu}(k) \bar{u}_{\lambda}(k_1)
\bar{u}_{\nu}(k_3) \bar{u}_{\sigma}(k_2)
\vert_{on-shell}.$$ Here, $k +k_1 = k_2 + k_3$. The effective vertex $\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \sigma \lambda \nu}$ are formed by adding the hard thermal loop (7.3) to the bare four-gluon vertex $$\Gamma^{\mu \sigma \lambda \nu} =
2g^{\mu \sigma}g^{\lambda \nu} - g^{\mu \nu}g^{\sigma \lambda} -
g^{\mu \lambda}g^{\nu \sigma}.$$ The association of the expression (7.2) with (7.8) is given by $${\rm Im} \, \tilde{T}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1) =
\frac{1}{\bar{u}^2(k) \bar{u}^2(k_1)}
{\rm Im} \,^{\ast}\tilde{\Gamma}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) \vert_{k_1 = -k,
\; k_2 = -k_1, \; k_3 = k_1}.$$ As will be shown in a separate publication \[26\], the expression (7.8) is associated with probability of plasmon-plasmon scattering.
Similar expression (7.8) in the temporal gauge is obtained with replacements $\bar{u}_{\mu}(k) \rightarrow \tilde{u}_{\mu}(k)$ and the propagator (6.8) by (7.7).
The gauge invariance proof is based on using the identities, analogous the effective Ward identities in hot gauge theories \[1\]. It can be shown that the following equalities hold $$k_{\mu} \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma}(k,k_1,k_2,k_3) =
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\nu \lambda \sigma}(k_1,k_2,k+k_3) -
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\nu \lambda \sigma}(k+k_1,k_2,k_3),$$ $$k_{1 \nu} \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma}(k,k_1,k_2,k_3) =
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \lambda \sigma}(k+k_1,k_2,k_3) -
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \lambda \sigma}(k,k_1+k_2,k_3),
\eqno{(7.9)}$$ (similar contractions with $k_{2 \lambda}, k_{3 \sigma}$), $$k_{\mu} \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,k_1,k_2) =
{\cal D}^{-1 \, \nu \rho}(-k_1) - {\cal D}^{-1 \, \nu \rho}(-k_2),
\eqno{(7.10)}$$ (similar contractions with $k_{1 \nu}, k_{2 \rho}$).
Here ${\cal D}^{-1 \, \mu \nu}(k) = P^{\mu \nu }(k) \Delta^{-1 \, t}(k) +
Q^{\mu \nu}(k) \Delta^{-1 \, l}(k)$ is the inverse propagator for which the following useful relation holds $${\cal D}_{\rho \alpha} {\cal D}^{-1 \, \alpha \lambda}(k) =
\delta^{\lambda}_{\rho} - \frac{k_{\rho}k^{\lambda}}{k^2}.
\eqno{(7.11)}$$\
[**8. THE GAUGE INVARIANCE**]{}\
Our proof of gauge invariance is reduced to contraction of the projectors $Q$ and $\tilde{Q}$ with resummed three- and four-gluon vertices and the use of the Ward identities (7.9), (7.10). At the beginning we consider the term with a gauge parameter for the propagator in a covariant gauge.
By using the Ward identities (7.10), we have $$\xi D_{\rho \alpha}(k_1 - k_2) \Delta^{0}(k_1 - k_2)
\,^{\ast}\Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k_1, -k_3,k_1 - k_2)
\,^{\ast}\Gamma^{\alpha \lambda \sigma}(-k_1+k_2,k_1,-k_2) =$$ $$= \xi (\Delta^{0}(k_1 - k_2))^2 ({\cal D}^{-1 \, \mu \sigma}(k)
- {\cal D}^{-1 \, \mu \sigma}(k_3))
({\cal D}^{-1 \, \lambda \nu}(k_2) - {\cal D}^{-1 \, \lambda \nu}(-k_1)).
\eqno{(8.1)}$$ Further this expression is contracted with $\bar{u}_{\mu}(k) \bar{u}_{\nu}(k_3)$. It is easily shown that it vanish whether because ${\cal D}^{- 1 \, \mu \nu} (k)$ is transverse, or by the definition of the mass-shall condition, i.e. $$k_{\mu}{\cal D}^{-1 \, \mu \nu}(k) = 0, \;
{\cal D}^{-1 \, 0 \nu}(k) \vert_{\omega= \omega^{l}_{\bf k}} = 0.
\eqno{(8.2)}$$ Similar statement holds in the temporal gauge also.
The gauge-dependent parts in the above calculation drops out $\gamma^l({\bf k})$, since they are multiplied by the mass-shell factor. These factors are proportional to $(\omega - \omega_{\bf k}^{l})$. However, in a quantum case Baier, Kunstatter, and Schiff \[27\] observed that naive calculation in covariant gauge appears to violate this consideration. Mass-shell factor is multiplied by the integral involving a power infrared divergence which is cutoff exactly on the scale $(\omega - \omega_{\bf k}^{l}) \sim g^2 T$. By this means the gauge-dependent part yields a finite contribution to the gluon damping rate. This problem is considered for damping rate of Fermi-excitations in QGP, also \[28, 5, 29\].
It can be shown that in our case, the integral preceding the mass-shell conditions, diverges for lower limit also and thus the similar problem is arised: does (8.1) yield a finite, the gauge-dependent contribution to the nonlinear Landau damping rate? In Sec. 12 we provide the answer to the queshion.
Now we consider the remaining terms in (7.8). We calculate the contraction with effective four-gluon vertex $ \,^{\ast} \Gamma_4$. Slightly cumbersome, but not complicated computations by using the effective Ward identities (7.9), (7.10) and relations (7.11), (8.2) lead to the following expression $$\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \sigma \lambda \nu}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3)
\bar{u}_{\mu}(k) \bar{u}_{\lambda}(k_1) \bar{u}_{\nu}(k_3)
\bar{u}_{\sigma}(k_2) \vert_{on-shell} =$$ $$= k^2 k^2_1 k^2_2 k^2_3 \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{0000}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) +
\Xi (k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3),
\eqno{(8.3)}$$ where $$\Xi (k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3)=
\{ (k_1^2k_2^2[ \omega k_3^2 + \omega_3 k^2] \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{000}(k-k_3,k_1,-k_2)-$$ $$- \omega \omega_3 k_1^2 k_2^2 k_{3 \nu} \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\nu 00}(k-k_3,k_1,-k_2))
+(k \leftrightarrow k_3) + (k_1 \leftrightarrow k) +
(k_1 \leftrightarrow k, k_2 \leftrightarrow k_3) \} +$$ $$+ \{ (( \omega k_3^2 + \omega_3k^2)( \omega_2 k_1^2 + \omega_1 k_2^2)
{\cal D}^{-1 \,00}(-k_1 + k_2) - \omega_1 \omega_2( \omega k_3^2 + \omega_3 k^2)
k_{1 \lambda}{\cal D}^{-1 \,0 \lambda}(-k_1 + k_2) -$$ $$- \omega \omega_3( \omega_2 k_1^2 + \omega_1 k_2^2) k_{3 \nu}{\cal D}^{-1
\,0 \nu}(-k_1 + k_2) + \omega \omega_1 \omega_2 \omega_3
k_{1 \lambda}k_{3 \nu}{\cal D}^{-1 \nu \lambda}(-k_1 + k_2)) +
(k_2 \leftrightarrow k_3) \}.$$
Further, we calculate the contractions with the terms containing $\,^{\ast} \Gamma_3$ in (7.8). Here, we are led to the expression $$\{ {\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(-k_1 + k_2)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,-k_3,k_1 - k_2)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha \lambda \sigma}(-k_1 + k_2,k_1,- k_2) +
(k_2 \leftrightarrow k_3) \}
\bar{u}_{\mu}(k) \bar{u}_{\lambda}(k_1)$$ $$\bar{u}_{\nu}(k_3) \bar{u}_{\sigma}(k_2) \vert_{on-shell} =
\eqno{(8.4)}$$ $$= k^2 k^2_1 k^2_2 k_3^2
\{ {\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(-k_1 + k_2)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{0 0 \rho}(k,-k_3,k_1 - k_2)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha 0 0}(-k_1 + k_2,k_1,- k_2) +
(k_2 \leftrightarrow k_3) \}$$ $$+ \Xi(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3).$$ Note that the function $\Xi$ in the r.h.s. of (8.4) is identical to that in (8.3). Subtracting (8.4) from (8.3), we arrive at desired expression $$\,^{\ast} \tilde{\Gamma}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) = k^2 k_1^2 k_2^2 k_3^2 \{
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{0000}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) -
{\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(k - k_3) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{00 \rho}(k,-k_3,k_1 - k_2)$$ $$\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha 00}(-k_1+k_2,k_1, - k_2) -
{\cal D}_{\rho \alpha}(k - k_2) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{00 \rho}(k,-k_2,k_1 - k_3)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha 00}(-k_1 + k_3,k_1,-k_3) \}.
\eqno{(8.5)}$$
Now we consider the structure of $\,^{\ast} \tilde{\Gamma}$ in the temporal gauge. For this purpose we replace $\bar{u}_{\mu}$ by $\tilde{u}_{\mu}$ in (7.8) and the propagator in the covariant gauge by the propagator in the temporal gauge (7.7). The contraction with effective four-gluon vertex leads to $$\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \sigma \lambda \nu}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3)
\tilde{u}_{\mu}(k) \tilde{u}_{\lambda}(k_1) \tilde{u}_{\nu}(k_3)
\tilde{u}_{\sigma}(k_2) \vert_{on-shell} =$$ $$= k^2 k^2_1 k^2_2 k^2_3 \{ \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{0000}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) +
\tilde{\Xi} (k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) \},
\eqno{(8.6)}$$ where $$\tilde{\Xi} (k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3)=
\{ ( \omega_1 \omega_2( \omega + \omega_3) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{000}(k-k_3,k_1,-k_2)-$$ $$-\omega_1 \omega_2 k_{3 \nu} \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\nu 00}(k-k_3,k_1,-k_2))+
(k \leftrightarrow k_3) + (k_1 \leftrightarrow k) +
(k_1 \leftrightarrow k, k_2 \leftrightarrow k_3) \} +$$ $$+ \{ (( \omega_1 + \omega_2)( \omega + \omega_3)
{\cal D}^{-1 \,00}(-k_1 + k_2) - ( \omega + \omega_3)
k_{1 \lambda}{\cal D}^{-1 \,0 \lambda}(-k_1 + k_2) -$$ $$- ( \omega_1 + \omega_2) k_{3 \nu}{\cal D}^{-1 \,
0 \nu}(-k_1 + k_2) +
k_{1 \lambda}k_{3 \nu}{\cal D}^{-1 \nu \lambda}(-k_1 + k_2)) +
(k_2 \leftrightarrow k_3) \}.$$
Contracting with the terms containing $\,^{\ast} \Gamma_3$, yields $$\{ {\tilde{\cal D}}_{\rho \alpha}(-k_1 + k_2)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,-k_3,k_1 - k_2)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha \lambda \sigma}(-k_1 + k_2,k_1,- k_2) +
(k_2 \leftrightarrow k_3) \}
\tilde{u}_{\mu}(k) \tilde{u}_{\lambda}(k_1)$$ $$\tilde{u}_{\nu}(k_3) \tilde{u}_{\sigma}(k_2) \vert_{on-shell} =
\eqno{(8.7)}$$ $$= k^2 k^2_1 k^2_2 k_3^2
\{ {\tilde{\cal D}}_{\rho \alpha}(-k_1 + k_2)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{0 0 \rho}(k,-k_3,k_1 - k_2)
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\alpha 0 0}(-k_1 + k_2,k_1,- k_2) +
(k_2 \leftrightarrow k_3)+$$ $$+ \tilde{\Xi}(k,-k_2,k_1,-k_3) \}.$$ Subtracting (8.7) from (8.6), we are led to similar expession (8.5). Thus, we have shown that at least in a class of the covariant and temporal gauges, the nonlinear Landau damping rate (7.1) (exactly, its piece, independent of a gauge parameter) is a gauge-invariant.\
[**9. THE PHYSICAL MECHANISM OF NONLINEAR SCATTERING OF WAVES**]{}\
In Sec. 7 the expression of the nonlinear Landau damping rate $\gamma^{l}({\bf k})$ for Bose excitations in a quark-gluon plasma was obtained. Now we transform it to the form, in which each term in $\gamma^{l} ({\bf k})$ has direct physical relevance. The first transformation of this type has been proposed by Tsytovich for Abelian plasma \[21\]. In \[20\] it taken into account the contribution with longitudinal virtual wave only. In order to satisfy gauge invariance, we extend the transformation of similar type to the case with the transverse virtual wave. Since the nonlinear Landau damping rate is independent of the choice of gauge, we choose the temporal gauge for simplicity.
As was mentioned in Sec. 6, the expression for $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ contains the contributions of two different processes. The first is associated with absorbtion of a plasmon by QGP particles with frequency $\omega$ and a wave vector ${\bf k}$ with its consequent radiation with frequency $\omega_1$ and a wave vector ${\bf k}_1$. It defined by the second term in the r.h.s. of (7.2). The frequency and wave vectors of a incident plasmon and a recoil plasmon satisfy the conservation law (6.13). The second process represents simultaneous radiation (or absorbtion) of two plasmons with frequency $\omega, \, \omega_1$ and wave vectors ${\bf k},{\bf k}_1$ satisfying the conservation law $$\omega^l_{\bf k} + \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1} - {\bf v}({\bf k} +{\bf k}_1)=0,
\eqno{(9.1)}$$ and it defined by third term in (7.2). In contrast to previous scattering process, this process not conserves the plasmons number and its contribution are not important to the order of interest. The first term in (7.2), associated with HTL-correction to four-gluon vertex, contains both processes. Futher, we have taken into account the terms with (6.13) and we drop the terms which contain a $\delta$-function of (9.1).
Now we consider the expression with $\delta \Gamma_4$. With regard to above-mentioned and by the definition (7.3), the contribution of a given term to $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ can be represented as $$3(\omega_{pl}/g)^2
\int \, (\omega^l_{\bf k} - \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})
{\it w}_{\bf v}^{c}({\bf k}, {\bf k}_{1})
\left( \frac{W_{{\bf k}_1}^{l}}
{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \right) \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi}
\, {\rm d}{\bf k}_{1},
\eqno{(9.2)}$$ where $${\it w}_{\bf v}^{c}({\bf k}, {\bf k}_{1}) =$$ $$= 2 \pi N_{c}
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k)}{\partial \omega}
\bigg)_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}}^{-1}
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k_{1})}{\partial \omega_{1}}
\bigg)_{\omega_{1} = \omega_{\bf k_1}^{l}}^{-1}
\delta ( \omega_{\bf k}^{l} - \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l} -
{\bf v}( {\bf k} - {\bf k}_{1}))
\vert {\cal M}^{c}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1}) \vert^{2},
\eqno{(9.3)}$$ $${\cal M}^{c}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1}) \equiv
\frac{g^{2}}{ \vert {\bf k} \vert \vert {\bf k}_{1} \vert} \,
\frac{1}{\omega^l_{\bf k} \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}
\, \frac{({\bf k}{\bf v})({{\bf k}_{1}}{\bf v})}
{\omega_{\bf k}^{l} - ({\bf k}{\bf v})}.
\eqno{(9.4)}$$
To clear up the physical origin of contribution (9.2), it is convenient to compare it with corresponding contribution in the theory of electromagnetic plasma. In this case as shown in \[21\] this contribution describes the normal Thomson scattering of a wave by particles: a wave with the original frequency $\omega_{\bf k}
^{l}$ is set in oscillatory particle motion of plasma and oscillating particle radiates a wave with modified frequency $\omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}$. The corresponding function ${\it w}_{\bf v}^{c}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1})$ presents the probability of Thomson scattering. As it was shown above in quark-gluon plasma for a soft long-wavelength excitations all Abelian contributions is at most $g \ln g$ times the non-Abelian ones and the basic scattering mechanism here, is essentially another (our discussion is schematic, the details of a computation displayed in Appendix A).
To show this mechanism we use the classical pattern of QGP description \[8\], in which the particles states are characterized besides position and momentum, by the color vector (non-Abelian charge) ${\rm Q}= (
{\rm Q}^{a}), a=1, \ldots,
N_{c}^{2} - 1 $ also. As was shown by Heinz \[8\] there is an close connection between the classical kinetic equations and semiclassical ones (2.4). Therefore in this case the use of classical notions is justified.
Let the field acting on a colour particle in QGP represents a bundle of longitudinal plane waves $$\tilde{A}_{\mu}^{a}(x) = - \int \, [( \omega^2/k^2)
Q_{\mu \nu}(k)A_{\bf k}^{a \nu}]_{\omega=
\omega_{\bf k}^{l}} {\rm e}^{i {\bf k}{\bf x} - i \omega_{\bf k}^{l}t}
{\rm d} {\bf k}.
\eqno{(9.5)}$$ The particle motion in this wave field is described by the system of equations $${\rm m} \frac{{\rm d}^{2}x^{\mu}}{{\rm d} \tau^{2}} =
g {\rm Q}^{a} \tilde{F}^{a \mu \nu} \frac{{\rm d}x_{\nu}}{{\rm d} \tau},
\eqno{(9.6)}$$ $$\frac{{\rm d}{\rm Q}^{a}}{{\rm d} \tau}=
- gf^{abc} \frac{{\rm d}x^{\mu}}{{\rm d} \tau} \tilde{A}_{\mu}^{b}
{\rm Q}^{c}.
\eqno{(9.7)}$$ Here, $\tau$ is a proper time of a particle. Eq. (9.7) is familiar Wong equation \[30\]. The system (9.6), (9.7) is solved by the approximation scheme method - the ${\it weak \;field \;expansion}$. A zeroth approximation describes uniform restlinear motion, and the next one - constrained charge oscillations in the field (9.5). With a knowledge of the motion law of a charge, the radiation intensity by it longitudinal waves can be defined. In this case Eq. (9.6) defines the Abelian contribution to radiation, whereas (9.7) - non-Abelian one and interference of these two contributions equals zero. The scattering probability computed by this means, based on Eq. (9.7) is coincident with obtained above (9.3).
In this manner the contribution of (9.2) to $\gamma^{l}({\bf k})$ are caused by not the spatially oscillations of a colour particle, as it occurs in electromagnetic plasma, but it induced by a precession of a colour vector ${\rm Q}$ of a particle in field of a longitudinal wave (9.5) (${\rm Q}^a{\rm Q}^a = {\rm const}$ by Eq. (9.7).
Let us consider now more complicated terms in (7.1) associated with $\,^{\ast} \Gamma_3$-functions. By the definition of three-gluon vertex the following equality is obeyed $$\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\mu \nu \rho}(k,-k_1,-k_2)= -
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{\rho \mu \nu}(k_2,-k,k_1),$$ (hereafter, $k_2 \equiv k-k_1$). Using this relation, the contribution of the term with longitudinal virtual wave to $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ can be presented as $$-2g^2N_{c} \int \, {\rm } {\rm d}{{\bf k}_{1}}
\left( \frac{W_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \right)
\frac{1}{{\bf k}^{2}{\bf k}_{1}^{2}{\bf k}_{2}^{2}}
\Big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k)}{\partial \omega}
\Big)_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}}^{-1}
\Big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k_{1})}{\partial \omega_1}
\Big)_{\omega_{1} = \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}^{-1}$$ $$\Big[ \frac{1}{( \omega \omega_1 \omega_2)^2} {\rm Im} \,
(k_2^2 \Delta^l(k_2)( \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^ik^j_1k^l_2)^2)
\Big]_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \, \omega_{1} = \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}.$$ Futher we use the relation $${\rm Im} (k_2^2 \Delta^l(k_2)( \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1k^l_2)^2)=
- {\rm Im} \,(k_2^2 \Delta^l(k_2))^{-1}
\vert k_2^2 \Delta^l(k_2)( \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1k^l_2) \vert^2 +$$ $$+2( {\rm Im} \, \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1k^l_2)
{\rm Re}( k_2^2 \Delta^l(k_2)( \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1k^l_2)).
\eqno{(9.8)}$$ Here, we drop the momentum dependence on vertices. Taking into consideration the equality $${\rm Im} ( \, k_2^2 \Delta^l(k_2))^{-1} =
3 \pi \omega^2_{pl} \frac{\omega_2}{{\bf k}_2^2} \int \,
\frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \, \delta(vk_{2}) \, ,$$ one can write contribution of the first term in the r.h.s. of (9.8) to the nonlinear damping rate in the form $$3( \omega_{pl}/g)^2 \int ( \omega^l_{\bf k} - \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})
\,{\it w}_{\bf v}^{\parallel}({\bf k}, {\bf k}_{1})
\left( \frac{W_{{\bf k}_1}^{l}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \right)
\frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \, {\rm d}{\bf k}_{1},$$ where $${\it w}_{\bf v}^{\parallel}({\bf k}, {\bf k}_{1}) =$$ $$= 2 \pi N_{c}
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k)}{\partial \omega}
\bigg)_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}}^{-1}
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k_{1})}{\partial \omega_{1}}
\bigg)_{\omega_{1} = \omega_{\bf k_1}^{l}}^{-1}
\delta ( \omega_{\bf k}^{l} - \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l} -
{\bf v}( {\bf k} - {\bf k}_{1}))
\vert {\cal M}^{\parallel}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1}) \vert^{2},$$ $${\cal M}^{\parallel}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1})
= \frac{g^2}{\vert {\bf k} \vert \, \vert {\bf k}_{1} \vert} \,
\frac{({\bf k}_2 {\bf v})}{{\bf k}_2^2}
\left( \frac{k_2^2 \Delta^l(k_2)}{\omega \omega_1 \omega^2_2}
\, \delta \Gamma^{ijl}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^ik^j_1k^l_2 \right)_{\omega
= \omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \, \omega_1 = \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}.
\eqno{(9.9)}$$ HTL-correction $\delta \Gamma_3$ enters in the amplitude (9.9) only. Here the contribution of bare three-gluon vertex is dropped out, since by the definition (7.5), $\Gamma^{ijl}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^ik^j_1k^l_2 \equiv 0.$
The quantity ${\cal M}^{\parallel}$ can be interpreted as the scattering amplitude of a longitudinal wave by dressing “cloud” of a particle. However, in contrast to the Abelian plasma here, the scattering is produced not by the oscillation of a screening cloud of color charge as a result of interaction with incident scattering wave, but as a consequence the fact that it induced by precession of color vectors of particles forming this cloud in the incident wave field $\omega^l_{\bf k}$. This process of transition scattering is a completely collective effect. For calculation of its probability ${\it w}_{\bf v}^{\parallel}({\bf k}, {\bf k}_1)$ it is necessary to solve the kinetic equation describing a color charges motion in a screening cloud in the field that is equal to the sum of fields of incident wave (9.5) and a “central” charge producing a screening cloud.
Now we consider the contribution with transverse virtual wave. Using the association of projectors $$P_{\rho \alpha}(k_2) =
g_{\rho \alpha} - u_{\rho}u_{\alpha} - \frac{\omega_2^2}{k_2^2}
\tilde{Q}_{\rho \alpha}(k_2),$$ we rewrite it in the form $$-2g^2N_{c} \int \, {\rm d} {{\bf k}_{1}}
\left( \frac{W_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \right)
\frac{1}{{\bf k}^{2}{\bf k}_{1}^{2}}
\Big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k)}{\partial \omega}
\Big)_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}}^{-1}
\Big( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k_{1})}{\partial \omega_1}
\Big)_{\omega_{1} = \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}^{-1}$$ $$\Big[ \frac{1}{( \omega \omega_1 )^2} {\rm Im} \,
( \Delta^t(k_2) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^ik^j_1
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{i^{\prime}j^{\prime}l}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^{i^{\prime}}
k^{j^{\prime}}_1 -
\eqno{(9.10)}$$ $$- \frac{1}{{\bf k}_2^2}
\Delta^t(k_2)( \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^ik^j_1k^l_2)^2)
\Big]_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \; \omega_{1} = \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}.$$ To simplify the expression, we expand $\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1$ in two mutually ortogonal vectors: ${\bf k}_2$ and $[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]$, where ${\bf n} \equiv [{\bf k}{\bf k}_1]$ $$\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1=
(\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijs}k^ik^j_1k_2^s) \frac{k_2^l}{{\bf k}_2^2} +
(\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijs}k^ik^j_1[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^s)
\frac{[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^l}{{\bf n}^2 {\bf k}_2^2}.$$ Substituting the last expresion into (9.10), instead of the expression in square brackets, we define $$\Big[
\frac{1}{( \omega \omega_1)^2} \,
\frac{1}{{\bf n}^2 {\bf k}_2^2} \,
{\rm Im}
( \Delta^t(k_2)( \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^ik^j_1
[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^l)^2)
\Big]_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}, \, \omega_{1} = \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}.$$ We transform the imaginary part similar to (9.8) $${\rm Im}
( \Delta^t(k_2)( \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1
[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^l)^2) =
- {\rm Im} ( \Delta^{-1 \, t}(k_2))
\vert \Delta^t(k_2)\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1
[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^l \vert^2 +$$ $$+2( {\rm Im} \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1
[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^l)
{\rm Re}
( \Delta^t(k_2)\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1
[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^l).
\eqno{(9.11)}$$ If we take into account ${\rm Im} \, \Delta^{-1 \, t}(k_2) = -(1/2) \, {\rm Im} \,
\Delta^{-1 \, l}(k_2)$, then the contribution of the first term in the r.h.s. of (9.11) to $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ can be presented in the form $$3( \omega_{pl}/g)^2 \int \, ( \omega_{\bf k}^{l} - \omega_{{\bf k}_
{1}}^{l}) {\it w}_{\bf v}^{\perp}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1}) \Big( \frac{
W_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}{\omega_{{\bf k}_1}^{l}} \Big)
\frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \, {\rm d} {\bf k}_{1},$$ where probability ${\it w}_{\bf v}^{\perp}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)$ is obtained from ${\it w}_{\bf v}^{\parallel}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)$ with replacement ${\cal M}^{\parallel}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)$ by $${\cal M}^{\perp}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1) =
\frac{g^2}{ \vert {\bf k} \vert \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}
\frac{([{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]{\bf v})}{{\bf n}^2{\bf k}_2^2}
\left( \frac{\Delta^t(k_2)}{\omega \omega_1}
\,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1 [{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^l \right)_{\omega=
\omega^l_{\bf k}, \; \omega_1= \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}.
\eqno{(9.12)}$$ In contrast to preceding case, ${\cal M}^{\perp}$ represents the sum of two contributions. The first one defined by bare three-gluon vertex is connected with self-interaction of a gauge field and has no analogy in Abelian plasma. The second contribution is associated with the scattering of wave by the screening cloud of the charges.
The remaining terms in the r.h.s. of (9.8) and (9.11) represent the interference of Thomson scattering by longitudinal and transverse virtual waves, respectively. It is easily to see this, having used $${\rm Im}( \delta \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1k^l_2) =
-3 \pi \omega_{pl}^2 \, \omega_2^2
\int \, \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \, \frac{({\bf k}{\bf v})({\bf k}_1{\bf v})}
{vk} \, \delta(vk_2),$$ $${\rm Im}( \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}k^ik^j_1[{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^l) =
-3 \pi \omega_{pl}^2 \, \omega_2
\int \, \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \, \frac{({\bf k}{\bf v})({\bf k}_1{\bf v})}
{vk} ([{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]{\bf v})
\, \delta(vk_2).$$ The interference of the last two mechanisms of scattering is absent.
Thus, summing the preceding, instead of (7.1), (7.2) we have $$\gamma^{l}({\bf k}) = 3(\omega_{pl}/g)^2
\int \, ( \omega_{\bf k}^{l} - \omega_{{\bf k}_
{1}}^{l}) Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1}) \Big( \frac{
W_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}{\omega_{{\bf k}_1}^{l}} \Big)
\, {\rm d} {\bf k}_{1},
\eqno{(9.13)}$$ where $$Q({\bf k}, {\bf k}_{1}) =
2 \pi N_{c}
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k)}{\partial \omega}
\bigg)_{\omega = \omega_{\bf k}^{l}}^{-1}
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^{l}(k_{1})}{\partial \omega_{1}}
\bigg)_{\omega_{1} = \omega_{\bf k_1}^{l}}^{-1}
\eqno{(9.14)}$$ $$\int \, \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \delta ( \omega_{\bf k}^{l}
- \omega_{{\bf k}_{1}}^l -
{\bf v}( {\bf k} - {\bf k}_{1}))
\, \vert {\cal M}^{c}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1})
+ {\cal M}^{\parallel}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1})
+ {\cal M}^{\perp}({\bf k},{\bf k}_{1}) \vert^{2}.$$ The interference term in (9.14) between ${\cal M}^{\parallel}$ and ${\cal M}^{\perp}$ vanishes by relation $$k_2^i [{\bf n}{\bf k}_2]^j
\int \, \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi}v^iv^j \delta(vk_2) =0 .$$
It is convenient to interpret the terms intering to ${\cal M} \equiv {\cal M}^c + {\cal M}^{\parallel} + {\cal M}^{\perp}$ using a quantum language. In this case the term ${\cal M}^c$ connected with the Thomson scattering can be represented as the Compton scattering of the quantum of the soft modes (plasmon) by QGP termal particle. ${\cal M}^{\parallel}$ defines the scattering of a quantum oscillation through a longitudinal virtual wave with the propagator $\Delta^l(k_2)$, where a vertex of a three-wave interaction is induced by HTL-correction $\delta \Gamma_3$. ${\cal M}^{\perp}$ defines the quantum oscillation scattering by transverse virtual wave with propagator $\Delta^t(k_2)$. In this case ${\cal M}$ fulfils role of the total scattering amplitude.
At the end of this Section we note the principal distinction of obtained expression of the nonlinear Landau damping rate from the damping rate for hard particles \[31\]. In the last case the scattering amplitude involves the resummed gluon propagator in the electric and the magnetic channels only, i.e. $\Delta^{l} (k_2)$ and $\Delta^{t} (k_2)$ respectively. In our case, for small particle momenta $(\vert {\bf k} \vert \leq g T)$, the scattering amplitude takes into account the thermal masses of the particles and exchange contributions (vertex corrections). This leads to more complicated expression for ${\cal M}$ involving the effective vertecies, in contrast to similar expression for the fast particles.\
[**10. THE ASSOCIATION WITH HTL-APPROXIMATION**]{}\
The kernel $Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)$ possesses two main properties. The following inequality results from definition (9.14) $$Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_1) \geq 0.
\eqno{(10.1)}$$ Next from (9.4) it follows that ${\cal M}^c({\bf k}, {\bf k}_1) =
{\cal M}^{\ast c}({\bf k}_1,{\bf k})$. The correctness of this equality results from the conservation law (6.13). For ${\cal M}^{\parallel}$ and ${\cal M}^{\perp}$ we have the similar relations: ${\cal M}^{\parallel,
\perp}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1) =
({\cal M}^{\parallel, \perp}({\bf k}_1,{\bf k}))^{\ast}$. Their proof trivially follows from the definitions of $\,^{\ast} \Gamma_3$ and $\Delta^{l,t}$. The consequence of these equalities is a main property of a symmetry of kernel $Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)$ with respect to permutation of a wave vectors ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf k}_1$ $$Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_1) = Q({\bf k}_1,{\bf k}).
\eqno{(10.2)}$$
From (9.13) follows that in the case of a global equilibrium plasma and by inequality (10.1), waves of a high frequencies are damped out, and a smaller ones are increased. In particular, in the limit of $\vert {\bf k} \vert \rightarrow 0$ we obtain from (9.13) $$\gamma^l(0) = 3( \omega_{pl}/g)^2
\int \, ( \omega_{pl} - \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})
Q(0,{\bf k}_1) \left( \frac{W^l_{{\bf k}_1}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \right)
{\rm d} {\bf k}_1 < 0,$$ i.e. ${\bf k} =0$-mode is not damped, as it was calculated in Ref. \[17\].
This clearly shows that nonlinear Landau damping rate (9.13) which is not of fixed sign, cannot be identified with gluon damping rate, calculated on the basis of resumming Braaten-Pisarski techniques. Actually $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ defines two processes: the effective pumping of energy across the spectrum sideways of small wave numbers with conservation of excitation energy and properly nonlinear dissipation (damping) of longitudinal plasma waves by QGP particles, where the first process is crucial. To see this, we rewrite the kinetic equation (6.14) as follows $$\frac{\partial W^l_{\bf k}}{\partial t}
= - 3( \omega_{pl}/g)^2
\int \, ( \omega^l_{\bf k} - \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}) \, \omega^l_{\bf k}
Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)
\left( \frac{W^l_{\bf k}}{\omega^l_{\bf k}} \right)
\left( \frac{W^l_{{\bf k}_1}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \right) {\rm d} {\bf k}_1.
\eqno{(10.3)}$$ Hereafter, we have restricted ourseves to spatially-homogeneous case.
We perform replacement $\omega^l_{\bf k} =
( \omega^l_{\bf k} - \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})/2 +
( \omega^l_{\bf k} + \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})/2$, then last equation can be presented as $$\frac{\partial W^l_{\bf k}}{\partial t}
= - \int \, Q_{S}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)
W^l_{\bf k} W^l_{{\bf k}_1} {\rm d} {\bf k}_1 -
\int \, Q_{A}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)
W^l_{\bf k} W^l_{{\bf k}_1} {\rm d} {\bf k}_1,
\eqno{(10.4)}$$ where we introduce symmetric and antisymmetric kernel, respectively $$Q_{S}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1) \equiv 3( \omega_{pl}/g)^2
\frac{( \omega^l_{\bf k} - \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})^2}
{2 \omega^l_{\bf k} \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}
Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_1), \;$$ $$Q_{A}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1) \equiv 3( \omega_{pl}/g)^2 \,
\frac{( \omega^l_{\bf k})^2 - ( \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})^2}
{2 \omega^l_{\bf k} \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}
Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_1).
\eqno{(10.5)}$$ We integrate Eq. (10.4) over ${\rm d} {\bf k}$ and introduce the total energy of longitudinal QGP excitations: $W^l_0 = \int \, W^l_{\bf k}
{\rm d}{\bf k}.$ Then by the properties of kernels (10.5) we obtain $$\frac{\partial W^l_0}{\partial t}
= - \int \, Q_{S}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)
W^l_{\bf k} W^l_{{\bf k}_1} {\rm d} {\bf k} {\rm d} {\bf k}_1 < 0,$$ i.e. properly nonlinear dissipation of excitations is defined by symmetric part of a kernel $Q_{S}$ only. It is necessary to compare the parts of nonlinear Landau damping rate which correspond to the nonlinear dissipation of waves only, with damping rate of boson modes from HTL-approximation, namely $$\gamma^l_{S}( {\bf k}) \equiv 3( \omega_{pl}/g)^2
\int \,
\frac{( \omega^l_{\bf k} - \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})^2}
{2 \omega^l_{\bf k} \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}
\, Q({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)W^l_{{\bf k}_1} {\rm d} {\bf k}_1.
\eqno{(10.6)}$$ The function $\gamma^l_{S}({\bf k})$ is positive for any value of a wave vector ${\bf k}$ and particular, for $\vert {\bf k} \vert =0$.
Antisymmetric part of a kernel is not associated with dissipative phenomenon and defines the spectral pumping from short to long waves. It is easy to see, by considering the model problem of interaction of two infinitely narrow packets with typical wave vectors ${\bf k}_1, {\bf k}_2$.
Let us introduce $W^l_{\bf k}$ as follows $$W^l_{\bf k}(t) = W_1(t) \delta({\bf k} -{\bf k}_1) +
W_2(t) \delta({\bf k} -{\bf k}_2), \;
\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert > \vert {\bf k}_2 \vert.$$ Substituting the last expression into (10.4), we obtan the coupled nonlinear equations $$\frac{\partial W_1}{\partial t} = - (Q_S + Q_A) W_1W_2 \; \; , \; \;
W_1(t_0) = W_{10},$$ $$\frac{\partial W_2}{\partial t} = - (Q_S - Q_A) W_1W_2 \; \; , \; \;
W_2(t_0) = W_{20}.$$ Here, $Q_{S,A} \equiv Q_{S,A}({\bf k}_1, {\bf k}_2)$. The general solution of this system has the form $$W_1(t) = -W_{10} \, C
\frac{{\rm e}^{-C(t-t_0)}}
{-(Q_{S} + Q_{A})W_{20} + (Q_{S} - Q_{A})W_{10} \, {\rm e}^{-C(t-t_0)}} ,$$ $$W_2(t) = \frac{Q_{S} - Q_{A}}{Q_{S} + Q_{A}} \, W_1(t) -
\frac{C}{Q_{S} + Q_{A}}, \;
C \equiv (Q_{A} - Q_{S})W_{10} +
(Q_{A} + Q_{S})W_{20}.$$ For $\vert{\bf k}_1 \vert > \vert{\bf k}_2 \vert$, by the definitions (10.5), $C > 0$ and therefore, in the limit for $t \rightarrow \infty $ we have $$W_1(t) \rightarrow 0, \;
W_2(t) \rightarrow W_0 - \frac{2Q_{S}}{Q_{S} + Q_{A}} W_{10}.$$ Here $W_0 = W_{10} + W_{20}$ is total initial energy of packets. Thus we see that as result of nonlinear interaction of two infinitely narrow packets the effective pumping of energy across the spectrum sideways of small wave numbers takes place.
In this case, as a result of the pumping, the part of excitations energy (proportionaled to $Q_{S}$) nonlinear absorbs by QGP particles. The absorption value converges to $$\Delta W = ( \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1} - \omega^{l}_{{\bf k}_2})
(W_{10}/ \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}).$$
The process of nonlinear scattering of plasmons by QGP particles only, not results in their relaxation in homogeneous isotropic plasma. In fact, by the kinetic equation (10.3) the general plasmons numbers conserves $$\frac{\partial N^l}{\partial t} =
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \int \, N^l_{\bf k} {\rm d} {\bf k} =0.$$ It follows that if for time $t=t_0$, $N^l_0$ plasmons are excited in a plasma, then excitation energy for any $t \geq t_0$ does not less than a value $\omega_{pl}N^l_0$ by conservation law of plasmon numbers. In homogeneous plasma the total dissipation of longitudinal excitations energy is defind by slow processes of four-wave interaction.\
[**11. THE ESTIMATION OF $\gamma^l_{S}(0)$**]{}\
Now we present a complete calculation of $\gamma^{l}_{S}({\bf k})$ at zero momentum of an incident field. We start from representation of $\gamma^{l}_{S}({\bf k})$ in the form of (10.6) with kernel (9.14). We introduce the coordinate system in which axis $0Z$ is aligned with vector ${\bf k}_1$; then the coordinates of vectors ${\bf k}$ and ${\bf {\bf v}}$ equal ${\bf k} = ( \vert {\bf k} \vert, \alpha, \beta),
{\bf v} = (1, \theta, \varphi),$ respectively. By $\Phi$ we denote the angle between ${\bf v}$ and ${\bf k}$: $({\bf v}{\bf k}) = \vert {\bf k} \vert
\cos \Phi$. The angle $\Phi$ can be expressed as $$\cos \Phi = \sin \theta \sin \alpha \cos( \varphi - \beta) +
\cos \theta \cos \alpha.
\eqno{(11.1)}$$
In the limit of $\vert {\bf k} \vert \rightarrow 0$, the kernel (9.14) reduces to $$Q(0,{\bf k}_1) = \pi N_c \omega_{pl}
\frac{v^l_{{\bf k}_1} k_1^2}
{3 \omega_{pl}^2 - k_1^2}
\int \frac{{\rm d} \Omega}{4 \pi} \, \delta ( \cos \theta - \rho^l_{{\bf k}_1})
\vert {\cal M}^c(0,{\bf k}_1) + {\cal M}^{\parallel}(0,{\bf k}_1) +
{\cal M}^{\perp}(0,{\bf k}_1) \vert^2,
\eqno{(11.2)}$$ where $$v^l_{{\bf k}_1} \equiv \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}/ \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert, \;
k_1^2 \equiv (\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1})^2 - {\bf k}_1^2, \;
\rho^l_{{\bf k}_1} \equiv (\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1} - \omega_{pl})/
\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert \geq 0, \; {\rm d} \Omega= \sin \theta
{\rm d} \theta {\rm d} \varphi.$$
By using the definitions (9.4), (9.9) and (9.12), we find expressions ${\cal M}^{c}(0,{\bf k}_1)$, ${\cal M}^{\parallel}(0,{\bf k}_1)$ and ${\cal M}^{\perp}(0,{\bf k}_1)$. The first of them is defined more simply. In the limit of zero momentum $${\cal M}^c(0,{\bf k}_1) =
\left( \frac{g}{\omega_{pl}} \right)^2
\frac{\cos \Phi \cos \theta}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}.$$
Calculation of ${\cal M}^{\parallel}(0,{\bf k}_1)$ is more complicated. From (9.9) we obtain $${\cal M}^{\parallel}(0,{\bf k}_1) =
\left( \frac{g}{\omega_{pl}} \right)^2
\frac{\omega_{pl}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \,
\frac{(1 - ( \rho^l_{{\bf k}_1})^2)}{{\bf k}^2_1 \rho^l_{{\bf k}_1}}
\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0} \frac{1}{\vert {\bf k} \vert}
(\Delta^l(k_2) \delta \Gamma^{ijl}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^ik^j_1k^l_2).
\eqno{(11.3)}$$ Using the definition of HTL-correction (7.6) to bare three-gluon vertex, after slightly cumbersome computations we define $$\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0} \frac{1}{\vert {\bf k} \vert}
\delta \Gamma^{ijl}(k,-k_1,-k_2)k^{i}k_1^{j}k_2^{l} =
\eqno{(11.4)}$$ $$= - \cos \alpha \frac{{\bf k}_1^2}{\omega_{pl}} \,
\frac{( \rho^{l}_{{\bf k}_1})^3}{1-( \rho^{l}_{{\bf k}_1})^2}
\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
\Delta^{-1 \, l}(k_2) + 3 \vert {\bf k}_{1} \vert^3 \cos \alpha \,
\rho^{l}_{{\bf k}_1}v^{l}_{{\bf k}_1}.$$ In the last equility we use the definition of $\Delta^{-1 \, l}(k)$ as the function $F( \omega / \vert {\bf k} \vert)$ (6.9). Inserting (11.4) into (11.3), we reduce the scattering amplitude with longitudinal virtual oscillation to $${\cal M}^{\parallel}(0,{\bf k}_1) =
- \left( \frac{g}{\omega_{pl}} \right)^2
\frac{( \rho^l_{{\bf k}_1})^2}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \, \cos \alpha
+ 3 \left( \frac{g}{\omega_{pl}} \right)^2
\omega_{pl} (1 - ( \rho^l_{{\bf k}_1})^2) \cos \alpha
\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
\Delta^l(k_2).
\eqno{(11.5)}$$
Now we consider the limit of the term with transverse virtual oscillation. From (9.12) it follows $${\cal M}^{\perp}(0,{\bf k}_1) =
\left( \frac{g}{\omega_{pl}} \right)^2
\frac{\omega_{pl}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \,
\frac{\cos \Phi - \cos \theta \cos \alpha}
{{\bf k}_1^2 \sin \alpha}
\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
\frac{1}{\vert {\bf k} \vert \vert {\bf n} \vert}
( \Delta^{t} (k_{2}) \,^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl}
\, k^{i} k_1^{j} [ {\bf n} {\bf k_2} ]^{l}).
\eqno{(11.6)}$$ Using the definition of effective three-gluon vertex (7.4) and the relation $$(1 - ( \rho_{{\bf k}_1}^{l})^{2}) (1 - F( - \rho_{{\bf k}_1}^{l})) =
\frac{2}{3 \omega_{pl}^{2}}
\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
\Delta^{-1 \, t} (k_{2}) + 1 +
\frac{2 {\bf k}_1^2}{3 \omega_{pl}^{2}}
(1 - ( \rho_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l})^{2} ) \, ,$$ we obtain $$\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
\frac{1}{\vert {\bf k} \vert \vert {\bf n} \vert}
\, ^{\ast} \Gamma^{ijl} (k, - k_1, - k_2)
k^{i} k_{1}^{j} [ {\bf n} {\bf k}_{2} ]^{l} =$$ $$= - \frac{3}{2} \, \frac{{\bf k}_{1}^{4}}{\omega_{pl}}
\sin \alpha \, (1 - v_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l} \rho_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}) -
\frac{{\bf k}_{1}^{2} \rho_{{\bf k}_{1}}^{l}}{\omega_{pl}}
\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
\Delta^{-1 t} (k_{2} ) \sin \alpha .
\eqno{(11.7)}$$
Substitute (11.7) into (11.6) and take into account the relation (11.1), we obtained required limit $${\cal M}^{\perp}(0,{\bf k}_1) =
- \left( \frac{g}{\omega_{pl}} \right)^2
\frac{\rho^l_{{\bf k}_1}}{\omega_{{\bf k}_1}}
\sin \theta \sin \alpha \cos ( \varphi - \beta) -
\eqno{(11.8)}$$ $$- \frac{3}{2} \left( \frac{g}{\omega_{pl}} \right)^2 \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert
((v^l_{{\bf k}_1})^{-1} - \rho^l_{{\bf k}_1})
\sin \theta \sin \alpha \cos ( \varphi - \beta)
\lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
\Delta^{t}(k_2).$$
The terms in the amplitude ${\cal M}$ not containing $\Delta^{l,t}$ combine to give $$\left( \frac{g}{\omega_{pl}} \right)^2
\frac{1}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}
\{ \cos \Phi \cos \theta - ( \rho^l_{{\bf k}_1})^2 \cos \alpha -
\rho^l_{{\bf k}_1} \sin \theta \sin \alpha \cos ( \varphi - \beta) \}.$$ By the $\delta$-function in (11.2), the expression in curly braces vanishes. Thus, all terms in ${\cal M}$, not containing the factors $\Delta^{l,t}$, are in relatively reduced in the limit of ${\bf k}=0$-mode.
The remaining terms, after substitution into (11.2) and integration over solid angle, yield $$Q(0,{\bf k}_1) = \frac{9}{2} \pi g^4 \frac{N_c}{ \omega_{pl}}
\, \frac{k_1^2 (1 - ( \rho_{{\bf k}_1}^l )^2 )}
{(3 \omega_{pl}^2 - k_1^2)} \, v_{{\bf k}_1}^{l} \theta(1 -
\rho_{{\bf k}_1}^{l} )
\{ (1 - (\rho_{{\bf k}_1}^{l})^2) \; \cos^2 \alpha
\vert \lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0} ( \Delta^{l}(k_2)) \vert^2 +$$ $$+ \frac{{\bf k}_1^2}{8 \omega_{pl}^2}
( (v_{{\bf k}_1}^l)^{- 1} - \rho_{{\bf k}_1}^l )^2
\; \sin^2 \alpha
\vert \lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
( \Delta^{t} (k_2)) \vert^{2} \} .
\eqno{(11.9)}$$ We note that this expression is not dependent on angle $\beta$. This enables us to represent the integration measure in the r.h.s. of (10.6) in the form $$\int \, {\rm d} {\bf k}_{1} = 2 \pi \int\limits_{0}^{\infty} {\bf k}_1^2
{\rm d} \vert {\bf k}_{1} \vert
\int\limits_{1}^{- 1} \, {\rm d} ( \cos \alpha ).$$
Futher we suppose that the excitations in QGP become isotropic over the directions of vector ${\bf k}_1$ on a time scale which is much less than time scale of the nonlinear interaction. This enables us to consider the spectral density $W_{{\bf k}_1}^l$ as a function of $\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert$ only. Now we introduce the spectral function $$W^l_{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert} \equiv
4 \pi {\bf k}_1^2
W^l_{{\bf k}_1}$$ such that the integral $\int_{0}^{\infty} W^l_{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}
{\rm d} \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert = W^l$ is total energy of longitudinal oscillations in QGP. Substituting (11.9) into (10.6) (for ${\bf k}=0$) and performing the angular integration over $\alpha$, we obtain finally $\gamma^l_{S}(0)$ $$\gamma^{l}_{S}(0) \cong \int\limits_{0}^{\vert {\bf k}_1^{\ast} \vert}
Q ( \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert )
W_{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}^{l} \, {\rm d} \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert ,
\eqno{(11.10)}$$ where a kernel $Q( \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert )$ has the form $$Q( \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert ) = \frac{9}{4} \pi g^2 N_c
\, \frac{k_1^2 (1 - ( \rho_{{\bf k}_1}^l )^2 )}
{(3 \omega_{pl}^2 - k_1^2)} \, \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert
( \rho_{{\bf k}_1}^{l})^2 \, \theta(1 -
\rho_{{\bf k}_1}^{l} )
\{ (1 - (\rho_{{\bf k}_1}^{l})^2)
\; \vert \lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0} ( \Delta^{l}(k_2)) \vert^2 +$$ $$+ \frac{{\bf k}_1^2}{4 \omega_{pl}^2}
( (v_{{\bf k}_1}^l)^{- 1} - \rho_{{\bf k}_1}^l )^2
\vert \lim \limits_{\vert {\bf k} \vert \to 0}
( \Delta^{t} (k_2)) \vert^{2} \} ,
\eqno{(11.11)}$$ and the upper cutoff $\vert {\bf k}_1^{\ast} \vert$ distinguishes between soft and hard momenta: $g T \ll \vert {\bf k}_1^{\ast} \vert \ll T$. For crude estimation of $\gamma_S^l(0)$ let us expand the kernel $Q( \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert )$ in the momentum $\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert$, using the approximations $$\omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l \approx \omega_{pl} , \, \,
\rho_{{\bf k}_1}^l \approx \frac{3 \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}{10 \omega_{pl}} ,
\, \,
v_{{\bf k}_1}^l \approx \frac{\omega_{pl}}{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert} ,
\, \, \, \ldots \; \; .$$ Keeping the leading in $\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert$ term in the expansion (11.11), we obtain $$Q ( \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert ) \approx \frac{9 \pi}{800} \, N_c g^2 \,
\left( \frac{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}{\omega_{pl}^2} \right)^3 .
\eqno{(11.12)}$$ The function $W_{{\bf k}_1}^l$ is approximated by its equilibrium value \[17\]: $W_{{\bf k}_1}^l \approx 4 \pi T$ and therefore $$W_{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}^l \approx 16 \pi^2 {\bf k}_1^2 \, T .
\eqno{(11.13)}$$ Substituting (11.12) and (11.13) into (11.10), and setting $\vert {\bf k}_1^{\ast} \vert \sim g T$, we finally define $$\gamma^l_{S} (0) \approx + 1.04 N_c g^2 T .
\eqno{(11.14)}$$ In our case the coefficient of the $g^2 T$ has the same sign but is significantly large than corresponding one, calculated in \[4\].\
[**12. THE $\gamma^{l}(0)$ DEPENDENCE ON A GAUGE PARAMETER**]{}\
Now we estimate the contribution of a gauge dependence term of a propagator in covariant gauge (6.8) to the nonlinear Landau damping rate $${\cal D}^{\xi}_{\rho \alpha}(k_2) =
\xi k_{2 \rho} k_{2 \alpha} /[( \omega_2 + i \epsilon)^2 -
{\bf k}^2_2]^2, \; k_2 =k - k_1.
\eqno{(12.1)}$$ By the Ward identities (7.10), a gauge-dependent part of $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ can be represented as $$\gamma^l_{\xi}({\bf k}) =
-2 \xi g^2 N_c {\rm Im} \int \, {\rm d}{\bf k}_1 \bigg( \frac{
W^l_{{\bf k}_1}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \bigg) \Big[
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^l(k)}{\partial \omega} \bigg)^{-1}
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^l(k_1)}{\partial \omega_1} \bigg)^{-1}$$ $$\frac{( \omega \omega_1 ({\bf k}{\bf k}_1) - {\bf k}^2{\bf k_1}^2)^2}
{{\bf k}^2{\bf k}^2_1 (k^2k^2_1)^2}
( \Delta^{-1 \,l}(k) - \Delta^{-1 \,l}(k_1))^2
\frac{1}{[( \omega_2 + i \epsilon)^2 - {\bf k}^2_2]^2}
\Big]_{\omega = \omega^l_{\bf k}, \; \omega_1 = \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}.
\eqno{(12.2)}$$ If we take into account that $\Delta^{-1 \,l}(k) \vert_{\omega = \omega^l_{\bf k}} =
\Delta^{-1 \,l}(k_1) \vert_{\omega_1 = \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \equiv 0$, then formally, a gauge-dependent part of nonlinear Landau damping rate vanishes, as it was mentioned in Sec. 8. However, we show that the integral in the r.h.s. of (12.2) develops on mass-shell poles. We consider, for example, the coefficient of $( \Delta^{-1 \, l}(k))^2$. In the limit $\vert {\bf k} \vert \rightarrow 0$ this coefficient is equal to $$\int \, {\bf k}_1^2 {\rm d} \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert \bigg( \frac{
W^l_{{\bf k}_1}}{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}} \bigg)
\bigg( \frac{\omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}{k^2_1} \bigg)^2
\bigg( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^l(k_1)}{\partial \omega_1}
\bigg)^{-1}_{\omega_1 = \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}}
{\rm Im}
\frac{1}{[( \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1} - \omega_{pl} - i \epsilon)^2 - {\bf k}^2_1]^2}$$ (numerical factor is omitted). For lower limit, integrand expression (for $W^l_{{\bf k}_1} \simeq {\rm const}$) is as follows $$\int \limits_{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert \simeq 0}
\frac{{\rm d} \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert^2} ,$$ i.e. the integral involves a power infrared divergence and is infinite at the pole. Thus, a gauge parameter in (12.2) is multiplied by $0 \times \infty$ uncertainty. We investigate this uncertainty, following by reasoning \[27\].
In order to evalute the double poles in (12.1) we use the prescription $$\frac{1}{[(\omega_2 + i \epsilon)^2 - {\bf k}_2^2]^2} =
\lim\limits_{m^2\to 0} \frac{\partial}{\partial m^2}
\frac{1}{[(\omega_2 + i \epsilon)^2 - {\bf k}_2^2 - m^2]} =$$ $$= \lim\limits_{m^2\to 0} \frac{\partial}{\partial m^2} \,
\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{{\bf k}^2_2 + m^2}}
\bigg ( \frac{1}{\omega_2 - \sqrt{{\bf k}^2_2 + m^2} + i \epsilon} -
\frac{1}{\omega_2 + \sqrt{{\bf k}^2_2 + m^2} + i \epsilon} \bigg ).
\eqno{(12.3)}$$
By computing we first take $m^2 \rightarrow 0$ befor the effective on mass-shell limit $\omega \rightarrow \omega_{pl}$. We focus on the damping rate $\gamma_{\xi}^l$ of excitation at rest (at vanishing three-momentum).
Performing the interesting limit $\vert {\bf k} \vert \rightarrow 0$ in (12.2) and taking into account (12.3), we define $$\gamma_{\xi}^l (0) =
\frac{(2 \pi)^2}{3} \xi g^2 N_c \frac{1}{\omega_{pl}}
\lim \limits_{m^2 \to 0} \frac{\partial}{\partial m^2}
\int \limits_0^\infty
\frac{{\bf k}_1^2 {\rm d} \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}
{\sqrt{{\bf k}_1^2 + m^2}}
\bigg ( \frac{W_{{\bf k}_1}^l}{\omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l} \bigg )
\bigg ( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \,
\varepsilon^l(k_1)}{\partial \omega_1} \bigg)^{-1}_{\omega_1
= \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l}
\bigg( \frac{\omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l}{k_1^2} \bigg)^2$$ $$( \Delta^{-1 \, l}(\omega, 0) - \Delta^{-1 \, l}
( \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l, {\bf k}_1) )^2
\{ \delta ( \omega - \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l - \sqrt{{\bf k}^2_1 + m^2} ) -
\delta ( \omega - \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l + \sqrt{{\bf k}_1^2 +m^2}) \}.
\eqno{(12.4)}$$ Without restriction for the general case we choose $\omega > \omega_{pl} +m$. Then we obtain from (12.4) $$\gamma_{\xi}^l (0) =
\frac{2 \pi^2}{3} \xi g^2 N_c \frac{1}{\omega_{pl}}
\lim \limits_{m^2 \to 0} \frac{\partial}{\partial m^2}
\bigg[ \bigg( \frac{k_{10}}{\sqrt{k_{10}^2 + m^2}} \bigg)
\bigg( \frac{W_{k_{10}}}{\omega_{k_{10}}} \bigg)
\bigg ( \frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^l (k_{10})}
{\partial \omega_1}
\bigg)^{-1}_{\omega_1 = \omega_{{\bf k}_{10}}
^l}
\frac{(\omega_{k_{10}}^l)^2}{[( \omega_{k_{10}})^2 - k_{10}^2 ]^2}$$ $$( \Delta^{-1 \, l}(\omega, 0) -
\Delta^{-1 \, l}( \omega - \sqrt{k_{10}^2 + m^2}, k_{10}))^2
\bigg(
\frac{ \partial \sqrt{{\bf k}_1^2 + m^2}}{\partial {\bf k}_1^2} +
\frac{\partial \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l}{\partial {\bf k}_1^2} \bigg)^{-1}_{
\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert = k_{10}} \bigg ] ,
\eqno{(12.5)}$$ where $k_{10}$ is a solution of equation $$\omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l = \omega - \sqrt{{\bf k}_1^2 + m^2} .$$ In order to perform the interesting limit $m^2 \rightarrow 0$ and $\omega \rightarrow \omega_{pl}$, we notice that the solution $k_{10}$ vanishes for $m^2 = 0$ as $$k_{10} \simeq \omega - \omega_{pl} + O(k_{10}^2).$$ Working out the derivative with respect to $\partial / \partial m^2$ and taking $m^2 \rightarrow 0$, we find that the most singular term in the limit $k_{10} \rightarrow 0$ comes from the derivative $$\frac{\partial}{\partial m^2} \bigg(
\frac{k_{10}}{\sqrt{k^2_{10} + m^2}} \bigg) \rightarrow
- \frac{1}{2 k_{10}^2} .$$ Using the approximation $W_{{\bf k}_{10}}^l \approx 4 \pi T$ and $\Delta^{- 1 \, l} (\omega, 0) - \Delta^{- 1 \, l}
(\omega - k_{10}, k_{10}) \approx
2 \omega _{pl} k_{10}$, we finally obtain $$\gamma_{\xi}^{l} (0) \simeq - 2 \frac{(2 \pi)^3}{3} \xi g^2 N_c T
\bigg ( \frac{\omega - \omega_{pl}}{\omega_{pl}} \bigg ).
\eqno{(12.6)}$$ From the last expression we notice that by going on mass-shell, the gauge-dependent part of the nonlinear Landau damping rate vanishes.
Excess factor $(\omega - \omega_{pl})$ of numerator (12.6) is arised from the function $$\bigg(
\frac{\partial \sqrt{{\bf k}_1^2 + m^2}}{\partial {\bf k}_{1}^{2}} +
\frac{\partial \omega_{{\bf k}_1}^l}{\partial {\bf k}_{1}^{2}} \bigg)
_{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert = k_{10}}^{- 1}$$ in the expression (12.5). In paper \[27\] this factor is compensated by singularity of statistic factor $$\lim \limits_{k_{10} \rightarrow 0}
\lim \limits_{m^2 \rightarrow 0} f_g ( \sqrt{k_{10}^2 + m^2} ) \simeq
\frac{T}{( \omega - \omega_{pl} )} ,$$ associated with the spectral representation of bare propagator $1/(k^2 + m^2)$. In our case this factor is absent.
One can lead to the result (12.6) in a different way. In derivation of the expression for $\gamma^l({\bf k})$ (6.15) we use representation of the spectral density $I_{\omega, {\bf k}}^l$ in the form (6.10). General speaking, this representation holds in the linear approximation only, when the time correlation (dependence on $\omega$) is one-to-one correspondence with the spatial correlation (dependence on ${\bf k}$). To include the effects of weakly nonstationary ingomogeneous plasma motions (when one-to-one correspondence between excitations frequency and its wave number fails), we replace the sharp $\delta$-function in the $I_{\omega, {\bf k}}^{l}$ by Breit-Wigner form \[6, 32, 29\], with width $\gamma^{l}$ $$I^l_{\omega, {\bf k}} = \frac{1}{\pi}
\Big( I^l_{\bf k} \frac{\gamma^l}{( \omega - \omega^l_{\bf k})^2
+ ( \gamma^l)^2} +
I^l_{-{\bf k}} \frac{\gamma^l}{( \omega + \omega^l_{\bf k})^2
+ ( \gamma^l)^2} \Big).
\eqno{(12.7)}$$ The parameter $\gamma^l$ is interpreted as damping rate of boson mode of order $g^2T$. Note that in this case we are dealing with correlator $\langle A^a_{\mu}(X_1)A^b_{\nu}(X_2) \rangle$ dependence on difference $X_1 - X_2$. Dependence on the midpoint $(X_1 + X_2)/2$ is accounted in the form of a dependence on a slow coordinate and a slow time in the l.h.s. of kinetic equation (6.14) by means of the operator ${\partial}/{\partial t} + {\bf V}^l_{\bf k}{\partial}/{\partial {\bf x}}$.
Using representation (12.7) and formula $$\frac{1}{[( \omega_1 - \omega_{pl} - i \epsilon)^2 -{\bf k}^2_1]^2} =
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf k}_1^2} \,
\frac{1}{2 \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}
\left( \frac{1}{\omega_1 - \omega_{pl} - \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert - i \epsilon} -
\frac{1}{\omega_1 - \omega_{pl} + \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert - i \epsilon} \right),$$ in this case we derive, instead of (12.5) $$\gamma_{\xi}^l (0) =
- \frac{\pi}{3} \xi g^2 N_c \frac{1}{\omega^3_{pl}}
\int\limits_0^\infty
{\bf k}_1^2 {\rm d} \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert \,
W^l_{{\bf k}_1}
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\bf k}_1^2}
\Big[ \frac{1}{\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert}
\int \limits_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \, {\rm d} \omega_1
\frac{{\gamma}^l}{( \omega_1 - \omega_{pl})^2 + ( \gamma^l)^2}$$ $$( \Delta^{-1 \, l}(\omega, 0) - \Delta^{-1 \, l}
(\omega_1, 0) )^2
\{
\delta (\omega_1 - \omega_{pl} - \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert) -
\delta (\omega_1 - \omega_{pl} + \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert) \}.$$ Perform the integration with respect to over ${\rm d} \omega_1$, and differentiation with respect to $\vert {\bf k}_1 \vert^2$, we obtain expression $$\gamma_{\xi}^{l} (0) \simeq - 4^2 \frac{(2 \pi)^2}{3} \xi g^2 N_c T
\bigg ( \frac{\omega - \omega_{pl}}{\omega_{pl}} \bigg )
\int \limits^{\infty}_0 \,
{\bf k}_1^2 {\rm d} \vert {\bf k}_1 \vert
\frac{\gamma^l}{[{\bf k}^2_1 + ( \gamma^l)^2 ]^2}.$$ It follows the result (12.6).\
[**13. CONCLUSION**]{}\
Let us consider in more detail approximations scheme, which we use in this paper. In fact, here two types of the approximations are used. The first of them is connected with the employment of usual approach, developed in Abelian plasma, to QGP, i.e. the standard expansion of the current in powers of the oscillations amplitude and computation of interacting field in the form of a series of a perturbation theory in powers of a free field $A^{(0)}$ (more precisely, in $g A^{(0)}$). However, in contrast to Abelian plasma, in our case even if the first two nonlinear orders of the color current are taken into account, much more terms, defining the nonlinear scattering of waves are derived. Here, we use second approximation, connected with the notions going from the papers devoted to high-temperature QCD or more precisely, the set of rules for power counting these terms, developed by Blaizot and Iancu \[12\]. These rules enable us to singled out the leading terms in the coupling constant. These terms are purely non-Abelian in a full accordance with the conclusions of Ref. \[12\].
However we note that in \[12\] behaviour of a mean field $\langle
A_{\mu}^{a}(X) \rangle$ is investigated, which in our case vanishes. In the covariant derivative ${\cal D}_{\mu}$, containing only the random part of a gauge field in our approach, we suppose that $\partial / \partial X^{\mu}$ and $gA_{\mu}$ are of the different orders. In field strength tensor we distinguish the linear and nonlinear parts. Therefore the aproximatons scheme which have been carried out in this paper suffers from disadvantage of breaking non-Abelian gauge symmetry of a theory at each step of approximate calculation, as it was discussed in Sec. 4.
This is really true if we suppose that the magnitude of a soft random oscillations $\vert A_{\mu}^a(X) \vert$ is of order $T$ or $\vert A_{\mu}^a (k) \vert \sim 1/g (gT)^3$ in the Fourier representation. In this case, by using obtained expressions for terms in the expansion of a colour current (3.2), (5.4), (5.9) and estimations (5.7), (5.12), we have $$j_{\mu}^{T (1)} (k) \sim
j_{\mu}^{T (2)} (k) \sim
j_{\mu}^{T (3)} (k) \sim \; \ldots \; \sim \frac{1}{g^2 T},$$ i.e. all terms in the expansion (2.14) are of the same order in magnitude and the problem of resummation of all the relevant contributions appears. Thus a gauge symmetry is recovered.
In this paper we have restricted ourselves to just a finite number of terms in the expansion (2.14). This impose more rigorous restriction on the magnitude of random oscillations: $\vert A_{\mu}^a (X) \vert \sim gT \; \; ( \vert A_{\mu}^a (k) \vert
\sim 1/(gT)^3)$. In this case we have $$j^{T(1)}_{\mu} (k) \sim \frac{1}{gT} \; , \;
j^{T(2)}_{\mu} (k) \sim \frac{1}{T} \; , \;
j^{T(3)}_{\mu} (k) \sim \frac{g}{T} \; , \ldots,$$ each following term in the random current expansion is suppressed by more powers of $g$ and use of the perturbation theory is justified. A gauge symmetry is restored when we take into account consistently all contributions at the leading order in $g$ (Sec. 6) to the probability of the soft excitations scattering by the hard thermal particles. In this case we derive the expression for the nonlinear Landau damping rate (7.1), (7.2) which is closely allied in the form to corresponding gluon damping rate in HTL-approximation \[4\].
In Sec. 10 it was shown that the nonlinear interaction of longitudinal eigenwaves leads to effective pumping of energy across the spectrum sideways of small wave numbers. Consequence of this fact is the inequality $\gamma^l(0) < 0$, i.e. ${\bf k}=0$ - mode is increased. The dissipation of the energy of plasma waves by QGP particles here, is not lead to total relaxation of a plasma excitations. In the scale of a small $\vert {\bf k} \vert$, effects described by nonlinear terms in the expansion of the colour current of higher-order in the field, come into play. Consideration these effects involves suppression of increase of ${\bf k}=0$-mode.
The r.h.s. of obtained kinetic equation (6.16) in the regime $\vert {\bf k} \vert \ll g T$ contains the part of possible processes of a plasmon scattering in QGP only, namely, the processes of a type $$g^{\ast} + g \rightarrow g^{\ast} + g \; ,$$ $$g^{\ast} + q(\bar{q}) \rightarrow g^{\ast} + q (\bar{q}) \; ,$$ where $g^{\ast}$ is plasmon collective excitations and $g, q, \bar{q}$ are excitations with characteristic momenta of order $T$. Diagrammatically this corresponds to graph with four external lines, where one of the incoming (outcoming) lines is a soft and the other is a hard. However it is clear that there are further contributions to the damping rate of a soft gluon, going without exchange of energy between a hard particles and waves. They are associated with the processes of nonlinear plasmon scattering by a soft excitations of QGP, i.e. with the processes of a type $$g^{\ast} + g^{\ast} \rightarrow g^{\ast} + g^{\ast} \; ,
\eqno{(13.1)}$$ $$g^{\ast} + q^{\ast} ( \bar{q}^{\ast} ) \rightarrow
g^{\ast} + q^{\ast} ( \bar{q}^{\ast} ) \; ,
\eqno{(13.2)}$$ where $q^{\ast}, \bar{q}^{\ast}$ are plasmino collective excitations. The kinetic equation describing the process (13.1) and (13.2) is the equation of a purely Boltzmann type, i.e. collision term in the r.h.s. of this equation has standard Boltzmann structure, with on gain term and a loss term. The probability of these processes is defined by preceding methods from nonlinear current of a fourth order $j_{\mu}^{T (4)}$, if the process of interaction iteration of higher-order in the field is taken into account.
As it was mentioned in Introduction, the Boltzmann equation was already used for definition of damping rate of the fast particles. In paper \[11\] (see also \[14\]) on the basis of Boltzmann equation, the damping rate for hard gluons in the leading logarithmic order has been computed. The value of obtained the damping rate is fully coincident with corresponding damping rate derived in quantum theory \[6, 7\]. The scattering matrix element appearing in collision term corresponds to elastic scattering of hard gluons in the resummed Born approximation. By Heiselberg and Pethick \[11\] was noted that the particle damping rate is considerably more difficult to calculate for small particle momenta, $\vert {\bf k} \vert \leq g T$. Particles momentum becomes of the same order with momentum transfers. As in the case of scatterng of plasmons by hard particles discussed above, vertex corrections should be taken into account also. It leads to more complicated expressions for probabilities of both plasmon-plasmon (13.1) and plasmon-plasmino (13.2) scattering in contrast to (9.14).
A detailed research of the process of (13.1) and its influence to relaxation of soft Bose excitations in QGP will be presented somewhere \[26\]. Here, we note only, that it is the process of higher-order in the field, which probability is defined with the help of three-gluon, four-gluon effective vertecies and effective propagator, as the probability of the process of nonlinear scattering of a plasmon by QGP particles, derived in this paper.\
[**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**]{}\
This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Project No.97-02-16065).\
[**APPENDIX A**]{}\
We rewrite the system of equations (9.6), (9.7) in the coordinate represetation. In the temporal gauge we have $$\frac{{\rm d}^2 {\bf x}}{{\rm d}t^2} =
\frac{g}{{\rm m}} \sqrt{1 - {\bf v}^2} \, {\rm Q}^a
({\bf E}^a - {\bf v}({\bf v}{\bf E}^a)),$$ $$\frac{{\rm d}{\rm Q}^a}{{\rm d}t} =
gf^{abc}({\bf v}{\bf A}^b) \, {\rm Q}^c,
\eqno{(A1)}$$ where $t$ is a coordinate time; ${\bf v}={\rm d}{\bf x}/{\rm d}t, \,
{\bf E}^a = - \partial {\bf A}^a/ \partial t$, and $${\bf A}^a({\bf x},t) =
\int {\bf A}^a_{\bf k} \, {\rm e}^{i{\bf k}{\bf x}
- i \omega^l_{\bf k}t} {\rm d}{\bf k} \; ,
\; {\bf A}^a_{\bf k} = \frac{{\bf k}}{\vert {\bf k} \vert} A^a_{\bf k}.
\eqno{(A2)}$$ The Eq. (9.6) corresponding to the component $\mu = 0$, becomes identity.
If we neglect by the wave action on typical particle, then the colour charge motion will be constant and its colored vector will be fixed with initial condition: ${\bf x}_0 (t) = {\bf v}_0t, \, {\rm Q}^a = {\rm Q}^a_0.$ To derive the oscillations of a color particle, excited by fields and being linear order in amplitude of field, it is necessary to neglect by variations of ${\bf v}$, ${\rm Q}^a$ in the r.h.s. of $(A1)$ and set $${\bf A}^a ({\bf x}, t) \simeq {\bf A}^a ({\bf v}_0 t, t) =
\int {\bf A}^a_{\bf k} \, {\rm e}^{- i(\omega^l_{\bf k} - {\bf v}_0 {\bf k})t}
\, {\rm d} {\bf k} ,$$ instead of $(A2)$.
In this approximation the solution of system $(A1)$ has the form $${\bf x} (t) = {\bf v}_0 t + \left( - \frac{g}{{\rm m}} \right) {\rm Q}_0^a
\sqrt{1 - {\bf v}_0^2} \int \,
\frac{{\bf E}_{\bf k}^a - {\bf v}_0 ({\bf v}_0 {\bf E}_{\bf k}^a)}
{(\omega_{\bf k}^l - {\bf v}_0 {\bf k})^2}
\, {\rm e}^{-i (\omega_{\bf k}^l - {\bf v}_0 {\bf k}) t} \, {\rm d} {\bf k}
\equiv {\bf x}_0 (t) + \Delta {\bf x} (t) ,$$ $${\rm Q}^a(t) = {\rm Q}_0^a + i g f^{abc} {\rm Q}_0^c
\int \,
\frac{({\bf v}_0 {\bf A}_{\bf k}^b)}
{\omega_{\bf k}^l - {\bf v}_0 {\bf k}}
\, {\rm e}^{-i (\omega_{\bf k}^l - {\bf v}_0 {\bf k}) t} \, {\rm d} {\bf k}
\equiv {\rm Q}_0^a + \Delta {\rm Q}^a (t).
\eqno{(A3)}$$ Using these expressions we derive the radiation intensity of oscillating colour charge.
It is equal to work of radiation field with charge in unit time $${\cal W}^l = \int \, ({\bf E}_{{\bf Q}}^a \,
{\bf j}_{{\bf Q}}^a) \, {\rm d} {\bf x} ,
\eqno{(A.4)}$$ where ${\bf E}_{{\bf Q}}^a$ is a field induced by a colour current ${\bf j}_{{\bf Q}}^a$ of a charge ${\rm Q}^a$. The sign in the r.h.s. of $(A4)$ corresponds to choose of a sign in front of current in the Yang-Mills equation (2.2).
We introduce ${\bf E}_{{\rm Q}}^a$ and ${\bf j}_{{\rm Q}}^a$ in the following form $${\bf E}_{{\rm Q}}^a ({\bf x}, t) =
\int \, {\bf E}_{{\bf k}, \omega}^a {\rm e}^{i {\bf k} {\bf x} - i \omega t}
\, {\rm d} {\bf k} {\rm d} \omega , \;
{\bf j}_{{\rm Q}}^a ({\bf x}, t) =
\int \, {\bf j}_{{\bf k}, \omega}^a {\rm e}^{i {\bf k} {\bf x} - i \omega t}
\, {\rm d} {\bf k} {\rm d} \omega .
\eqno{(A5)}$$ The Fourier-component of a field ${\bf E}_{{\bf k}, \omega}^a =
{\bf k} E_{{\bf k}, \omega}^a/ \vert {\bf k} \vert$ is associated with ${\bf j}_{{\bf k}, \omega}^a$ by Yang- Mills equation $$E_{{\bf k}, \omega}^a = \frac{i}
{\omega \varepsilon^l ( \omega, {\bf k} )}
\; \frac{({\bf k} \cdot {\bf j}_{{\bf k}, \omega}^a)}
{\vert {\bf k} \vert} .
\eqno{(A6)}$$ Substituting $(A5)$ and $(A6)$ into $(A4)$ and taking into account reality of ${\cal W}^l$, we obtain $${\cal W}^l = \frac{(2 \pi)^3}{2} \int \, i
\left( \frac{1}{\omega^{\prime} \varepsilon^l (\omega^{\prime}, {\bf k})}
- \frac{1}{\omega \varepsilon^{\ast l} (\omega, {\bf k})} \right)
\, \frac{k^i k^j}{{\bf k}^2}
\langle j_{{\bf k}, \omega}^{\ast a i} \,
j_{{\bf k}, \omega^{\prime}}^{a j} \rangle
{\rm e}^{- i (\omega^{\prime} - \omega) t} {\rm d} \omega
{\rm d} \omega^{\prime} {\rm d}
{\bf k} .
\eqno{(A7)}$$ Here, by random character of a current phase, we replace the product $j_{{\bf k}, \omega}^{\ast a i} \,
j_{{\bf k}, \omega^{\prime}}^{a j}$ by its averaged value.
The colour current formed by the constrained motion charge $(A3)$ is presented as $${\bf j}_{\rm Q}^a({\bf x},t) = g {\bf v} (t) {\rm Q}^a (t) \,
\delta ({\bf x} - {\bf x} (t))
= g {\bf v} (t) {\rm Q}^a (t)
\int \, {\rm e}^{i {\bf k} ( {\bf x} - {\bf x} (t))}
\frac{{\rm d} {\bf k}}{(2 \pi)^3} = \int \, {\bf j}_{{\bf k}}^a (t) \,
{\rm e}^{i {\bf k} {\bf x}} {\rm d} {\bf k} ,$$ where we have in the linear approximation $${\bf j}_{\rm k}^a(t) \equiv \frac{g}{(2 \pi)^3} {\bf v} (t) {\rm Q}^a (t)
\, {\rm e}^{- i {\bf k} {\bf x} (t)} \simeq
\eqno{(A8)}$$ $$\simeq \frac{g}{(2 \pi)^3} {\bf v}_0 {\rm Q}_0^a
\, {\rm e}^{- i {\bf k} {\bf v}_0 t} +
\frac{g}{(2 \pi)^3} \{ {\rm Q}_0^a [ \Delta {\bf v} (t) - i {\bf v}_0
( {\bf k} \cdot \Delta {\bf x} (t) ) ] +
{\bf v}_0 \Delta {\rm Q}^a (t) \} {\rm e}^{- i{\bf k} {\bf v}_0 t} ,$$ and $\Delta {\bf x} (t), \Delta {\bf v} (t), \Delta {\rm Q}^a$ are defined by $(A3)$.
The first term in the r.h.s. of $(A8)$ is connected with linear Landau damping which is absent in QGP. Because of this fact this term is omitted. The term in braces, proportional to ${\rm Q}_0^a$ yields the Abelian contribution to radiation and is connected with usual spatial oscillation of a colour particle. The term with $\Delta {\rm Q}^a$ gives the non-Abelian part of radiation and is induced by precession of a colour vector of a particle in the field of incident wave. As it is easily to see the interference of these two contribution vanishes. Further we shall restrict our consideration to the second part of radiation which induced by non-Abelian part of a colour current $$( {\bf j}_{{\bf k}, \omega}^a)_{non-Abelian} =
\int \, ({\bf j}_{\bf k}^a (t))_{non-Abelian} \,
{\rm e}^{i \omega t} \frac{d t}{2 \pi} =$$ $$= \frac{i g^2}{(2 \pi)^3} f^{abc} {\rm Q}_0^c \int \,
\frac{{\bf v}_0 ({\bf v}_0 {\bf A}_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}^b)}
{\omega_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}^l - {\bf v}_0 {\bf k}^{\prime}}
\, \delta ( \omega - \omega_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}^l + {\bf v}_0 ({\bf k}^{\prime} -
{\bf k})) \, {\rm d} {\bf k}^{\prime} .$$ Substituting the last expression into $(A7)$, taking into account $$\langle A_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}^{\ast b} A_{{\bf k}^{\prime \prime}}^d \rangle =
I_{{\bf k}^{\prime}}^l \delta ( {\bf k}^{\prime} - {\bf k}^{\prime \prime})
\delta^{b d}$$ and integrating over ${\rm d} \omega ,
{\rm d} \omega^{\prime}$ and ${\rm d} {\bf k}^{\prime \prime}$, we obtain with replacement of argument ${\bf k}^{\prime} \rightarrow {\bf k}_1$ $$( {\cal W}^l)_{non-Abelian} =
- \frac{g^4N_c \, q^2}{(2 \pi)^3}
\int \frac{{\rm d}{\bf k}{\rm d}{{\bf k}_1}}
{{\bf k}^2 {\bf k}^2_1} \,
{\rm Im} \Big( \frac{1}{\tilde{\omega}^l_{{\bf k}_1}
\varepsilon^l( \tilde{\omega}^l_{{\bf k}_1},{\bf k})} \Big)
\frac{({\bf k}{\bf v})^2 ({{\bf k}_1}{\bf v})^2}
{( \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1} - {\bf v}{{\bf k}_1})^2} \,
I^l_{{\bf k}_1} .
\eqno{(A9)}$$ Here, $q^2 \equiv {\rm Q}^a_0 {\rm Q}^a_0, \,
\tilde{\omega}^l_{{\bf k}_1} \equiv \omega^l_{{\bf k}_1}
- ({\bf k}_1 - {\bf k}){\bf v}$ and the suffix “0” of velocity is omitted.
For imaginary part of longitudinal permittivity we use approximation similar to \[21\] $${\rm Im} \frac{1}{\varepsilon^l(\tilde{\omega}^l_{{\bf k}_1}, {\bf k})}
\simeq - \pi \Big(
\frac{\partial {\rm Re} \, \varepsilon^l(k)}
{\partial \omega} \Big)^{-1}_{\omega = \omega^l_{\bf k}}
\delta( \omega^l_{\bf k} - \tilde{\omega}^l_{{\bf k}_1}).$$ Going from the spectral density $I^l_{{\bf k}_1}$ to density of longitudinal oscillations number $N^l_{{\bf k}_1}$ and setting the constant $q^2$ equal to $2/(2 \pi)^3$, we can cast radiaton intensity expression (A9) into the final form $$( {\cal W}^l)_{non-Abelian} =
\int \, {\it w}^c_{\bf v}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)
N^l_{{\bf k}_1} \omega^l_{\bf k}
\frac{{\rm d}{\bf k}{\rm d}{{\bf k}_1}}
{(2 \pi)^6},
\eqno{(A10)}$$ where ${\it w}^c_{\bf v}({\bf k},{\bf k}_1)$ is defined by (9.3). Expression $(A10)$ represents radiation intensity of isolated colour charge moving in a quark-gluon plasma in the direction to ${\bf v}$ of a field of a longitudinal wave with frequency $\omega^l_{\bf k}$ and wave vector ${\bf k}$.
E. Braaten and R.D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. [**B337**]{}, 569 (1990); [*ibid.*]{} [**B339**]{}, 310 (1990); J. Frenkel and J.C. Taylor, [*ibid.*]{} [**B334**]{}, 199 (1990) R. Kobes, G. Kunstatter, and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2992 (1990); Nucl. Phys. [**B355**]{}, 1 (1991). R.D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 1129 (1989) E. Braaten and R.D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. [**D42**]{}, 2156 (1990) R. Kobes, G. Kunstatter, and K. Mak, Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}, 4632 (1992); E. Braaten and R.D. Pisarski, [*ibid.*]{} [**D46**]{}, 1829 (1992) V.V. Lebedev and A.V. Smilga, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**202**]{}, 229 (1990); V.V. Lebedev and A.V. Smilga, Physica [**A181**]{}, 187 (1992) C.P. Burgess and A.L. Marini, Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}, R17 (1992); A. Rebhan, [*ibid.*]{} [**D46**]{}, 482 (1992) U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{}, 351 (1983); Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**161**]{}, 48 (1985); [**168**]{}, 148 (1986); J. Winter, J. Physique [**45**]{}, C6-53 (1984); H.-Th. Elze, M. Gyulassy, and D. Vasak, Phys. Lett. [**B177**]{}, 402 (1986); Nucl. Phys. [**B276**]{}, 706 (1986); H.-Th. Elze and U. Heinz, Phys. Rep. [**183**]{}, 81 (1989); St. Mrówczyński, Phys. Rev. [**D39**]{}, 1940 (1989); Yu.A. Markov and M.A. Markova, Teor. Math. Fiz. [**111**]{}, 263 (1997) (Theor. Math. Phys. [**111**]{}, 601 (1997)) V.P. Silin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**38**]{}, 1577 (1960) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**11**]{}, 1136 (1960)\] P.F. Kelly, Q. Liu, C. Lucchesi, and C. Manuel, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{}, 4209 (1994) H. Heiselberg and C.J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, R769 (1993) J.P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Nucl. Phys. [**B417**]{}, 608 (1994); [*ibid.*]{} [**B421**]{}, 565 (1994); [*ibid.*]{} [**B434**]{}, 662 (1995) D. Bödeker, Phys. Lett. [**B426**]{}, 351 (1998); preprint NBI-HE-99-04, hep-ph/9903478; preprint NBI-HE-99-13, hep-ph/9905239 J.P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, preprint Saclay-T99/026, CERN-TH/99-71, hep-ph/9903389; preprint Saclay-T99/059, CERN-TH/99-172, hep-ph/9906485 P. Huet and D.T. Son, Phys. Lett. [**B393**]{}, 94 (1997); P. Arnold, D.T. Son, and L.G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 105020 (1999); [*ibid.*]{} [**D60**]{}, 025007 (1999) D.F. Litim and C. Manuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4991 (1999); preprint ECM-UB-PF-99-12, CERN-TH-99-151, hep-ph/9906210; M.A. Valle Basagoiti, preprint U. Pais Vasco EHU-FT/9905, hep-ph/9903462 Z. Xiaofei and L. Jiarong, Phys. Rev. [**C52**]{}, 964 (1995) U. Heinz and P.J. Siemens, Phys. Lett. [**B158**]{}, 11 (1985) A.G. Sitenko, [*Fluctuations and Non-linear Wave Interactions in Plasma*]{} (Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1977) \[English transl. publ. by Pergamon, Oxford, 1990\] Yu.A. Markov and M.A. Markova, preprint ISDCT-99-2, hep-ph/9902397, to be published by Trasp. Theory Stat. Phys. B.B. Kadomtsev, [*Plasma Turbulence*]{} (Academic Press, New York, 1965); V.V. Pustovalov and V.P. Silin, Proc. P.H. Lebedev Inst. [**61**]{}, 42 (1972); V.N. Tsytovich, [*Non-linear Effects in Plasma*]{} (Nauka, Moscow, 1967) \[English transl. publ. by Plenum, Oxford, 1970\]; V.N. Tsytovich, [*Theory of Turbulent Plasma*]{} (Nauka, Moscow, 1971) \[English transl. publ. by Plenum, Oxford, 1977\]; V.N. Tsytovich, Phys. Rep. [**178**]{}, 261 (1989) H.-Th. Elze, Z. Phys. [**C38**]{}, 211 (1988) O.K. Kalashnikov and V.V. Klimov, Yad. Fiz. [**31**]{}, 1357 (1980) \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**31**]{}, 699 (1980)\]; V.V. Klimov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**82**]{}, 336 (1982) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**55**]{}, 199 (1982)\] H.A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. [**D26**]{}, 1394 (1982) K. Kajantie and J. Kapusta, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**160**]{}, 477 (1985); U. Heinz, K. Kajantie, and T. Toimela, [*ibid.*]{} [**176**]{}, 218 (1987) Yu.A. Markov and M.A. Markova, in preparation R. Baier, G. Kunstatter, and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. [**B388**]{}, 287 (1992) R. Baier, G. Kunstatter, and D. Schiff, Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}, R4381 (1992); A. Rebhan, [*ibid.*]{} [**D46**]{}, 4779 (1992); H. Nakkagawa, A. Niégawa, and B. Pire, Phys. Lett. [**B294**]{}, 396 (1992); T. Altherr, E. Petitgirard, and T. del Río Gaztelurrutia, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 703 (1993) A.V. Smilga, Phys. At. Nuclei [**57**]{}, 519 (1994) S.K. Wong, Nuovo Cim. [**A65**]{}, 689 (1970) G. Baym, H. Monien, C.J. Pethick, and D.G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1867 (1990); J.P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Phys. Rev. [**D55**]{}, 973 (1997) R.D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 5589 (1993)
[^1]: e-mail:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The ability to predict city-wide parking availability is crucial for the successful development of Parking Guidance and Information (PGI) systems. Indeed, the effective prediction of city-wide parking availability can improve parking efficiency, help urban planning, and ultimately alleviate city congestion. However, it is a non-trivial task for predicting city-wide parking availability because of three major challenges: 1) the non-Euclidean spatial autocorrelation among parking lots, 2) the dynamic temporal autocorrelation inside of and between parking lots, and 3) the scarcity of information about real-time parking availability obtained from real-time sensors ([*e.g.*,]{}camera, ultrasonic sensor, and GPS). To this end, we propose *emi-supervised ierrchical current Graph Neural Network* ([[SHARE]{}]{}) for predicting city-wide parking availability. Specifically, we first propose a hierarchical graph convolution structure to model non-Euclidean spatial autocorrelation among parking lots. Along this line, a contextual graph convolution block and a soft clustering graph convolution block are respectively proposed to capture local and global spatial dependencies between parking lots. Additionally, we adopt a recurrent neural network to incorporate dynamic temporal dependencies of parking lots. Moreover, we propose a parking availability approximation module to estimate missing real-time parking availabilities from both spatial and temporal domain. Finally, experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate the prediction performance of [[SHARE]{}]{}outperforms seven state-of-the-art baselines.'
author:
- |
Weijia Zhang^1^[^1], Hao Liu^2^[^2], Yanchi Liu^3^, Jingbo Zhou^2^, Hui Xiong^2^\
^1^University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China, ^2^Business Intelligence Lab, Baidu Research,\
National Engineering Laboratory of Deep Learning Technology and Application, Beijing, China, ^3^Rutgers University, USA\
[email protected], {liuhao30, zhoujingbo}@baidu.com, [email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- '6479-aaai.bib'
title: |
Semi-Supervised Hierarchical Recurrent Graph Neural Network\
for City-Wide Parking Availability Prediction
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In recent years, we have witnessed significant development of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) [@zhang2011data]. Parking guidance and information (PGI) systems, especially parking availability prediction, is an indispensable component of ITS. According to a survey by the International Parking Institute (IPI), over $30\%$ cars on the road are searching for parking, and these cruising cars contribute up to $40\%$ traffic jams in urban areas [@shoup2006cruising]. Thus, city-wide parking availability prediction is of great importance to help drivers efficiently find parking, help governments for urban planning, and alleviate the city’s traffic congestion.
Due to its importance, city-wide parking availability prediction has attracted much attention from both academia and industry. On one hand, Google Maps predicts parking difficulty on a city-wide scale based on users’ survey and trajectory data [@arora2019hard], and Baidu Maps estimates real-time city-wide parking availability based on environmental contextual features ([*e.g.*,]{}Point of Interest (POI), map queries, [*etc.*]{}) [@rong2018parking]. The above mentions make city-wide parking availability prediction based on biased and indirect input signals ([*e.g.*,]{}user’s feedback are noisy and lagged), which may induce inaccurate prediction results. On the other hand, in recent years, we have witnessed real-time sensor devices such as camera, ultrasonic sensor, and GPS become ubiquitous, which can significantly improve the prediction accuracy of parking availability [@mathur2010parknet; @fusek2013adaboost; @zhou2015smiler]. However, for economic and privacy concerns, it is difficult to be scaled up to cover all parking lots of a city.
In this paper, we propose to *simultaneously* predict the availability of each parking lot of a city, based on both environmental contextual data ([*e.g.*,]{}POI distribution, population) and partially observed real-time parking availability data. By integrating both datasets, we can make a better parking availability prediction at a city-scale. However, it is a non-trivial task faced with the following three major challenges. (1) *Spatial autocorrelation*. The availability of a parking lot is not only effected by the occupancy of nearby parking lots but may also synchronize with distant parking lots [@Wang2017kdd; @liu2017point]. The first challenge is how to model the irregular and non-Euclidean autocorrelation between parking lots. (2) *Temporal autocorrelation*. Future availability of a parking lot is correlated with its availability of previous time periods [@rajabioun2015street]. Besides, the spatial autocorrelation between parking lots may also vary over time [@liang2018geoman; @yao2019revisiting]. How to model dynamic temporal autocorrelation of each parking lot is another challenge. (3) *Parking availability scarcity*. Only a small portion of parking lots are equipped with real-time sensors. According to one of the largest map service application, there are over $70,000$ parking lots in Beijing, however, only $6.12\%$ of them have real-time parking availability data. The third challenge is how to utilize the scarce and incomplete real-time parking availability information.
To tackle above challenges, in this paper, we present *emi-supervised ierrchical current Graph Neural Network* ([[SHARE]{}]{}) for city-wide parking availability prediction. Our major contributions are summarized as follows:
- We propose a semi-supervised spatio-temporal learning framework to incorporate both environmental contextual factors and sparse real-time parking availability data for city-wide parking availability prediction.
- We propose a hierarchical graph convolution module to capture non-Euclidean spatial correlations among parking lots. It consists of a contextual graph convolution block and a soft clustering graph convolution block for local and global spatial dependencies modeling, respectively.
- We propose a parking availability approximation module to estimate missing real-time parking availabilities of parking lots without sensor monitoring. Specifically, we introduce a propagating convolution block and reuse the temporal module to approximate missing parking availabilities from both spatial and temporal domain, then fuse them through an entropy-based mechanism.
- We evaluate [[SHARE]{}]{}on two real-world datasets collected from [[Beijing]{}]{}and [[Shenzhen]{}]{}, two metropolises in China. The results demonstrate our model achieves the best prediction performance against seven baselines.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminary}
=============
Consider a set of parking lots $P=P_l \cup P_u = \{p_1, p_2, \dots, p_N\}$, where $N$ is the total number of parking lots, $P_l$ and $P_u$ denote a set of parking lots with and without real-time sensors ([*e.g.*,]{}camera, ultrasonic sensor, GPS, [*etc.*]{}), respectively. Let $\mathbf{X}^t =\{\mathbf{x}^t_1, \mathbf{x}^t_2, \dots, \mathbf{x}^t_N\} \in \mathcal{R}^{N \times M}$ denote observed $M$ dimensional contextual feature vectors ([*e.g.*,]{}POI distribution, population, [*etc.*]{}) for all parking lots in $P$ at time $t$. We begin the formal definition of parking availability prediction with the definition of parking availability.
**Parking availability (PA)**. Given a parking lot $p_i\in P$, at time step $t$, the parking availability of $p_i$, denoted $y^t_i$ is defined as the number of vacant parking spot in $p_i$.
Specifically, we use $\mathbf{y}^t_{P_l}=\{y^t_1, y^t_2,\dots, y^t_{|P_l|}\}$ to denote observed PAs of parking lots in $P_l$ at time step $t$. In this paper, we are interested in predicting PAs for all parking lots $p_i\in P$ by leveraging the contextual data of $P$ and partially observed real-time parking availability data of $P_l$.
**Parking availability prediction problem**. Given historical time window $T$, contextual features for all parking lots $\mathbfcal{X}=(\mathbf{X}^{t-T+1}, \mathbf{X}^{t-T+2}, \dots, \mathbf{X}^{t})$, and partially observed real-time PAs $\mathbfcal{Y}_{P_l}=(\mathbf{y}^{t-T+1}_{P_l}, \mathbf{y}^{t-T+2}_{P_l}, \dots, \mathbf{y}^{t}_{P_l})$, our problem is to predict PAs for all $p_i \in P$ over the next $\tau$ time steps, $$f(\mathbfcal{X}; \mathbfcal{Y}_{P_l}) \\
\rightarrow (\mathbf{\hat{y}}^{t+1}, \mathbf{\hat{y}}^{t+2}, \dots, \mathbf{\hat{y}}^{t+\tau}),$$ where $\mathbf{\hat{y}}^{t+1}=\mathbf{\hat{y}}^{t+1}_{P_l} \cup \mathbf{\hat{y}}^{t+1}_{P_u}$, $f(\cdot)$ is the mapping function we aim to learn.
Framework overview {#sec:framework}
==================
![The framework overview of [[SHARE]{}]{}.[]{data-label="fig:hmgnn"}](6479-fig1){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The architecture of [[SHARE]{}]{}is shown in [Figure \[fig:hmgnn\]]{}, where the inputs are contextual features as well as partially observed real-time PAs, and the output are the predicted PAs of all parking lots in next $\tau$ time steps. There are three major components in [[SHARE]{}]{}. First, the *Hierarchical graph convolution* module models spatial autocorrelations among parking lots, where the *Contextual Graph Convolution* (CxtConv) block captures local spatial dependencies between parking lots through rich contextual features ([*e.g.*,]{}POI distribution, regional population, [*etc.*]{}), while the *Soft Clustering Graph Convolution* (SCConv) block captures global correlations among distant parking lots by softly assigning each parking lot to a set of latent cluster nodes. Second, the temporal autocorrelation modeling module employs the *Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU)* to model dynamic temporal dependencies of each parking lot. Third, the *PA approximation* module estimates distributions of missing PAs for parking lots in $P_u$, from both spatial and temporal domain. In the spatial domain, the *Propagating Graph Convolution* (PropConv) block propagates observed real-time PAs to approxinate missing PAs based on the contextual similarity of each parking lot. In the temporal domain, we reuse the GRU module to approximate current PA distributions based on its output in previous time period. Two estimated PA distributions are then fused through an entropy-based mechanism and feed to SCConv block and GRU module for final prediction.
Hierarchical spatial dependency modeling {#sec:spatial}
========================================
We first introduce the hierarchical graph convolution module, including the contextual graph convolution block and the soft clustering graph convolution block.
Contextual graph convolution
----------------------------
In the spatial domain, the PA of nearby parking lots are usually correlated and mutually influenced by each other. For example, when there is a big concert, the PAs of parking lots near the concert hall are usually low, and the parking demand usually gradually diffuses from nearby to distant. Inspired by the recent success of graph convolution network [@kipf2017semi; @velivckovic2017graph] on processing non-Euclidean graph structures, we first introduce the CxtConv block to capture local spatial dependencies solely based on contextual features.
We model the local correlations among parking lots as a graph $G=(V, E, A)$, where $V=P$ is the set of parking lots, $E$ is a set of edges indicating connectivity among parking lots, and $A$ denotes the proximity matrix of $G$ [@ma2019efficient]. Specifically, we define the connectivity constraint $e_{ij}\in E$ as $$\label{equ:cxtedge}
e_{ij}=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&1,\quad dist(v_{i},v_{j}) \leq \epsilon\\
&0,\quad otherwise
\end{aligned},
\right.$$ where $dist(\cdot)$ is the road network distance between parking lots $p_i$ and $p_j$, $\epsilon$ is a distance threshold.
Since the influence of different nearby parking lots may vary non-linearly, we employ an attention mechanism to compute the coefficient between parking lots, defined as $$c_{ij} = Attn(\mathbf{W}_{a}\mathbf{x}^{c}_i, \mathbf{W}_{a}\mathbf{x}^{c}_j),$$ where $\mathbf{x}^{c}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}^{c}_j$ are current contextual representations of parking lot $p_i$ and $p_j$, $\mathbf{W}_{a}$ is a learnable weighted matrix shared over all edges, and $Attn(\cdot)$ is a shared attention mechanism ([*e.g.*,]{}dot-product, concatenation, [*etc.*]{}) [@Vaswani:2017:AYN:3295222.3295349]. The proximity score between $p_i$ and $p_j$ is further defined as $$\label{equ:attention}
\alpha_{ij} = \frac{exp(c_{ij})}{\sum_{k\in \mathcal{N}_i}exp(c_{ik})}.$$
In general, the above attention mechanism is capable of computing pair-wise proximity score for all $p_i\in P$. However, this formulation will lead to quadratic complexity. To weigh more attention on neighboring parking lots and help faster convergence, we inject the adjacency constraint where the attention operation only operate on adjacent nodes $j\in \mathcal{N}_i$, where $\mathcal{N}_i$ is a set of neighboring parking lots of $p_i$ in $G$. Note that the influence of nearby parking lot at different time step may also vary, we learn a different proximity score for each different time steps.
Once $\alpha_{ij}$ is obtained, the contextual graph convolution operation updates representation of current parking lot by aggregating and transforming its neighbors, defined as $$\label{equ:cxtconv}
\mathbf{x}_i^{c'} = \sigma (\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} \alpha_{ij} \mathbf{W}_{c} \mathbf{x}^{c}_{j}),$$ where $\sigma$ is a non-linear activation function, and $\mathbf{W}_{c}\in \mathcal{R}^{d \times d}$ is a learnable weighted matrix shared over all parking lots. Note that we can stack $l$ identical contextual graph convolution layers to capture $l$-hop local dependencies, and $\mathbf{x}^{c}_{j}$ is the raw contextual feature in the first CxtConv layer.
Soft clustering graph convolution {#sec:scconv}
---------------------------------
Besides local correlation, distant parking lots may also be correlated. For example, distant parking lots in similar functional areas may show similar PA, [*e.g.*,]{}business areas may have lower PA at office hour, and residential areas may have higher PA at the same time. However, CxtConv only captures local spatial correlation. [@li2018deeper] shows when $l$ goes large, the representation of all parking lots tends to be similar, therefore losses discriminative power. To this end, we propose the SCConv block to capture global correlations between parking lots. Specifically, SCConv defines a set of latent nodes and learns the representation of each latent node based on learned representations of each parking lot. Rather than cluster each parking lot into a specific cluster, we learn a soft assignment matrix so that each parking lot have a chance to belong to multiple clusters with different probabilities (but with total probability equal to one), as shown in [Figure \[fig:hierarchical\]]{}.
![Hierarchical soft clustering.[]{data-label="fig:hierarchical"}](6479-fig2){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The intuition behind SCConv is two-fold. First, distant parking lots may have similar contextual features and PAs, therefore should have similar representations. The shared latent node representation can be viewed as a regularization for the prediction task. Second, one parking lot may be mapped to multiple latent nodes. If we view each latent node as a different functionality class, a parking lot may serve for several functionalities. For example, a parking lot in a recreational center may be occupied by external visitors from a nearby office building.
The key component in SCConv is the soft assignment matrix. Given that there are $K$ latent nodes, let $\mathbf{S} \in \mathcal{R}^{N \times K}$ denotes the soft assignment matrix, where $\mathbf{S}_{i,j} \in \mathbf{S}$ denotes the probability of $i$-th parking lot $p_i$ maps to $j$-th latent node. Specifically, we use $\mathbf{S}_{i,\cdot}$ denote the $i$-th row and $\mathbf{S}_{\cdot,j}$ denote the $j$-th column of $\mathbf{S}$. Given the learned representation of each parking lot $\mathbf{x}_i$, each row of $\mathbf{S}$ is computed as $$\mathbf{S}_{i,\cdot}=Softmax(\mathbf{W}_s\mathbf{x}_i),$$ which guarantees that the probabilities that a given parking lot belongs to each latent node sum equals one.
Once $\mathbf{S}$ is obtained, the representation of each latent node $\mathbf{x}^s_i \in \mathbf{X}^s$ can be derived by $$\mathbf{x}^s_i= \sum_{j=1}^N \mathbf{S}_{i,j}^{\top} \mathbf{x}_j.$$
Given the representation of each latent node, similar to CxtConv, we apply soft clustering convolution operation to capture the dependency between each latent node, $$\label{equ:scconv}
\mathbf{x}_i^{s'} = \sigma(\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i}\alpha^s_{ij}\mathbf{W}_l\mathbf{x}^{s}_j),$$ where $\sigma$ is non-linear activation function, and $\alpha^s_{ij}$ is the proximity score between two latent nodes. Rather than introduce extra attention parameter as in CxtConv, we derive proximity score between latent nodes based on adjacency constraint between parking lots, $$\alpha^s_{ij}=\sum_{m=1}^N \sum_{n=1}^N \mathbf{S}_{i,m}^{\top} a_{mn} \mathbf{S}_{n,j}.$$ where $a_{mn}$ equals one if parking lots $p_m$ and $p_n$ are connected. With learned latent node representation, we generate the soft clustering representation for each parking lot as a reverse process of latent node representation generation, $$\mathbf{x}^{sc}_i = \sum_{j=1}^K \mathbf{S}_{i,j} \mathbf{x}^{s'}_j.$$
Temporal dependency modeling {#sec:temporal}
============================
We leverage the Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) [@chung2014empirical], a simple yet effective variant of recurrent neural network (RNN), to model the temporal dependency. Consider previous $T$ step inputs of parking lot $p_i$, $(\mathbf{x}^{t-T+1}_i, \mathbf{x}^{t-T+2}_i, \cdots, \mathbf{x}^{t}_i)$, we denote the status of $p_i$ at time step $t-1$ and $t$ as $\mathbf{h}^{t-1}_i$ and $\mathbf{h}^{t}_i$, respectively. The temporal dependency between $\mathbf{h}^{t-1}_i$ and $\mathbf{h}^{t}_i$ can be modeled by $$\mathbf{h}^{t}_i = (1-\mathbf{z}^{t}_i)\circ\mathbf{h}^{t-1}_i+\mathbf{z}^{t}_i\circ\widetilde{\mathbf{h}}^{t}_i,$$ where $\mathbf{z}^t_i$, $\widetilde{\mathbf{h}}^{t}_i$ are defined as $$\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\mathbf{r}^{t}_i = \sigma{(\mathbf{W}_r[\mathbf{h}^{t-1}_i\oplus\mathbf{x}^{t}_i]+\mathbf{b}_r)}\\
&\mathbf{z}^{t}_i = \sigma(\mathbf{W}_z[\mathbf{h}^{t-1}_i\oplus\mathbf{x}^{t}_i]+\mathbf{b}_z)\\
&\widetilde{\mathbf{h}}^{t}_i = \tanh(\mathbf{W}_{\widetilde{h}}[\mathbf{r}^{t}_i\circ\mathbf{h}^{t-1}_i\oplus\mathbf{x}^t_i]+\mathbf{b}_{\widetilde{h}})
\end{aligned},
\right.
\label{eq:gru}$$ where $\boldsymbol{W}_r$, $\boldsymbol{W}_z$, $\boldsymbol{W}_{\widetilde{h}}$, $\boldsymbol{b}_r$, $\boldsymbol{b}_z$, $\boldsymbol{b}_{\widetilde{h}}$ are learnable parameters, $\oplus$ is the concatenation operation, and $\circ$ denotes Hadamard product. Then the hidden state $\mathbf{h}^t_i$ is directly used to predict PAs of next $\tau$ time steps, $$(\hat{y}_{i}^{t+1}, \hat{y}_{i}^{t+2}, \dots, \hat{y}_{i}^{t+\tau}) = \sigma (\mathbf{W}_o\mathbf{h}^t_i),$$ where $\mathbf{W}_o\in\mathcal{R}^{|\mathbf{h}^t_i| \times \tau}$.
Parking availability approximation {#sec:paapprox}
==================================
The real-time PA is a strong signal for future PA prediction. However, only a small portion ([*e.g.*,]{}$6.12\%$ in Beijing) of real-time PAs can be obtained through real-time sensors, which prevents us directly apply real-time PA as a part of input feature. To leverage the information hidden in partially observed real-time PA, we approximate missing PAs from both spatial and temporal domain. The proposed method consists of three blocks, [*i.e.*,]{}the spatial PropConv block, the temporal GRU block, and the fusion block. Note that rather than approximate a scalar PA $\hat{y}$, we learn the distribution of PA, $\mathbf{x}^p=P(\hat{y})$, for better information preservation. Given a PA $y$, we discretize its distribution to a $p$ dimensional one hot vector $\mathbf{y}\in \mathcal{R}^p$. The objective of the PA approximation is to minimize the difference between $\mathbf{y}$ and $\mathbf{x}^p$.
Spatial based PA approximation
------------------------------
Similar to CxtConv, for each $p_i\in P_u$, the PropConv operation is defined as $$\mathbf{x}^{sp}_i = \sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}_i} \alpha_{ij} \mathbf{y}_{j},$$ where $\mathbf{x}^{sp}_i$ is the obtained PA distribution, $\alpha_{ij}$ is the proximity score between $p_i$ and $p_j$. Different from CxtConv, the estimated PA is only aggregated from nearby parking lots with real-time PA, and we preserve the aggregated vector representation without extra activation function. The proximity score is computed through same attention mechanism in [Equation (\[equ:attention\])]{}, but with a relaxed connectivity constraint $$\label{equ:diffedge}
e_{ij}=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&1,\quad dist(v_{i},v_{j}) \leq max(\epsilon, dist_{knn}(v_i)),i\neq j\\
&0,\quad otherwise
\end{aligned},
\right.$$ where $dist_{knn}(v_i)$ denotes the road network distance between parking lot $p_i$ and its $k$-th nearest parking lot $p_j \in P_l$. The relaxed adjacency constraint improves node connectivity for more sufficient propagation of observed PA, and therefore alleviates the data scarcity problem.
Temporal based PA approximation
-------------------------------
We reuse the output of the GRU block to approximate real-time PA from the temporal domain. The difference between current PA approximation and future PA prediction is here we employ a different $Softmax$ function. Remember that in previous step, we have obtained hidden state $\mathbf{h}^{t-1}_i$ from GRU, we directly approximate distribution of PA at $t$ by $$\mathbf{x}^{tp,t}_i = Softmax(\mathbf{W}_{tp}\mathbf{h}_i^{t-1}).$$ This step doesn’t introduce extra computation for GRU, and the *Softmax* layer normalizes $\mathbf{x}^{tp,t}_i$ sum equals one.
Approximated PA fusion
----------------------
Rather than directly averaging $\mathbf{x}^{sp}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}^{tp}_i$, we propose an entropy-based mechanism to fuse two PA distributions. Specifically, we weigh more on the approximation less uncertainty [@hsieh2015inferring], [*i.e.*,]{}the one with smaller entropy. Given an estimated PA distribution $\mathbf{x}_i$, its entropy is $$H(\mathbf{x}_i) = -\sum_{j=1}^{p} \mathbf{x}_{i}{(j)} \log \mathbf{x}_{i}{(j)},
\label{eq:entropy}$$ where $\mathbf{x}_i{(j)}$ represents the $j$-th dimension of $\mathbf{x}_i$. We fuse two PA distributions $\mathbf{x}^{sp}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}^{tp}_i$ as follow: $$\mathbf{x}^p_{i} = \frac{exp(-H(\mathbf{x}^{sp}_{i}))\mathbf{x}_{i}^{sp} + exp(-H(\mathbf{x}^{tp}_{i}))\mathbf{x}^{tp}_{i}}
{\mathbf{Z}_i},
\label{eq:temp4}$$ where $\mathbf{Z}_i=exp(-H(\mathbf{x}^{sp}_{i}))+exp(-H(\mathbf{x}^{tp}_{i}))$.
The approximated PA distribution $\mathbf{x}^p_i$ is applied for two tasks. First, it is concatenated with the learned representation of the CxtConv and fed to the SCConv block for latent node representation learning. Second, it is combined with the output of the CxtConv and SCConv, $\mathbf{x}^t_i = \mathbf{x}^{c,t}_i \oplus \mathbf{x}^{sc,t}_i \oplus \mathbf{x}^{p,t}_i$. We use $\mathbf{x}^t_i$ as the overall representation for each parking lot $p_i \in P$ at time step $t$, and feed it into the GRU module to generate final PA prediction results.
Model training {#sec:train}
==============
Since only parking lots $P_l$ are with observed labels, following the semi-supervised learning paradigm, [[SHARE]{}]{}aims to minimize the *mean square error* (MSE) between the predicted PA and the observed PA $$O_1 = \frac{1}{{\tau |P_l|}}\sum_{i=1}^{|P_l|}\sum_{j=1}^{\tau}(\hat{y}^{t+j}_{i} - y_{i}^{t+j})^2.
\label{eq:loss1}$$
Additionally, in PA approximation, we introduce extra cross entropy (CE) loss to minimize the error between the observed PA and approximated PA distributions ([*i.e.*,]{}the spatial and temporal based PA distribution approximation $\mathbf{x}^{sp,t}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}^{tp,t}_i$) in current time step $t$, $$O_2 = -\frac{1}{|P_l|} \sum_{i=1}^{|P_l|} \mathbf{y}^{t}_i \log{\mathbf{x}^{sp,t}_i},
\label{eq:loss2}$$
$$O_3 = -\frac{1}{|P_l|} \sum_{i=1}^{|P_l|} \mathbf{y}^{t}_i \log{\mathbf{x}^{tp,t}_i}.
\label{eq:loss3}$$
By considering both MSE loss and CE loss, [[SHARE]{}]{}aims to jointly minimize the following objective $$O = O_1+\beta(O_2 + O_3),
\label{eq:lossall}$$ where $\beta$ is the hyper-parameter controls the importance of two CE losses.
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
Experimental setup
------------------
### Data description.
We use two real-world datasets collected from [[Beijing]{}]{}and [[Shenzhen]{}]{}, two metropolises in China. Both datasets are ranged from April 20, 2019, to May 20, 2019. All PA records are crawled every 15 minutes from a publicly accessible app, in which all parking occupancy information are collected by real-time sensors. We associate POI distribution [@Hydra; @zhu2016days] to each parking lot and aggregate check-in records nearby each parking lot in every $15$ minutes as the population data. POI and check-in data are collected through Baidu Maps Place API and location SDK [@hao2019trans2vec]. We chronologically order the above data, take the first $60\%$ as the training set, the following $20\%$ for validation, and the rest as the test set. In each dataset, $70\%$ parking lots are masked as unlabeled. The spatial distribution of parking lots in [[Beijing]{}]{}are shown in [Figure \[fig:parkinglot\_dist\]]{}. The statistics of the datasets are summarized in [Table \[table:dataset\]]{}.
![Spatial distribution of parking lots in [[Beijing]{}]{}.[]{data-label="fig:parkinglot_dist"}](6479-fig3){width="1.0\columnwidth"}
### Implementation details.
Our model and all seven baselines are implemented with PaddlePaddle. Following previous work [@li2018dcrnn_traffic; @yu2018spatio], the PA is normalized before input and scaled back to absolute PA in output. We choose $T=12$ and select $\tau=3$ for prediction. We set $\epsilon=1$Km and $k=10$ to connect parking lots. The dimension of $\mathbf{x}^{c}$ and $\mathbf{x}^{sc}$ are fixed to $32$, $p$ is fixed to $50$. The layer of CxtConv, SCConv, and PropConv are $2,1,1$, respectively. We use dot-product attention in this paper. In SCConv, the number of latent nodes is set to $K=0.1N$, where $N$ is the total number of parking lots. The activation function in CxtConv and SCConv are LeakyReLU ($\alpha=0.2$), and Sigmoid in other layers. We employ the Adam optimizer for training, fix the learning rate to $0.001$ and set $\beta$ to $0.5$. For a fair comparison, all parameters of each baseline are carefully tuned based on the recommended settings.
**Description** BEIJING SHENZHEN
----------------------------- --------------- ---------------
\# of parking lots 1,965 1,360
\# of PA records 5,847,840 4,047,360
Average \# of parking spots 210.24 185.36
\# of check-ins 9,436,362,579 3,680,063,509
\# of POIs 669,058 250,275
\# of POI categories 197 188
: Statistics of datasets.
\[table:dataset\]
### Evaluation metrics.
We adopt *Mean Average Error* (MAE) and *Rooted Mean Square Error* (RMSE), two widely used metrics [@liang2018geoman] for evaluation.
------------------ --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------
MAE RMSE MAE RMSE
LR 29.90 / 30.27 / 30.58 69.74 / 70.95 / 72.00 24.59 / 24.80 / 25.09 51.31 / 52.36 / 52.80
GBRT 17.29 / 17.81 / 18.40 44.60 / 48.50 / 51.59 13.90 / 14.67 / 14.71 35.05 / 37.98 / 38.09
GRU 18.51 / 18.78 / 19.73 55.43 / 55.92 / 58.64 16.73 / 16.88 / 17.14 46.92 / 47.26 / 47.56
Google-Parking 21.49 / 21.68 / 22.85 57.26 / 59.25 / 60.48 17.10 / 18.33 / 18.69 47.30 / 48.45 / 49.34
Du-Parking 17.67 / 17.70 / 18.03 50.17 / 50.63 / 51.75 13.91 / 14.17 / 14.39 42.66 / 43.24 / 43.56
STGCN 16.57 / 16.44 / 17.10 50.79 / 51.04 / 52.61 13.46 / 13.59 / 13.88 39.26 / 39.96 / 40.29
DCRNN 15.66 / 15.97 / 16.30 46.28 / 47.80 / 48.87 13.11 / 13.19 / 13.89 42.74 / 43.37 / 44.27
CxtGNN (ours) 15.29 / 15.69 / 16.15 45.55 / 46.69 / 47.78 12.39 / 12.73 / 13.09 36.31 / 36.92 / 37.46
CAGNN (ours) 12.45 / 12.77 / 13.20 39.99 / 40.81 / 41.31 10.50 / 10.62 / 10.98 31.86 / 32.12 / 32.83
**SHARE (ours)** **10.68 / 10.97 / 11.43** **32.00 / 32.78 / 33.78** **9.23 / 9.41 / 9.66** **30.44 / 30.90 / 31.70**
------------------ --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------
\[table:overall\]
### Baselines.
We compare our full approach with the following seven baselines and two variants of [[SHARE]{}]{}:
- **LR** uses logistic regression for parking availability prediction. We concatenate previous $T$ steps historical features as the input and predict each parking lot separately.
- **GBRT** is a variant of boosting tree for regression tasks. It is widely used in practice and performs well in many data mining challenges. We use the version in XGboost [@chen2015xgboost], and the input is the same as LR.
- **GRU** [@chung2014empirical] predicts the PA of each parking lot without considering spatial dependency. We train two GRUs for $P_l$ and $P_u$ separately.
- **Google-Parking** [@arora2019hard] is the parking difficulty prediction model deployed on Google Maps. It uses a feed-forward deep neural network for prediction.
- **Du-Parking** [@rong2018parking] is the parking availability estimation model used on Baidu Maps. It fuses several LSTMs to capture various temporal dependencies.
- **STGCN** [@yu2018spatio] is a state-of-the-art graph neural network model for traffic forecasting. It models both spatial and temporal dependency with convolution structure. The input graph is constructed as described in the original paper but keeps same graph connectivity with our CxtConv.
- **DCRNN** [@li2018dcrnn_traffic] is another graph convolution network based model, which models spatial and temporal dependency by integrating graph convolution and GRU. The input graph is the same as STGCN.
- **CxtGNN** is a basic version of [[SHARE]{}]{}, without including PA approximation and soft clustering graph convolution.
- **CAGNN** is another variant of [[SHARE]{}]{}but without including the soft clustering graph convolution block.
Overall performance
-------------------
[Table \[table:overall\]]{} reports the overall results of our methods and all the compared baselines on two datasets with respect to MAE and RMSE. As can be seen, our model together with its variants outperform all other baselines using both metrics, which demonstrates the advance of [[SHARE]{}]{}. Specifically, [[SHARE]{}]{}achieves $(31.8\%, 31.3\%, 29.9\%)$ and $(30.9\%, 31.5\%, 30.9\%)$ improvements beyond the state-of-the-art approach (DCRNN) on MAE and RMSE on [[Beijing]{}]{}for $(15min, 30min, 45min)$ prediction, respectively. Similarity, the improvement of *MAE* and *RMSE* on [[Shenzhen]{}]{}are $(29.6\%, 28.7\%, 30.5\%)$ and $(28.8\%, 28.8\%, 28.4\%)$. Moreover, we observe significant improvement by comparing [[SHARE]{}]{}with its variants ([*i.e.*,]{}CxtGNN and CAGNN). For example, by adding the PA approximation module, CAGNN achieves $(18.6\%, 18.6\%, 18.3\%)$ lower MAE and $(12.2\%, 12.6\%, 13.5\%)$ lower RMSE than CxtGNN on [[Beijing]{}]{}, respectively. By further adding the SCConv block, [[SHARE]{}]{}achieves $(14.2\%, 14.1\%, 13.4\%)$ lower MAE and $(20\%, 19.7\%, 18.2\%)$ lower RMSE than CAGNN on [[Beijing]{}]{}. The improvement in [[Shenzhen]{}]{}are consistent. All above results demonstrate effectiveness of the PA approximation and the hierarchical graph convolution architecture.
Looking further in to the results, we observe all graph convolution based models ([*i.e.*,]{}STGCN, DCRNN and [[SHARE]{}]{}) outperform other deep learning based approaches ([*i.e.*,]{}Google-Parking and Du-parking), which consistently reveals the advantage of incorporating spatial dependency for parking availability prediction. Remarkably, GBRT outperforms Google-parking, GRU, LR, and achieves a similar result with Du-parking, which validates our exception that GBRT is a simple but effective approach for regression tasks. One extra interesting finding is that both MAE and RMSE of all methods on [[Shenzhen]{}]{}is relatively smaller than on [[Beijing]{}]{}. This is possible because the spatial distribution of parking lots is more dense and evenly distributed in [[Shenzhen]{}]{}; therefore they are easier to predict.
Parameter sensitivity
---------------------
Due to space limitations, here we report the impact of the ratio of labeled parking lot ([*i.e.*,]{}$|P_l|/N$), the proportion of latent nodes in the soft clustering graph convolution with respect to the total number of parking lot ([*i.e.*,]{}$K/N$), the input time step $T$ and the prediction time step $\tau$ using MAE on [[Beijing]{}]{}. Each time we vary a parameter, set others to their default values. The results on [[Beijing]{}]{}using RMSE and on [[Shenzhen]{}]{}using both metrics are similar.
First, we vary the ratio of the labeled parking lot from $0.1$ to $0.9$. The results are reported in [Figure \[exp:para-lr\_bj\]]{}. The results are unsurprising: equipping more real-time sensors in parking lots enables us to more accurately predict PA. However, equipping more sensors lead to extra economic cost and may be constrained by policies of each parking lot. Finding the most cost-effective ratio and exploring optimal sensor distribution are important problems in the future study.
Then, we vary the ratio of the latent nodes from $0.01$ to $0.8$. For example, there are $1,965$ parking lots on [[Beijing]{}]{}, $0.01$ corresponds to $20$ latent nodes. The results are reported in [Figure \[exp:para-hc-bj\]]{}. As can be seen, there is a performance improvement by increasing the ratio of latent node form $0.01$ to $0.1$, but a performance degradation by further increasing the ratio of the latent node from $0.1$ to $0.8$. The reason is that heavily reduce the number of latent nodes reduces the discriminative power of learned latent representation, whereas too many latent nodes reduces the regularization power of learned latent representation.
To test the impact of input length, we vary $T$ from $3$ to $18$. The results are reported in [Figure \[exp:para-tin-bj\]]{}. [[SHARE]{}]{}achieves least errors when $T=12$. One possible reason is that an excessively short-term input can not provide sufficient temporal correlated information, whereas too long input introduces more noises for temporal dependency modeling.
Finally, to test the impact of prediction step, we vary $\tau$ from $1$ to $6$. The results are reported in [Figure \[exp:para-tout-bj\]]{}. We separate the result of labeled and unlabeled parking lots separately. Overall, labeled parking lots are much easier to predict. Besides, by increase $\tau$, the error of all parking lots increases consistently. However, we can observe the error of labeled parking lots are increasing faster, this makes sense because the temporal dependency between observed PA and future PA becomes lower when $\tau$ goes large.
Effectiveness on different regions
----------------------------------
To evaluate the performance of [[SHARE]{}]{}on different regions, we partition [[Beijing]{}]{}into a set of disjoint grid based on longitude and latitude, and test the performance of [[SHARE]{}]{}on each region. [Figure \[exp:effect\_area\_mae\_bj\]]{} and [Figure \[exp:effect\_area\_parkspace\_bj\]]{} plot the averaged MAE of [[SHARE]{}]{}and averaged number of parking spot in each region on [[Beijing]{}]{}, respectively. Overall, the MAE in each region is even except for several outliers. We find the performance of [[SHARE]{}]{}is highly correlated with the averaged number of parking spots in each region. For example, the MAE on region $(116.46, 39.91)$ and $(116.46, 39.95)$ are $31.6$ and $31.5$, which are greater than the overall MAE $10.68$. Meanwhile, the averaged parking spot of these two regions are $601$ and $367$, significantly greater than overall averaged parking spot $210.24$. This is possible because for the same ratio of parking availability fluctuate, parking lot with a larger number of parking spot will have larger MAE. This result indicates in the future further optimization can be applied to these large parking lots to improve the overall performance.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
**Parking availability prediction.** Previous studies on parking availability prediction mainly fall in two categories, contextual data based prediction and real-time sensor based prediction. For contextual data based prediction, Google-parking [@arora2019hard] and Du-parking [@rong2018parking] predict parking availability based on indirect signals ([*e.g.*,]{}user feedbacks and contextual factors), which may induce an inaccurate prediction result. For real-time sensor based prediction, study in [@rajabioun2015street] proposes an auto-regressive model and study in [@fusek2013adaboost] proposes a boosting method for parking availability inference. Above approaches are limited by economic and privacy concerns and are hard to be scaled to all parking lots in a city. Moreover, all the above approaches don’t fully exploit non-Euclidean spatial autocorrelations between parking lots, which limits their prediction performance.\
**Graph neural network.** Graph neural network (GNN) extends the well-known convolution neural network to non-Euclidean graph structures, where the representation of each node is derived by first aggregating and then transforming representations of its neighbors [@velivckovic2017graph]. It is worth to point out that the idea of our soft clustering graph convolution is partially inspired by [@ying2018hierarchical], but our objective is to capture global spatial correlation for node-level prediction. Due to its effectiveness, GNN has been successfully applied to several spatiotemporal forecasting tasks, such as traffic flow forecasting [@li2018dcrnn_traffic; @guo2019attention] and taxi demand forecasting [@geng2019spatiotemporal; @wang2019origin]. However, we argue these approaches either overlook contextual factors or global spatial dependency and are not tailored for parking availability prediction.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we present [[SHARE]{}]{}, a city-wide parking availability prediction framework based on both environmental contextual data and partially observed real-time parking availability data. We first propose a hierarchical graph convolution module to capture both local and global spatial correlations. Then, we adopt a simple yet effective GRU module to capture dynamic temporal autocorrelations of each parking lot. Besides, a parking availability approximation module is proposed for parking lots without real-time parking availability information. Extensive experimental results on two real-world datasets show that the performance of [[SHARE]{}]{}for parking availability prediction significantly outperforms seven state-of-the-art baselines.
Acknowledgement {#sec:acknowledgement}
===============
This research is supported in part by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.71531001).
[^1]: Equal contribution.
[^2]: Corresponding author.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Dynamic nonlinear magneto-optical-rotation signals with frequency- and amplitude-modulated laser light have been observed and investigated with a spherical glass cell of 3-mm diameter containing Cs metal with inner walls coated with paraffin. Intrinsic Zeeman relaxation rates of $\gamma/(2\pi)\approx 20\ $Hz and lower have been observed. Favorable prospects of using millimeter-scale coated cells in portable magnetometers and secondary frequency references are discussed.'
author:
- 'M. V. Balabas'
- 'D. Budker'
- 'J. Kitching'
- 'P. D. D. Schwindt'
- 'J. E. Stalnaker'
bibliography:
- 'NMObibl.bib'
title: 'Magnetometry with millimeter-scale anti-relaxation-coated alkali-metal vapor cells'
---
Introduction
============
The state of the art in compact atomic frequency references is represented by devices about 100 cm$^3$ in volume, dissipating several watts of power [@Compact_Clocks], and maintaining relative frequency stability of about 10$^{-11}$ over one day. Current atomic magnetometers can achieve high sensitivity (see, for example, Refs. [@Ale2003_OP], [@Bud2000Sens; @Kom2003]) but are typically large and nonportable or cumbersome to carry. Recently, physics packages for highly compact clocks [@Kna2004; @Lut2004] and magnetometers [@Sch2004] have been developed that are based on microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) micromachining techniques and promise to allow even further reduction of the size and power of these types of instruments.
Until now, all of these compact devices have been based on alkali-vapor cells containing a buffer gas. However the use of anti-relaxation coated cells in such devices may have a number of benefits, including a reduced sensitivity to field gradients and a significantly narrower resonance linewidth at very small size scales (see, for example, Ref. [@Kit2002]).
With anti-relaxation coatings, polarized alkali atoms (Cs, Rb, K) can experience multiple wall collisions (up to $10^4$) without depolarization. Recent experimental investigations [@Bud2005NIST; @Guz2005] have explored Zeeman and hyperfine relaxation in rubidium- and potassium-metal-vapor cells with different paraffin coatings. The characteristic cell dimensions in those works were 3 to 10$\ $cm.
Here we investigate nonlinear magneto-optical signals with millimeter-scale paraffin-coated cells with cesium. We verify the scaling of the relaxation properties with cell size for millimeter-scale cells and discuss the practical aspects of magnetometric measurements with such cells. We have found the 3-mm cells appropriate for small-scale magnetometers (and, probably, clocks), and verified that the intrinsic Zeeman-relaxation rate at a given alkali-vapor pressure scales approximately as $1/D$, where $D$ is the characteristic dimension of the cell, for cell sizes varying by 1.5 orders of magnitude. We also compared nonlinear magneto-optical rotation (NMOR) signals using two different types of laser modulation – frequency modulation (FM NMOR [@Bud2002FM]) and amplitude modulation – AM NMOR. We find that the AM NMOR signals are comparable to the FM NMOR signals in terms of width and signal strength, suggesting that the method of choice may depend on the ease of implementation in a particular experiment or device. Finally, the NMOR signals observed in this work at relatively high light power show evidence of conversion between alignment created in atoms by the laser light and other polarization moments such as orientation.
The cell
========
The cell used for the measurements reported here is shown in Fig.\[Fig\_Cs\_microcell\]. The general technology for cell preparation and application of the paraffin coating is described in Ref. [@AleLIAD]. The cell was made by glass-blowing techniques and is of an approximately spherical shape, with an outer diameter of about 3$\ $mm and wall thickness of about 0.2 to 0.3$\ $mm. A cesium-metal sample is placed in a stem (made at the same time as the cell) that is connected to the cell via a thin capillary about 0.2$\ $mm in diameter and about 2$\ $mm in length. The broader section of the stem on the side of the capillary opposite to the cell contains Cs metal and is about 6$\ $mm long.
![Cs-vapor microcell, whose inner walls are coated with paraffin, used for the present measurements.[]{data-label="Fig_Cs_microcell"}](Actual_Cell){width="3.4"}
Apparatus, procedure, and results
=================================
Most of the measurements reported here were performed by the FM NMOR technique [@Bud2002FM]. Recent reviews of nonlinear magneto-optics of resonant vapors are given in Refs. [@Bud2002RMP; @Ale2005]. The vapor cell at room temperature was mounted within a cylindrical double-layered magnetic shield. We used a distributed-feedback (DFB) laser producing up to 10$\ $mW of cw light, tuned to the Cs D1 line (with wavelength in vacuum of $\lambda=894.6\ $nm). The laser beam was attenuated, passed through a Glan polarizer, and directed through holes in the magnetic shield through the vapor cell. The light beam was apertured to about 2$\
$mm in diameter before entering the cell. The curvature of the cell caused the transmitted light beam to diverge. This divergence was compensated by installing a 2.5$\ $cm-diameter anti-reflection coated lens with a focal length of 2.5$\ $cm at a distance of 0.15$\
$cm after the cell. The light after the lens exited the magnetic shield and was analyzed with a Wollaston polarizer and a balanced photoreceiver whose output was connected to a digital-signal-processing lock-in amplifier. The laser frequency was sinusoidally modulated by dithering the junction current, and the synchronous signal due to optical rotation was detected.
From auxiliary absorption measurements, we estimated the Cs-vapor density in the cell to be approximately $3\cdot 10^9\ $cm$^{-3}$. This density is an order of magnitude lower than the saturated density of Cs at room temperature, in our experience, a not-too-uncommon occurrence in paraffin-coated cells (the density can usually be brought closer to the saturated density by reheating the stem; however, this was not needed here, as the signals were sufficiently strong even with this low alkali-vapor density). A solenoid was installed within the innermost magnetic shield and was used to set or scan the magnetic field applied to the cell directed collinearly with the light-propagation direction (the Faraday-rotation geometry). In a typical measurement, we would tune the central frequency of the laser to a particular value near the resonance, set the modulation frequency and amplitude, and record the output of the lock-in amplifier as a function of the magnetic field.
An example of such an FM NMOR scan is shown in Fig.\[Fig\_LowPowerFMScan\]. For this scan, the light power transmitted through the cell was $\approx 0.12\ \mu$W, and the modulation frequency of the laser was set to $\Omega_M=2\pi\cdot 4\ $kHz, with the peak-to-peak frequency-modulation depth of $\Delta \nu = 750\
$MHz. The upper trace on the figure shows the quadrature (out-of-phase) output of the lock-in amplifier, while the lower trace (which is vertically offset for clarity) represents the in-phase output. As usual in FM NMOR experiments, there is a dispersively shaped resonance in the in-phase component that appears near zero magnetic field, as well as dispersively shaped resonances that appear when $\Omega_M=2\, \Omega_L$, where $\Omega_L={\left|g\mu
B\right|}$ is the Larmor-precession frequency, $g$ is the Landé factor of the ground-state hyperfine component ($g=\pm 1/4$ for the Cs $F=4,3$ states, respectively), $\mu$ is the Bohr magneton, and $B$ is the magnetic field. Absorptively shaped quadrature resonances also appear when $\Omega_M= 2\, \Omega_L$. The origin of all these features is well understood qualitatively [@Bud2002FM], and they are reproduced in an analytical calculation with a model system [@Mal2004].
We use the scans such as the one shown in Fig.\[Fig\_LowPowerFMScan\] to determine the Zeeman-relaxation rate $\gamma$. To do this, we fit the resonances to appropriately phased Lorentzians and determine their width $\delta B$. The width $\delta
B$ corresponds to the separation between the minimum and the maximum of the dispersively shaped features in the in-phase signals. We then evaluate the relaxation rate from $\gamma = 2 \pi\, |g| \mu\, \delta
B$. The rate $\gamma$ has a contribution due to light-power broadening. In order to find the intrinsic light-independent relaxation rate, we take data at several low light-power levels, and extrapolate to zero light power (Fig. \[Fig\_PowerDep\]). The data shown in Fig. \[Fig\_PowerDep\] were taken over a period of less than an hour on one day. The intrinsic relaxation rate obtained from these data is $\gamma/(2\pi)=24.4(5)\ $Hz (corresponding to the resonance width as a function of the magnetic field of 0.07 mG). On a different day (on which the scan of Fig. \[Fig\_LowPowerFMScan\] was taken), we observed smaller intrinsic relaxation rates, down to 10 to 15$\ $Hz. We attribute this variation to the change in the equilibrium vapor density in the cell. Indeed, previous work [@Bud2005NIST; @Gra2005] has produced evidence that wall relaxation of polarized atoms in paraffin-coated cells is strongly dependent on the vapor density in the cell.
![An example of a low-light-power magnetic-field scan. Lower trace is the in-phase, and the upper trace is the quadrature signal. The modulation frequency was $\Omega_M=2 \pi\cdot 4\ $kHz. The depth of the frequency modulation was $\Delta \nu = 750\ $MHz peak-to-peak. The total scan time was 10$\ $s. The laser power was 0.12$\ \mu$W. The resonance widths for this scan are $\delta B
\approx 55\ \mu$G, which corresponds to $\gamma\approx 2\pi \cdot
19\ $Hz. The center frequency of the laser is tuned to the low-frequency slope of the D1 $F=4\rightarrow F'=3$ resonance.[]{data-label="Fig_LowPowerFMScan"}](P120BScan.eps){width="3.4"}
![Light-power dependence of the resonance widths. The extrapolation towards zero light power for this data set yields an intrinsic relaxation rate of $\gamma/(2\pi) \approx 24\ $Hz, consistent for the zero- and nonzero-field resonances.[]{data-label="Fig_PowerDep"}](WidthVsPowerDay1){width="3.4"}
Figure \[Fig\_AmpVsPowerDay1\] shows the dependence of the signal size vs. light power. The data points correspond to those in Fig.\[Fig\_PowerDep\]. The power dependence of the signal in the low-power limit is expected to be quadratic because the signal is proportional to the light power times the angle of the nonlinear light-polarization rotation, which is in turn proportional to the power. As seen in Fig. \[Fig\_AmpVsPowerDay1\], significant deviations from this asymptotic low-power behavior occur at essentially all light powers where data were taken, and certainly at $\sim 0.5\ \mu$W, where the dependence appears linear. Similar saturation behavior was seen in earlier work on FM NMOR with Rb [@Yas2003Select].
![Light-power dependence of the signal amplitudes. The data points match those in Fig. \[Fig\_PowerDep\]. The data are fit to saturation curves with expected quadratic low-power asymptotics.[]{data-label="Fig_AmpVsPowerDay1"}](AmpVsPowerWSatFits.eps){width="3.4"}
Further details of the investigation of FM NMOR in this system are given in the Appendices.
Specifics of magneto-optics with small coated cells; estimate of sensitivity
============================================================================
The results described above show that strong nonlinear magneto-optical-rotation signals appropriate for use in magnetometers can readily be obtained in millimeter-scale paraffin-coated vapor cells (Fig. \[Fig\_CalibratedHighPowerScan\] shows a spectral scan where the signals have been normalized, so the first-harmonic amplitudes of the optical rotation are presented). We point out that Cs has an advantage for use in magnetometers based on atomic alignment (and higher polarization moments) because its hyperfine structure is fully resolved (due to large upper-state hyperfine splitting of $1168\ $MHz in the $6\,^2P_{1/2}$ state and smaller Doppler width compared to lighter alkali atoms). As will be discussed in more detail in Ref. [@Guz2005], there is considerable suppression of nonlinear magneto-optical rotation when upper-state hyperfine structure is not fully resolved (a particularly strong suppression, by two orders of magnitude compared to cesium, in the case of potassium).
A concern in using small cells in magneto-optical work is the effect of optical imperfection of glass-blown cells and the curvature of the cell’s surfaces. We found that, although we needed to use a lens to correct for the cell’s curvature, this does not present a serious problem. We also found that, presumably due to stress-induced birefringence in the glass, linearly polarized light acquired significant ellipticity (up to $\sim 0.1\ $rad) upon propagation through the cell. Ellipticity could lead to offsets in the polarimeter signals due to self-rotation [@Roc2001SR]. We have also observed that the ellipticity causes phase shifts for nonzero B-field resonances and an asymmetry between positive and negative B-field resonances at relatively high light powers (Fig.\[Fig\_CalibratedHighPowerScan\]). We were able to affect and largely compensate these distortions by placing a quarter-wave plate before the cell and adjusting it to compensate the ellipticity. This problem could be eliminated completely through the use of planar, microfabricated cells as described in [@Lie2004]. These cells have windows made from thin, flat glass wafers and are expected to have significantly less birefringence than the cell used in this experiment.
While no systematic optimization or characterization of the magnetometer performance was attempted in the present work, we have measured that the setup in the present incarnation is a magnetometer with a sensitivity to low frequency ($<50\ $Hz) variations in the magnetic field of $\sim 4\ $pT/$\sqrt{\rm{Hz}}$. For this measurement, the response of the system was determined by stepping the frequency of the laser-frequency modulation by 1 or $2\ $Hz and measuring the voltage change at the in-phase output of the lock-in amplifier. This gives the slope as a function of frequency, which is then converted to a slope as a function of magnetic field. Noise was evaluated by connecting the output of the lock-in amplifier to a spectrum analyzer. The magnetic sensitivity was measured with laser power of $310\ $nW, peak-to-peak frequency-modulation amplitude of $992\ $MHz, and the laser center frequency tuned to maximize the slope, $\approx -500\ $MHz from the $F=4\rightarrow F'=3$ transition.
Nonlinear magneto-optical rotation with amplitude-modulated light (AM NMOR)
===========================================================================
We have also briefly explored an alternative technique to FM NMOR, where instead of frequency modulating the laser synchronously with the Larmor precession, laser-light amplitude is modulated instead (AM NMOR). In fact, this technique of synchronous optical pumping is similar to that described in the pioneering work of Bell and Bloom [@Bel61a]. Important differences with the early work include that we pump transverse atomic alignment rather than a combination of longitudinal alignment and orientation, and that we synchronously detect optical rotation rather than transmission (see review article [@Ale2005] for a discussion of various dynamic nonlinear magneto-optical processes and references to related work).
To achieve amplitude modulation of the laser power, the light beam was passed through a commercial acousto-optical modulator-deflector (AOM) operated at the acoustic frequency of $80\ $MHz. The drive of the AOM could be controlled by applying a TTL signal from a function generator. To compare AM and FM NMOR signals, we recorded both types of signals at the same modulation frequency, and otherwise similar experimental conditions (Fig. \[Fig\_AMvsFM\_NMOR\]). For the AM data shown, we used square-wave (on/off) modulation of the laser power with a $50\ \%$ duty cycle.
![A comparison of AM (upper plot) and FM NMOR (lower plot) signals taken in similar conditions. These data were taken at light power (maximum light power in the AM case) of $\approx 1.8\ \mu$W with modulation frequency of 4$\ $kHz in both cases. Small dispersive features at zero magnetic field are due to imperfect phasing of the lock-in amplifier.[]{data-label="Fig_AMvsFM_NMOR"}](AMFMBScan.eps){width="3.4"}
Comparison of the AM and FM NMOR data shown in Fig.\[Fig\_AMvsFM\_NMOR\] shows that both modulation methods produce similar signals.
An interesting result of the comparison is that the quadrature signals are more significantly suppressed with respect to the in-phase signals in the case of FM NMOR. We hypothesize that this is due to less efficient conversion of the induced atomic alignment into other polarization multipoles due to a factor-of-two lower average light power to which the atoms are exposed in the AM case. In general, the AM and FM NMOR spectra are different. Consequently, the relative merits of the two methods for magnetometry will have to be assessed by a careful investigation and separate optimization of various parameters involved in the measurement (light power, tuning of the central light frequency, AM duty cycle, etc.). This work is in progress elsewhere [@Gaw2005AMOR].
As seen in Fig. \[Fig\_AMvsFM\_NMOR\], the AM NMOR signals are noisier than their FM NMOR counterparts, particularly in the case of the in-phase signal. The origin of this is not presently understood. We suspect that this is due to elevated sensitivity to laser-frequency noise, a point that requires further study.
Conclusion
==========
We have conducted measurements of nonlinear magneto-optical-rotation signals with frequency- and amplitude-modulated light (FM and AM NMOR) with millimeter-scale paraffin-coated Cs cells. The results indicate that such cells are promising for the development of small-scale magnetometers. While no systematic optimization or characterization of the magnetometer performance was attempted in the present work, the measured sensitivity of $\sim 4\
$pT/$\sqrt{\rm{Hz}}$ suggests that sub-picotesla magnetometry might be possible with highly miniaturized devices. Since atomic magnetometers and clocks are essentially similar devices, we also expect that coated cells with volumes comparable to the one studied in this work could find application in secondary frequency standards.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are grateful to E. B. Alexandrov, M. Auzinsh, W. Gawlik, J. S. Guzman, L, Hollberg, D. F. Kimball, S. Pustelny, S. M. Rochester, J. Zachorowski, and V. V. Yashchuk for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the ONR-MURI grant No. FD-N00014-05-1-0406, by the National Science Foundation, by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Nuclear Science Divisions, of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098, by a CalSpace Minigrant, and by the Microsystems Technology Office of the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This work is a partial contribution of NIST, an agency of the United States government, and is not subject to copyright.
Appendix I. FM NMOR Spectra {#appendix-i.-fm-nmor-spectra .unnumbered}
===========================
We have investigated the spectra of FM NMOR signals for different modulation amplitudes and light powers (Fig.\[Fig\_ModPowerSpectra\]). In order to remove the contributions to the spectra that do not have sharp resonant character with respect to magnetic field, we have subtracted spectra recorded at the minimum and maximum of the negative-B feature. The nonresonant contributions were typically at a level $\sim 30-50\ \%$ of the resonant signal. These contributions are related to such effects as etaloning on the optical elements, residual misbalance of the polarimeter, etc.
![Examples of FM NMOR spectra recorded at two different light powers and for two peak-to-peak frequency-modulation amplitudes. The modulation frequency was $2\ $kHz. The shown spectra are for the in-phase components of the negative-B resonance for the $F=4
\rightarrow F'=3,4$ transitions. The energy separation between the $F'=3,4$ levels corresponds to a frequency of $1168\ $MHz. Vertical scales are the same for all plots.[]{data-label="Fig_ModPowerSpectra"}](ModPowerSpectra){width="3.4"}
The plots in Fig. \[Fig\_ModPowerSpectra\] indicate some variations in the shape of the spectrum from low to high powers, and a more dramatic variation with the modulation amplitude. While the spectrum for low frequency-modulation amplitudes is composed of dispersively shaped features corresponding to the different hyperfine components of the transition, the high-modulation-amplitude spectra are mostly absorptively shaped. Qualitatively, this is because at low modulation amplitudes, the spectrum is similar to the derivative of the non-modulated NMOR (see Ref. [@Bud2002FM]), while at high modulation amplitudes, the peaks occur when the central frequency of the laser is detuned in such a way that the the laser frequency is in resonance with the atoms at either the maximum (positive peaks) or the minimum (negative peaks) of its frequency excursion. This, in a sense, is equivalent to low-duty cycle (short-pulse) interaction of the laser light with the atoms synchronous with the Larmor precession. The peaks corresponding to a given hyperfine component are of opposite signs for positive and negative detuning because optical rotation is maximal at opposite phases of the laser-frequency modulation.
For practical applications of FM NMOR, it is important to optimize various parameters of the system, including light power, central laser-frequency detuning, modulation amplitude, etc. The figure of merit for the magnetometer performance depends on the signal size and resonance linewidth. While a full optimization was not attempted here, Fig. \[Fig\_PetersAmpl\_vs\_ModAmpl\] shows the dependence of the maximum signal on the modulation amplitude at different light powers. To obtain this dependence, the modulation frequency was fixed, and the central laser frequency was scanned to obtained spectra similar to those shown in Fig. \[Fig\_ModPowerSpectra\]. The plots in Fig. \[Fig\_PetersAmpl\_vs\_ModAmpl\] show the amplitudes of the largest (low-frequency; see Fig.\[Fig\_ModPowerSpectra\]) peaks in the spectra normalized by light power.
![Relative signal-peak amplitudes vs. peak-to-peak modulation amplitude (modulation depth $\Delta \nu$) for different light powers obtained from the in-phase spectra (as in Fig. \[Fig\_ModPowerSpectra\]) and quadrature spectra. The experimental points are connected only to guide the eye.[]{data-label="Fig_PetersAmpl_vs_ModAmpl"}](PNormAmpVsModDepth.eps){width="3.4"}
![An illustration of the difference in the spectra for the quadrature (upper trace) and in-phase (lower trace) signals. Data were taken at light power of $314\ $nW and peak-to-peak frequency-modulation amplitude of $993\ $MHz and modulation frequency of $2\ $kHz. The shown spectra are for the negative-B resonance for the $F=4 \rightarrow F'=3,4$ transitions.[]{data-label="Fig_IPQuadSpecM993P314"}](IPQuadSpecM993P314){width="3.4"}
Figures \[Fig\_ModPowerSpectra\] and \[Fig\_IPQuadSpecM993P314\] show the parts of the FM NMOR spectra corresponding to the $F=4\rightarrow F'$ transition group. We have also recorded spectra for the $F=3\rightarrow F'$ transition group. The signals for the $3\rightarrow 3$ transition are several times smaller than those for $F=4\rightarrow F'$, while the signals for the $3\rightarrow 4$ transition can hardly be seen at all at our sensitivity. A similar distribution of the FM-NMOR-signal strength over the hyperfine components of the D1 transition was observed in Rb [@Bud2002FM].
![A calibrated high-light-power (11.7$\ \mu$W) magnetic-field scan. The FM NMOR signals are normalized, so the signals are given in terms of the amplitude of the first harmonic of the optical rotation. Upper trace – quadrature signal; lower trace – in-phase signal. The laser frequency was modulated at $4\ $kHz with a peak-to-peak modulation amplitude of 750$\ $MHz. The amplitude of the quadrature signal is significantly smaller than that of the in-phase signal. The positive- and negative-$B$ resonance signals show considerable asymmetry (see text). []{data-label="Fig_CalibratedHighPowerScan"}](CalibScan12uW.eps){width="3.4"}
Appendix II. Evidence for polarization-moment conversion {#appendix-ii.-evidence-for-polarization-moment-conversion .unnumbered}
========================================================
At low powers, the quadrature and in-phase signals have similar spectra; however, at higher powers, significant deviations are observed (Fig. \[Fig\_IPQuadSpecM993P314\]). The differences between the in-phase- and quadrature-signal spectra may be due to the conversion of laser-induced atomic alignment into orientation and other, higher, polarization moments (see reviews [@Bud2002RMP; @Ale2005] and references therein). Such conversion occurs due to the combined action of the magnetic field and the ac electric field of the light on the polarized atoms.
As a result of such polarization-moment conversion, components of polarization are created that do not undergo Larmor precession (for example, orientation directed along the magnetic field). Such polarization components would not contribute to the synchronous signals we detect if unmodulated probe light were used for detection. (They would contribute to time-independent optical rotation of the probe.) In the present case, however, the pump and probe light are the same and are both modulated. Thus, this “static" rotation also acquires a time dependence that is in phase with the laser-frequency modulation. Since the spectra of optical rotation for different polarization multipoles are, in general, different, it is not surprising that these differences also manifest themselves in the differences between the in-phase and quadrature spectra.
Evidence for conversion of laser-induced alignment into other polarization multipoles also comes from the fact that, while the amplitudes of the in-phase and quadrature signals for the nonzero B-field resonances are the same at low light powers, the relative size of the quadrature signals decreases greatly at higher light powers. For example, the quadrature-signal amplitudes are about a factor of five smaller than the in-phase ones for the light power of $\approx12\ \mu$W (see Fig. \[Fig\_CalibratedHighPowerScan\]). This trend is also seen in the comparison of the quadrature and in-phase amplitudes shown in Fig. \[Fig\_PetersAmpl\_vs\_ModAmpl\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
An unexpected difference between online and offline algorithms is observed. The natural greedy algorithms are shown to be worst case online optimal for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}on graphs with “enough” isolated vertices, Freckle Graphs. For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}, the greedy algorithm is shown to be worst case online optimal on graphs with at least one isolated vertex. These algorithms are not online optimal in general. The online optimality results for these greedy algorithms imply optimality according to various worst case performance measures, such as the competitive ratio. It is also shown that, despite this worst case optimality, there are Freckle graphs where the greedy independent set algorithm is objectively less good than another algorithm.
It is shown that it is [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}-hard to determine any of the following for a given graph: the online independence number, the online vertex cover number, and the online domination number.
address: 'Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5270 Odense M, Denmark'
author:
- Joan Boyar
- Christian Kudahl
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: Adding Isolated Vertices Makes some Greedy Online Algorithms Optimal
---
\[theorem\][Observation]{}
online algorithms ,greedy algorithm ,isolated vertices ,online independence number
Introduction
============
This paper contributes to the larger goal of better understanding the nature of online optimality, greedy algorithms, and different performance measures for online algorithms. The graph problems [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}, which are defined below, are considered in the *vertex-arrival* model, where the vertices of a graph, $G$, are revealed one by one. When a vertex is revealed (we also say that it is “requested”), its edges to previously revealed vertices are revealed. At this point, an algorithm irrevocably either accepts the vertex or rejects it. This model is well-studied (see for example, [@LST89; @GL90; @Vishwanathan1992657; @GKL97; @conjecture; @Halldorsson99onlinecoloring; @Halldorsson2002953]).
We show that, for some graphs, an obvious greedy algorithm for each of these problems performs less well than another online algorithm and thus is not online optimal. However, this greedy algorithm performs (at least in some sense) at least as well as any other online algorithm for these problems, as long as the graph has enough isolated vertices. Thus, in contrast to the case with offline algorithms, adding isolated vertices to a graph can improve an algorithm’s performance, even making it “optimal”.
For an online algorithm for these problems and a particular sequence of requests, let $S$ denote the set of accepted vertices, which we call a *solution*. When all vertices have been revealed (requested and either accepted or rejected by the algorithm), $S$ must fulfill certain conditions:
- In the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}problem [@Halldorsson2002953; @DemangePP00], $S$ must form an independent set. That is, no two vertices in $S$ may have an edge between them. The goal is to maximize $|S|$.
- In the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}problem [@Demange200583], $S$ must form a vertex cover. That is, each edge in $G$ must have at least one endpoint in $S$. The goal is to minimize $|S|$.
- In the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}problem [@dominatingset], $S$ must form a dominating set. That is, each vertex in $G$ must be in $S$ or have a neighbor in $S$. The goal is to minimize $|S|$.
If a solution does not live up to the specified requirement, it is said to be infeasible. The score of a feasible solution is $|S|$. The score of an infeasible solution is $\infty$ for minimization problems and $-\infty$ for maximization problems. Note that for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}, it is not required that $S$ form a dominating set at all times. It just needs to be a dominating set when the whole graph has been revealed. If, for example, it is known that the graph is connected, the algorithm might reject the first vertex since it is known that it will be possible to dominate this vertex later.
In Section \[prelims\], we define the greedy algorithms for the above problems, along with concepts analogous to the online chromatic number of Gyárfás et al. [@GKL99] for the above problems, giving a natural definition of optimality for online algorithms. In Section \[nonopt\], we show that greedy algorithms are not in general online optimal for these problems. In Section \[freckle\], we define Freckle Graphs, which are graphs which have “enough” isolated vertices to make the greedy algorithms online optimal. In proving that the greedy algorithms are optimal on Freckle Graphs, we also show that, for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}, one can, without loss of generality, only consider adversaries which never request a vertex adjacent to an already accepted vertex, while there are alternatives. In Section \[adding\], we investigate what other online problems have the property that adding isolated requests make greedy algorithms optimal. In Section \[measures\], it is shown that the online optimality results for these greedy algorithms imply optimality according to various worst case performance measures, such as the competitive ratio. In Section \[bijective\], it is shown that, despite this worst case optimality, there is a family of Freckle graphs where the greedy independent set algorithm is objectively less good than another algorithm. Various NP-hardness results concerning optimality are proven in Section \[hardness\]. There are some concluding remarks and open questions in the last section. Note that Theorem \[ishard\] and Theorem \[ispspace\] appeared in the second author’s Master’s thesis [@kudahl], which served as inspiration for this paper.
Algorithms and Preliminaries {#prelims}
============================
For each of the three problems, we define a greedy algorithm.
- In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}, accepts a revealed vertex, $v$, iff no neighbors of $v$ have been accepted.
- In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}, accepts a revealed vertex, $v$, iff a neighbor of $v$ has previously been revealed but not accepted.
- In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}, accepts a revealed vertex, $v$, iff no neighbors of $v$ have been accepted.
Note that the algorithms and are the same (they have different names to emphasize that they solve different problems). For an algorithm , we define to be the algorithm that simulates and accepts exactly those vertices that rejects. This defines a bijection between [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}algorithms. Note that $\GV = \overline{\GI}$.
For a graph, $G$, an ordering of the vertices, $\phi$, and an algorithm, , we let $\alg(\phi(G))$ denote the score of on $G$ when the vertices are requested in the order $\phi$. We let $|G|$ denote the number of vertices in $G$.
For minimization problems, we define: $$\alg(G)= \max_\phi \alg(\phi(G))$$ That is, $\alg(G)$ is the highest score $\alg$ can achieve over all orderings of the vertices in $G$.
For maximization problems, we define: $$\alg(G)= \min_\phi \alg(\phi(G))$$ That is, $\alg(G)$ is the lowest score $\alg$ can achieve over all orderings of the vertices in $G$.
Since we consider a worst possible ordering, we sometimes think of an adversary as ordering the vertices.
\[isvc\] Let be an algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}. Let a graph, $G$, with $n$ vertices be given. Now, is an [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}algorithm and $\alg(G)+\algp(G)=n$.
The equality $\alg(G)+\algp(G)=n$ holds, since a worst ordering of $G$ for is also a worst ordering for $\algp$.
In considering online algorithms for coloring, [@GKL99] defines the online chromatic number, which intuitively is the best result (minimum number of colors) any online algorithm can be guaranteed to obtain for a particular graph (even when the graph, but not the ordering, is known in advance). We define analogous concepts for the problems we consider, defining for every graph a number representing the best value any online algorithm can achieve. Note that in considering all algorithms, we include those which know the graph in advance. Of course, when the graph is known, the order in which the vertices are requested is not known to an online algorithm, and the label given with a requested vertex does not necessarily correspond to its label in the known graph: The subgraph revealed up to this point might be isomorphic to more than one subgraph of the known graph and it could correspond to any of these subgraphs.
Let $\ois(G)$ denote the *online independence number* of $G$. This is the largest number such that there exists an algorithm, , for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}with $\alg(G)=\ois(G)$. Similarly, let $\ovc(G)$, the *online vertex cover number*, be the smallest number such that there exists an algorithm, , for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}with $\alg(G)=\ovc(G)$. Also let $\ods(G)$, the *online domination number*, be the smallest number such that there exists an algorithm, , for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}with $\alg(G)=\ods(G)$.
The same relation between the online independence number and the online vertex cover number holds as between the independence number and the vertex cover number.
\[isvcsum\] For a graph, $G$ with $n$ vertices, we have $\ois(G)+\ovc(G)=n$.
Let a graph, $G$, with $n$ vertices be given. Let $\alg$ be an algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}such that $\alg(G)=\ois(G)$. From Observation \[isvc\], we have that $\algp$ is an algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}such that $\algp(G)=n-\ois(G)$. It must hold that $\algp(G)=\ovc(G)$, since the existence of an algorithm with a lower vertex cover number would imply the existence of a corresponding algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}with an independence number greater than $\alg(G)=\ois(G)$.
Non-optimality of Greedy Algorithms {#nonopt}
===================================
We start by motivating the other results in this paper by showing that the greedy algorithms are not optimal in general. In particular, they are not optimal on the star graphs, $S_n$, $n\geq 3$, which have a center vertex, $s$, and $n$ other vertices, adjacent to $s$, but not to each other.
The algorithm, (see Algorithm \[IS-STAR\]), does much better than for the independent set problem on star graphs.
reject $v$ reject $v$ reject $v$ accept $v$
\[optvsgreedy\] For a star graph, $S_n$, $\optalg(S_n)=n-1$ and $\GI(S_n) =1$.
We first show that never accepts the center vertex, $s$. If $s$ is presented first, it will be rejected. If it is presented second, it will have an edge to the first vertex and be rejected. If it is presented later, it will have more than one neighbor and be rejected. Since $\optalg$ never accepts $s$, it produces an independent set. For every ordering of the vertices, $\optalg$ will reject the first vertex. If the first vertex is $s$, it will reject the second vertex. Otherwise, it will reject $s$ when it comes. Thus, $\optalg(S_n)=n-1$. On the other hand, $\GI(G)=1$, since it will accept $s$ if it is requested first.
Since $n-1 >1$ for $n\geq 3$, we can conclude that is not an optimal online algorithm for all graph classes.
\[isnotopt\] For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}, there exists an infinite family of graphs, $S_n$ for $n\geq 3$, and an online algorithm, , such that $\GI(S_n)$ $<$ $\optalg(S_n)$.
Note that if some algorithm, , rejects the first vertex requested, $\alg(S_n) \leq n-1$, and if it accepts the first vertex, $\alg(S_n)=1$. Thus is optimal.
To show that is not an optimal algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}, we consider .
\[vcnotopt\] For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}, there exists an infinite family of graphs, $S_n$ for $n\geq 3$, and an online algorithm, , such that $\optalgp(S_n)$ $<$ $\GV(S_n)$.
Using Observation \[isvc\] and Theorem \[optvsgreedy\], we have that $\optalgp(S_n)=n+1-\optalg(S_n)=2$ and $\GV(S_n)=n+1-\GI(S_n)=n$.
Finally, for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}, we have a similar result.
\[dsotopt\] For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}, there exists an infinite family of graphs, $S_n$ for $n\geq 3$, and an online algorithm, , such that $\optalgp(S_n)$ $<$ $\GD(S_n)$.
Requesting $s$ last ensures that $\GD$ accepts $n$ vertices. It can never accept all $n+1$ vertices, so $\GD(S_n)=n$. On the other hand, $\optalgp(S_n)=2$ (as in the proof of Corollary \[vcnotopt\]). We note that a vertex cover is also a dominating set in connected graphs. This means that $\optalgp$ always produces a dominating set in $S_n$.
Optimality of Greedy Algorithms on Freckle Graphs {#freckle}
=================================================
For a graph, $G$, we let
- $k$ denote the number of isolated vertices,
- $G'$ denote the graph induced by the non-isolated vertices,
- [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$b(G')$</span>]{}be a maximum independent set in $G'$, and
- [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$s(G')$</span>]{}be a minimum inclusion-maximal independent set in $G'$ (that is, a smallest independent set such that including any additional vertex in the set would cause it to no longer be independent).
Note that $|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}|$ is also known as the *independent domination number* of $G'$ (see [@idn] for more information).
Using this notation, we define the following class of graphs.
A graph, $G$, is a *Freckle Graph* if $k+|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}| \geq \ois(G')$.
Note that all graphs where at least half the vertices are isolated are Freckle Graphs. If the definition was changed to this (which might be less artificial), the results presented here would still hold, but our definition gives stronger results. The name comes from the idea that such a graph in many cases has a lot of isolated vertices (freckles). Furthermore, any graph can be turned into a Freckle Graph by adding enough isolated vertices. Note that a complete graph is a Freckle Graph. To make the star graph, $S_n$, a freckle graph, we need to add $n-2$ isolated vertices. We show that and are online optimal on all Freckle Graphs. For the proof, we need a little more terminology and a helpful lemma.
A request is *pointless* if it is to a vertex which has a neighbor which was already accepted.
For a graph, $G$, an adversary is said to be *conservative* if it does not make pointless requests unless only such requests remain.
\[conservative\] For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}, for every graph, $G$, there exists a conservative adversary, , which ensures that every algorithm accepts an independent set in $G$ of size at most $\ois(G)$.
Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that there exists an algorithm , which accepts an independent set of size at least $\ois(G)+1$ against every conservative adversary. We now describe an algorithm, $\alg'$, which accepts an independent set of size at least $\ois(G)+1$ against any adversary. This contradicts the definition of $\ois(G)$.
Intuitively, since pointless requests must be rejected by any algorithm, $\alg'$ can reject pointless requests and otherwise ignore them, reacting as $\alg$ would against a conservative adversary on the other requests. $\alg'$ works as follows: It maintains a virtual graph, $G'$, which, inductively, is a copy of the part of $G$ revealed so far, but without the pointless requests. When a new non-pointless vertex is requested, the same vertex is added to $G'$, including only the edges to previous vertices which are not pointless (the pointless requests are not in $G'$). $\alg'$ now accepts this request if accepts the corresponding request in $G'$. When a pointless request is made, $\alg'$ rejects it and does not add it to $G'$.
Note that every time accepts a vertex in $G'$, $\alg'$ accepts the corresponding vertex in $G$. Thus, $\alg'(G) \geq \alg(G') \geq \ois(G)+1$ which is a contradiction.
\[isgod\] For any algorithm, , for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}, and for any Freckle Graph, $G$, $\GI(G) \geq \alg(G)$.
First, we note that will accept the $k$ isolated vertices. In $G'$, it will accept an inclusion-maximal independent set. Since we take the worst ordering, it accepts $|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}|$ vertices. We get $\GI(G)=k+|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}|$. Now we describe an adversary strategy which ensures that an arbitrary algorithm, , accepts at most $k+|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}|$ vertices.
The adversary starts by presenting isolated vertices until either accepts $|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}|$ vertices or rejects $k$ vertices.
If accepts $|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}|$ vertices, the adversary decides that they are exactly those in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$s(G')$</span>]{}. This means that will accept no other vertices in $G'$. Thus, it accepts at most $k+{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}$ vertices.
If rejects $k$ vertices, the adversary decides that they are the $k$ isolated vertices. We now consider $G'$. At this point, up to $|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}|-1$ isolated vertices may have been requested and accepted. Using Lemma \[conservative\], we see that requesting independent vertices up to this point is optimal play from an adversary playing against an algorithm which has accepted all of these isolated requests. Following this optimal conservative adversary strategy ensures that the algorithm accepts an independent set of size at most $\ois(G') \leq k+|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}| = \GI(G)$.
\[freckle;greedy\] For any Freckle Graph, $G$, $\GI(G)=\ois(G)$.
Intuitively, becomes optimal on Freckle Graphs because the isolated vertices allow it to accept a larger independent set, even though it still does poorly on the connected part of the graph. Any algorithm, which outperforms on the connected part of the graph, must reject a large number of the isolated vertices in order to keep this advantage.
In contrast, for vertex cover adding isolated vertices to a graph does not make accept fewer vertices. becomes optimal on Freckle Graphs because the isolated vertices force any other online algorithm to accept some of those isolated vertices.
\[vcgod\] For any algorithm, , for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}, and for any Freckle Graph, $G$, $\GV(G) \leq \alg(G)$.
This follows from Theorem \[isgod\], Observation \[isvc\], and the fact that $\GV = \overline{\GI}$.
For any Freckle Graph, $G$, $\GV(G)=\ovc(G)$.
For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}something similar holds, but only one isolated vertex is needed. becomes optimal because any dominating set has to include that isolated vertex.
\[dsgod\] For any algorithm, , for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}and for any graph, $G$, with at least one isolated vertex, $\GD(G) \leq \alg(G)$.
Recall that $k$ denotes the number of isolated vertices in $G$, and $G'$ denotes the subgraph of $G$ induced by the non-isolated vertices. Note that always produces an independent set. Thus, accepts at most $k+|{\textsc{$b(G')$}\xspace}|$ vertices; it accepts exactly the $k$ isolated vertices and the vertices in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$b(G')$</span>]{}if these are presented first.
Let an algorithm, , be given. The adversary can start by presenting $k+|{\textsc{$b(G')$}\xspace}|$ isolated vertices. If at least one of these vertices is not accepted by , the adversary can decide that this was in fact an isolated vertex, which can now no longer be dominated. Thus, $\alg(G)= \infty$. If accepts all the presented vertices, it gets a score of at least $k+|{\textsc{$b(G')$}\xspace}|$.
For any graph, $G$, with an isolated vertex, $\GD(G)=\ods(G)$.
Adding Isolated Elements in Other Problems {#adding}
==========================================
These results, showing that adding isolated vertices to a graph can make the greedy algorithms for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}optimal, lead one to ask if similar results hold for other problems. The answer is clearly “yes”: We give similar results for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Matching</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Online Set</span>]{} (including [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Matroid Intersection</span>]{}as a special case).
We consider [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Matching</span>]{}in the edge-arrival model, so each request is an edge which must be accepted or rejected. If one or both of the vertices that are endpoints of the edge have not been revealed yet, they are revealed with the edge. The goal is to accept as large a set, $S$, as possible, under the restriction that $S$ is a matching. Thus, no two edges in $S$ can be incident to each other. One can define $\om(G)$, the *online matching number* of $G$, analogously to the online independence number, to be the largest number such that there exists an algorithm, , for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Matching</span>]{}with $\alg(G)=\om(G)$. Let be the natural greedy algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Matching</span>]{}, which accepts any edge not incident to any edge already accepted. Instead of adding isolated vertices, we add isolated edges, edges which do not share any vertices with any other edges. The number of isolated edges to add would be $k$, where $\om(G) \leq \GM(G)+k$. We get the following theorem: Let $G'$ denote the graph $G$ induced by the non-isolated edges.
\[matching\] Let $G$ be a graph where $\om(G') \leq \GM(G')+k$. For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Matching</span>]{}, we have that $$\GM(G)=\om(G).$$
Note that a matching in a graph $G=(V,E)$ corresponds to an independent set in the line graph $L(G)$, where the vertices of $L(G)$ correspond to the edges of $G$, and two vertices of $L(G)$ are adjacent, if and only if the corresponding edges are incident to each other in $G$. Thus, since is optimal for the graph with $\ois(L(G))-\GI(L(G))$ isolated vertices (or more), is optimal for the graph with $\om(G')-\GM(G')$ isolated edges (or more).
All of the above problems are in the class AOC [@BFKM15], so one is tempted to ask if all problems in AOC have a similar property, or if all maximization problems in AOC do. This is not the case.
\[sgeasydef\]\[wdef\] A problem is in AOC *(Asymmetric Online Covering)* if the following hold:
- Each request must be either accepted or rejected on arrival.
- The cost (profit) of a feasible solution is the number of accepted requests.
- The cost (profit) of an infeasible solution is $\infty$ ($-\infty$).
- For any request sequence, there exists at least one feasible solution.
- A superset (subset) of a minimum cost (maximum profit) solution is feasible.
An upper bound on the advice complexity of all problems in AOC was proven in [@BFKM15], along with a matching lower bound for a subset of these problems, the AOC-complete problems.
There exists a maximization problem in the class AOC, where adding isolated requests which are independent of all others in the sense that these requests can be added to any feasible set, maintaining feasibility, does not make the natural greedy algorithm optimal.
Consider the problem [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Maximal Forest</span>]{}, in the vertex arrival model, where the goal is to accept as large a set, $S$, of vertices, as possible, under the restriction that $S$ may not contain a cycle. Consider the following graph, $G'_n=(V,E)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
V=&\{ x,y,v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_n \} \text{ and} \\
E=& \{ (x,y)\} \cup \{ (x,v_i),(y,v_i)\mid 1\leq i\leq n\}.\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[G5\] shows $G'_5$.
(1)\[main node\] [$x$]{}; (x)\[below = 1.5 cm of 1\] ; (2)\[main node\] \[right = 0.1 cm of x\] [$v_1$]{}; (3)\[main node\] \[right = 0.5 cm of 2\] [$v_2$]{}; (4)\[main node\] \[right = 0.6 cm of 3\] [$v_3$]{}; (5)\[main node\] \[right = 1 cm of 4\] [$v_4$]{}; (6)\[main node\] \[right = 1.5 cm of 5\] [$v_5$]{};
(7)\[main node\] \[below = 1.5 cm of x\] [$y$]{};
\(1) edge (2) (1) edge (3) (1) edge (4) (1) edge (5) (1) edge (6)
\(7) edge (2) (7) edge (3) (7) edge (4) (7) edge (5) (7) edge (6) ; (1) edge (7) \[bend left\] ;
We let $W=\{v_1,v_2, \ldots, v_n\}$. Consider $G_n$ which is $G'_n$ with an arbitrary number $k$ of isolated vertices added. Let be the natural greedy algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Maximal Forest</span>]{}, which accepts any vertex which does not create a cycle. If the adversary requests $x$ and $y$ before any vertex in $W$, cannot accept any vertex in $W$, so $\GF(G'_n)=k+2$. But there is another algorithm, , which accepts more. The algorithm accepts a vertex $v$ if
- $v$ has degree at most two and
- all neighbors of $v$ have degree at least three (degree two before the current request).
We claim that cannot accept both $x$ and $y$. Assume $x$ was requested before $y$ and accepted. Now, $y$ can only be accepted if $x$ already has two other neighbors, $v_i$ and $v_j$, when $y$ is requested. However, this means that $y$ will also have these two neighbors and will reject it because its degree is at least three. The argument is symmetric if $y$ is requested before $x$.
We now show that accepts at least $k+n-1$ vertices. The $k$ isolated vertices will be accepted by regardless of when they are requested.
Now assume $x$ is requested before all vertices in $W$ and before $y$. In this case, $x$ is accepted. We have shown that $y$ will be rejected when it is requested. At most two vertices from $W$ can be rejected. When at least two vertices from $W$ have already been requested and a new vertex $v_i$ is requested, it holds that $v_i$ has degree at most two and that all neighbors of $v_i$ ($x$ and possibly $y$) have degree at least three. Thus, $v_i$ is accepted. In total, at least $k+1+n-2=k+n-1$ vertices are accepted. A symmetric situation holds if $y$ is presented before $x$ and all vertices in $W$.
We now consider the case where a vertex, $v_i \in W$ is requested before $x$ and $y$. In this case, $v_i$ is accepted. When $x$ and $y$ are requested, they will be rejected since they have a neighbor ($v_i$) whose degree it at most two. At most one vertex in $W$ can be rejected, since after that, two vertices in $W$ have already been requested ($v_i$ was requested first). When another vertex $v_j$ is requested, it holds that its possible neighbors ($x$ and $y$) have degree at least three. In total, at least $k+n-1$ vertices are accepted.
Hence, the greedy algorithm is not optimal for $G_n$ with $n \geq 4$.
We now consider another class of problems where the property does hold. This is a generalization of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}. We consider the problem [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Online Set</span>]{}. In this problem, an instance consists of a base set $E$ and a set of forbidden subsets $F \subseteq P(E)$. The forbidden subsets have the property that any superset of a forbidden subset is also forbidden. We let $x=\langle x_1, \ldots, x_{|E|} \rangle$ denote the request sequence. There is a bijective function, $f$, mapping the $x_i$’s to $E$. For a set $S=\{x_i,x_j,x_h,\ldots\}$, we let $f(S)$ denote $\{f(x_i),f(x_j),f(x_h),\ldots\}$. This function $f$ is not known to the algorithm. In request $i$, the algorithm receives request $x_i$. The request contains a list of all minimal subsets $A \subseteq \{x_1, \ldots, x_{i-1}\}$ such that $f(A) \cup \{f(x_i)\} \in F$ (note that this list may be empty). The algorithm must reject or accept $x_i$. The produced solution is said to be feasible if it does not contain any subsets from $F$. The score of a feasible solution is the number of accepted elements. The score of an infeasible solution is $-\infty$. Note that if all minimal sets in $F$ have size two, this is equivalent to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}.
In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Online Set</span>]{}, an isolated element is an element from $E$ which is not in any sets of $F$. Note that such an element can be added to any solution. We let $s(E,F)$ denote a smallest $S \subseteq E$ such that adding any element to $S$ results in a set which contains a forbidden subset.
The greedy algorithm, , is the algorithm which always accepts a request if the resulting solution is feasible.
For an algorithm, , we let $\alg(E,F)$ be the smallest number such that there exist an ordering of $E$ which causes to accept at most $\alg(E,F)$ elements (using $F$ as forbidden subsets). We let $\oms(E,F)$ be the largest number such that there exists an algorithm with $\alg(E,F)=\oms(E,F)$.
\[mos\] Let $(E,F)$ be a [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Online Set</span>]{}instance, and let $E'$ be $E$ with the isolated elements removed. Let $k$ denote the number of isolated elements. If $k+|s(E',F)| \geq \oms(E',F)$, then $$\GMOS(E,F)=\oms(E,F).$$
This proof is similar to that of Theorem \[isgod\]. First note that accepts the $k$ isolated elements and at least $|s(E',F)|$ elements from $E'$. For any algorithm the adversary can start by requesting elements, each with an empty list of forbidden sets it is already contained in. It continues until the algorithm has either accepted $|s(E',F)|$ elements or rejected $k$. The key argument is that the algorithm cannot distinguish between these initial elements.
If the algorithm accepts at least $|s(E',F)|$ elements, the adversary can decide that they were exactly those in $s(E',F)$, which also accepts. In this case, the algorithm cannot accept more than $k+|s(E',F)|$ elements in total.
If the algorithm rejects $k$ elements, we need a result similar to that of Lemma \[conservative\]. For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Online Set</span>]{}, a pointless request is one, which reveals a forbidden set which contains only elements that have been accepted. Accepting a pointless request would result in an infeasible solution. The same argument as in the proof for Lemma \[conservative\] shows that an adversary loses no power by being conservative. Thus, when $k$ elements have been rejected (and up to $|s(E',F)|-1$ have been accepted), the adversary has a strategy for the remaining elements which ensures that the algorithm accepts at most $\oms(E',F)\leq k+|s(E',F)| $ elements.
This problem is quite flexible. As we have mentioned, it can model independent set, but it could also model matroid intersection problems such as bipartite matching (though, even with more than two matroids). In this case, the forbidden sets, $F$, are the dependent sets in the union of the matroids.
Implications for Worst Case Performance Measures {#measures}
================================================
Do the results from the previous section mean that is a good algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}if the input graph is known to be a Freckle Graph? The answer to this depends on how the performance of online algorithms is measured. In general, the answer is yes if a measure that only considers the worst case is used.
The most commonly used performance measure for online algorithms is *competitive analysis* [@Sleator]. For maximization problems, an algorithm, , is said to be $c$-competitive if there exists a constant, $b$, such that for any input sequence, $I$, $\opt(I) \leq c\alg(I)+b$ where $\opt(I)$ is the score of the optimal offline algorithm. For minimization problems, we require that $\alg(I) \leq c\opt(I)+b$. The competitive ratio of is $\inf \; \{c : \alg \text{ is $c$-competitive} \}$. (Note that these ratios are always at least $1$.) For *strict competitive analysis*, the definition is the same, except there is no additive constant.
Another measure is *on-line competitive analysis* [@GKL97], which was introduced for online graph coloring. The definition is the same as for competitive analysis except that $\opt(I)$ is replaced by $\opton(I)$, which is the score of the best online algorithm that knows the requests in $I$ but not their ordering. For graph problems, this means that the vertex-arrival model is used, as in this paper. The algorithm is allowed to know the final graph.
For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}on Freckle Graphs, no algorithm has a smaller competitive ratio, strict competitive ratio, or on-line competitive ratio than .
Let be a $c$-competitive algorithm for some $c$. Theorem \[isgod\] implies that is also $c$-competitive. This argument also holds for the strict competitive ratio and the on-line competitive ratio.
For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}on Freckle Graphs, no algorithm has a smaller competitive ratio, strict competitive ratio, or on-line competitive ratio than .
For [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}on the class of graphs with at least one isolated vertex, no algorithm has a smaller competitive ratio, strict competitive ratio, or on-line competitive ratio than .
Similar results hold for relative worst order analysis [@BF07]. According to relative worst order analysis, for minimization problems in this graph model, one algorithm, $A$, is at least as good as another algorithm, $B$, on a graph class, if for all graphs $G$ in the class, $A(G) \leq B(G)$. The inequality is reversed for maximization problems. It follows from the definitions that if an algorithm is optimal with respect to on-line competitive analysis, it is also optimal with respect to relative worst-order analysis. This was observed in [@BFM]. Thus, the above results show that the three greedy algorithms in the corollaries above are also optimal on Freckle Graphs, under relative worst order analysis.
A Subclass of Freckle Graphs Where Greedy Is Not Optimal (Under Some Non-Worst Case Measures) {#bijective}
=============================================================================================
Although these greedy algorithms are optimal with respect to some worst case measures, this does not mean that these greedy algorithms are always the best choice for *all* Freckle Graphs. There is a subclass of Freckle Graphs where another algorithm is objectively better than , and bijective analysis and average analysis [@Angelopoulos07] reflect this.
\[agi\] There exists an infinite class of Freckle Graphs ${\textsc{$\tilde{G}$}\xspace}=\{G_n \; | n \geq 2\}$ and an algorithm such that for all $n \geq 2$ the following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\forall \phi& \; \AGI(\phi(G_n)) \geq \GI(\phi(G_n))\\
\exists \phi& \; \AGI(\phi(G_n)) > \GI(\phi(G_n))\end{aligned}$$
Consider the graph $G_n=(V_n,E_n)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
V_n=&\{ x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n,y_1,y_2,\ldots,y_n,z,u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_n\} \\
E_n=&\{ (x_i,y_i),(y_i,z),(z,u_i) \mid 1 \leq i \leq n\}.\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[G4\] shows the graph $G_4$.
(1)\[main node\] [$x_1$]{}; (2)\[main node\] \[right = 1 cm of 1\] [$x_2$]{}; (3)\[main node\] \[right = 1 cm of 2\] [$x_3$]{}; (4)\[main node\] \[right = 1 cm of 3\] [$x_4$]{};
(5)\[main node\] \[below = 1 cm of 1\] [$y_1$]{}; (6)\[main node\] \[right = 1 cm of 5\] [$y_2$]{}; (7)\[main node\] \[right = 1 cm of 6\] [$y_3$]{}; (8)\[main node\] \[right = 1 cm of 7\] [$y_4$]{}; (10) \[right = 0.5 cm of 6\] ;
(9)\[main node\] \[below = 1 cm of 10\] [$z$]{};
(11)\[main node\] \[below = 2 cm of 5\] [$u_1$]{}; (12)\[main node\] \[below = 2 cm of 6\] [$u_2$]{}; (13)\[main node\] \[below = 2 cm of 7\] [$u_3$]{}; (14)\[main node\] \[below = 2 cm of 8\] [$u_4$]{};
\(1) edge (5) (2) edge (6) (3) edge (7) (4) edge (8)
\(5) edge (9) (6) edge (9) (7) edge (9) (8) edge (9)
\(9) edge (11) (9) edge (12) (9) edge (13) (9) edge (14) ;
We start by showing that $G_n$ is a Freckle Graph. The smallest maximal independent set has size $n+1$. We want to show that $\ois(G)=n+1$, that is no algorithm can get an independent set of size more than $n+1$ in the worst case. We consider an arbitrary algorithm, , and the situation where the adversary starts by presenting $n$ isolated vertices. If rejects all of these, the adversary can decide that it was $u_1, \ldots, u_n$. In the remaining graph, it is not possible to accept more than $n+1$ vertices. Otherwise, accepts $i>0$ of the $n+1$ isolated vertices. The adversary can decide that one was $z$ and that the remaining were $x_1, \ldots x_{i-1}$. Since accepted $z$, it can never accept any of the vertices $y_1, \ldots, y_n$ or $u_1, \ldots, u_n$. Thus, it can at most accept $n+1$ vertices. This shows that $G_n$ is a Freckle Graph.
The algorithm, , is identical to , except that it rejects a vertex if it already has two neighbors when it is presented. Consider any ordering of the vertices of $G$ where and do not accept the same independent set. There must exist a first vertex, $w$, which is accepted by one of the algorithms and rejected by the other. By definition of the algorithms, it must be the case that $w$ is rejected by and accepted by . It must hold that $w$ has two neighbors, which have not been accepted by either algorithm. This can only happen if $w=z$ and the two neighbors are $y_i$ and $y_j$ where $x_i$ and $x_j$ have already been presented and accepted by both algorithms and no $u_k$ have been presented yet. In this case, $z$ is accepted by and rejected by . However, $u_1, \ldots, u_n$ are accepted by and rejected by . Since $n \geq 2$ and since both and accept exactly one of $x_i$ and $y_i$, $1\leq i\leq n$, we get that on every ordering, $\phi$, where and accept a different independent set, $\AGI(\phi(G)) > \GI(\phi(G))$. Such an ordering always exists (the ordering $x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_n,z,u_1,\ldots,u_n$ achieves this).
Competitive analysis, on-line competitive analysis, and relative worst order ratio do not identify as a better algorithm than on the class of graphs [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$\tilde{G}$</span>]{}defined in the proof of Theorem \[agi\]. There are, however, other measures which do this. Bijective analysis and average analysis [@Angelopoulos07] are such measures. Let $I_n$ be the set of all input sequences of length $3n+1$. Since we are considering the rather restricted graph class [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$\tilde{G}$</span>]{}, $I_n$ denotes all orderings of the vertices in $G_n$ (since these are the only inputs of length $3n+1$). For an algorithm $A$ to be considered better than another algorithm $B$ for a maximization problem, it must hold for sufficiently large $n$ that there exists a bijection $f: \; I_n \rightarrow I_n$ such that the following holds:
$$\begin{aligned}
\forall & I \in I_n \; A(I) \geq B(f(I)) \\
\exists & I \in I_n \; A(I) > B(f(I)) \\\end{aligned}$$
is better than on the class [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$\tilde{G}$</span>]{}according to bijective analysis.
We let the bijection $f$ be the identity and the result follows from Theorem \[agi\].
Average analysis is defined such that if one algorithm is better than another according to bijective analysis, it is also better according to average analysis. Thus, is better than on the class [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">$\tilde{G}$</span>]{}according to average analysis.
Note that is not an optimal algorithm for all Freckle Graphs. The class of graphs, $K_{n,n}$, for $n\geq 2$, consisting of complete bipartite graphs with $n$ vertices in each side of the partition, is a class where can behave very poorly. Note that on these graphs, is optimal and always finds an independent set of size $n$, which is optimal, so these graphs are Freckle Graphs, even though they have no isolated vertices. If the first request to is a vertex from one side of the partition and the next two are from the other side of the partition, only accepts one vertex, not $n$.
Complexity of Determining the Online Independence Number, Vertex Cover Number, and Domination Number {#hardness}
====================================================================================================
Given a graph, $G$, it is easy to check if it has an isolated vertex and apply Theorem \[dsgod\]. However, Theorem \[isgod\] and Corollary \[vcgod\] might not be as easy to apply, because it is not obvious how one can check if a graph is a Freckle Graph ($k+|{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}| \geq \ois(G')$). In some cases, this is easy. For example, any graph where at least half the vertices are isolated is a Freckle Graph. We leave the hardness of recognizing Freckle Graphs as an open problem, but we show a hardness result for deciding if $\ois(G) \leq q$.
\[ishard\] Given $q \in \mathbb{N}$ and a graph, $G$, deciding if $\ois(G) \leq q$ is [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}-hard.
Note that it is [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}-complete to determine if the minimum maximal independent set of a graph, $G=(V,E)$, has size at most $L$, for an integer $L$ [@GJ79]. To reduce from this problem, we create $\tilde{G}=(\tilde{V},E)$ which is the same as $G$, but has $|V|$ extra isolated vertices, and a bound $\tilde{L}=L+|V|$. $\tilde{G}$ is a Freckle Graph, since $|V| \geq \ois(G)$. By Corollary \[freckle;greedy\], $\GI(\tilde{G})=\ois(\tilde{G})$. Since $\GI(\tilde{G}) = |s(G)|+|V|$, the original graph, $G$, has a minimum maximal independent set of size $L$, if and only if $\tilde{G}$ has online independence number at most $\tilde{L}$.
The hardness of computing the online independence number implies the hardness of computing the online vertex cover number.
Given $q \in \mathbb{N}$ and a graph, $G$, deciding if $\ovc(G) \geq q$ is [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}-hard.
This follows from Observation \[isvcsum\] and Theorem \[ishard\].
Given $q \in \mathbb{N}$ and a graph, $G$, deciding if $\ods(G) \geq q$ is [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}-hard.
We make a reduction from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Independent Set</span>]{}. In [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Independent Set</span>]{}, a graph, $G$ and an $L \in \mathbb{N}$ is given. It is a yes-instance if and only if there exists an independent set of size at least $L$. We reduce instances of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Independent Set</span>]{}, ($G$,$L$), to instances of [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}, ($\tilde{G}$,$\tilde{L}$), such that there exists an independent set in $G$ of size at least $L$ if and only if $\ods(\tilde{G}) \geq \tilde{L}$. The reduction is very simple. We let $\tilde{G}$ be the graph which consists of $G$ with one additional isolated vertex. We set $\tilde{L}=L+1$. Assume first that any independent set in $G$ has size at most $L-1$. This means that any independent set in $\tilde{G}$ has size at most $L$. Since produces an independent set, it will accept at most $L<\tilde{L}$ vertices. Assume now that there is an independent set of size at least $L$ in $G$. Then, there exists an independent set of size at least $L+1$ in $\tilde{G}$. If these vertices are presented first, will accept them. From Theorem \[dsgod\], we get that no algorithm for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}can do better (since $\tilde{G}$ has an isolated vertex), which means that $\ods(\tilde{G}) \geq \tilde{L}$.
\[ispspace\] Given $q \in \mathbb{N}$ and a graph, $G$, the problem of deciding if $\ois(G) \leq q$ is in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PSPACE</span>]{}.
Let $q \in \mathbb{N}$ and a graph, $G=(V,E)$, be given. We sketch an algorithm that uses only polynomial space which decides if $\ois(G) \leq q$. We view the problem as a game between the adversary and the algorithm where the algorithm wins if it gets an independent set of size at least $q+1$. A move for the adversary is revealing a vertex along with edges to a subset of the previous vertices such that the resulting graph is an induced subgraph of $G$. These are possible to enumerate since induced subgraph can be solved in polynomial space. A move by the algorithm is accepting or rejecting that vertex. We make two observations: The game has only polynomial length (each game has length $2|V|$), and it is always possible in polynomial space to enumerate the possible moves from a game state. Thus, an algorithm can traverse the game tree using depth first search and recursively compute for each game state if the adversary or the algorithm has a winning strategy.
Similar proofs can be used to show that the problems of deciding if $\ovc(G) \geq q$ and $\ods(G) \geq q$ are in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PSPACE</span>]{}as well. It remains open whether these problems are [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}-complete, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PSPACE</span>]{}-complete, or neither. In [@Kudahl15] it was shown that determining the online chromatic number is [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PSPACE</span>]{}-complete if the graph is pre-colored and extended in [@BV16] to hold even if the graph is not pre-colored.
Concluding Remarks
==================
A strange difference between online and offline algorithms is observed: Adding isolated vertices to a graph can change an algorithm from not being optimal to being optimal (according to many measures). This holds for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Vertex Cover</span>]{}, and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Dominating Set</span>]{}. It is also shown that adding isolated elements can make the natural greedy algorithm optimal for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Matching</span>]{}and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Online Set</span>]{} (which includes [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Matroid Intersection</span>]{}as a special case), but not for all problems in the class AOC.
It is even more surprising that this difference occurs for vertex cover than for independent set, since in the offline case, adding isolated vertices to a graph can improve the approximation ratio in the case of the independent set problem. It is hard to see how adding isolated vertices to a graph could in any way help an offline algorithm for vertex cover.
We have shown that for Freckle Graphs, the greedy algorithm is optimal for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Online Independent Set</span>]{}, but what about the converse? If a graph is not Freckle, is it the case that the greedy algorithm is not optimal? Let $G$ be a graph, that is not a Freckle Graph. By definition, we have that $\ois(G') > |{\textsc{$s(G')$}\xspace}|+k=\GI(G)$. To show that the greedy algorithm is not optimal, we would have to show that $\ois(G) > \GI(G)$. To show this, it would suffice to show that $\ois(G) \geq \ois(G')$. That is, the online independence number can never decrease when isolated vertices are added to a graph. We leave this as an open question.
Note that $\GI=\GD$. This means that for Freckle Graphs with at least one isolated vertex, $\GI$ is an algorithm which solves both online independent set (a maximization problem) and online dominating set (a minimization problem) online optimally. This is quite unusual, since the independent sets and dominating sets it will find in the worst case can be quite different for the same graph.
As mentioned earlier, the NP-hardness results presented here do not answer the question as to how hard it is to recognize Freckle Graphs. This is left as an open problem.
We have shown it to be [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}-hard to decide if $\ois(G) \leq q$, $\ovc(G) \geq q$, and $\ods(G) \geq q$, but there is nothing to suggest that these problems are contained in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}. They are in [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PSPACE</span>]{}, but it is left as an open problem if they are [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>]{}-complete, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PSPACE</span>]{}-complete or somewhere in between.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Lene Monrad Favrholdt for interesting and helpful discussions. This research was supported by grants from the Villum Foundation (VKR023219), and the Danish Council for Independent Research, Natural Sciences (DFF–1323-00247). The second author was also supported by a travel stipend from the Stibo-Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a new and complete analysis of the $n$-bounce resonance and chaotic scattering in solitary wave collisions. In these phenomena, the speed at which a wave exits a collision depends in a complicated fractal way on its input speed. We present a new asymptotic analysis of collective-coordinate ODEs, reduced models that reproduce the dynamics of these systems. We reduce the ODEs to discrete-time iterated separatrix maps and obtain new quantitative results unraveling the fractal structure of the scattering behavior. These phenomena have been observed repeatedly in many solitary-wave systems over 25 years.'
author:
- 'Roy H. Goodman'
- Richard Haberman
title: 'Chaotic Scattering and the $n$-bounce Resonance in Solitary Wave Interactions'
---
Solitary waves—localized disturbances that travel with unchanging shape and velocity—are ubiquitous in physical science, and are seen, for example, in fluid mechanics, optics, solid-state electronics, and even quantum field theory. A natural question is what happens when the wave hits an obstacle or two such waves collide.
In dissipative systems such as electrical signal propagation in nerve fibers or reaction-diffusion systems, two interacting waves generally merge into a single larger wave. In completely integrable, or soliton, equations, by contrast, interacting solitary waves emerge from a collision intact and with their original speeds, but a slight shift in their position, which is well-understood through the theory of inverse scattering.
Collisions in dispersive wave systems that are neither dissipative nor completely integrable may produce a much wider range of behaviors. We focus on one, the 2-bounce, or, more generally $n$-bounce phenomenon. Two counterpropagating waves with sufficient relative initial speed (or one wave incident on a localized defect) will pass by or reflect off each other with little interaction, while for most initial speeds below some critical velocity ${v_{\rm c}}$ they will become trapped, forming a localized bound state. At certain velocities below ${v_{\rm c}}$, the waves become trapped, begin to move apart, and come together a second time before finally moving apart for good—the so-called 2-bounce solutions. In addition to the 2-bounce resonant solutions, one often finds 3-, 4-, or, more generally, $n$-bounce solutions. Figure \[fig:2bounce\]a shows a 2-bounce resonant solution to , and figure \[fig:2bounce\]b shows the sensitive dependence of the final speed on the initial speed, with the number of ‘bounces’ indicated by color. The initial conditions leading to these behaviors are interleaved in a manner often described as fractal. This was first seen in kink-antikink collisions in the mid 1970’s (see [@CP] and references therein), subsequently found in models from astrophysics [@AOM:91], optical fiber communications [@TY] and perhaps most recently in 2007 in collisions between topological solitons arising in quantum field theory[@PieZak:07]. Figure \[fig:2bounce\]c shows a 2-bounce resonant solution of the model ODEs for system (discussed below), and figure \[fig:2bounce\]d shows that the ODE model reproduces the fractal interaction structure of the PDE, if not the exact structure.
![Color online: (a) A ‘2-bounce’ solution to PDE . (b) $v_{\rm in}$ vs. $v_{\rm out}$ for kink-antikink collisions to showing chaotic scattering. (c) Two-bounce solution to ODE model for ($X(t)$ solid $A(t)$ dashed.) (d) $v_{\rm in}$ vs. $v_{\rm out}$ for the ODE model, annotated as in (b).[]{data-label="fig:2bounce"}](figure1.jpg){width="3in"}
We analyze these phenomena through systematic asymptotics applied to ‘collective coordinate’ models, low-dimensional model systems of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) derived from a variational principle that reproduce the dynamics in numerical simulations. We construct, using Melnikov-integrals and formal matching procedures, approximate $n$-bounce resonant solutions to the ODEs and derive an iterated map that explains the fractal structure[@GooHab; @GooHab:05].
Previous studies treat the results of numerical simulations (both ODE and PDE) as experimental data and have remarkable success analyzing these results using a combination of numerical simulation and ad-hoc calculations. They derive approximate resonant velocities using least-squares fitting of numerical data. By contrast, we obtain formulae dependent only on the equations’ parameters, and not on any empirical constants.
The phenomenon was first observed in kink-antikink collisions in nonlinear wave equations by Campbell, Peyrard et al. [@CP], including the $\phi^4$ equation, $$u_{tt} - u_{xx} + u - u^3 = 0.
\label{eq:phi4}$$ Figure \[fig:2bounce\]b is a new computation that reproduces one from their first paper. What was in the early 1980’s a very difficult and time-consuming computation we reproduced in a short time on a PC, with improved detail showing narrower $n$-bounce windows between the primary 2-bounce windows [@GooHab:05]. Fei, Kivshar, and Vázquez subsequently observed 2-bounce solutions in collisions of kinks with Dirac delta potentials in the sine-Gordon and $\phi^4$ equations [@FKV], $$\begin{aligned}
u_{tt} - u_{xx} +(1-\epsilon \delta(x))\sin u&=0 \mbox{ and} \label{eq:sG}\\
u_{tt} - u_{xx} +(1- \epsilon \delta(x))(u-u^3&)=0. \label{eq:phi4def}\end{aligned}$$ Tan and Yang saw it in collisions between orthogonally-polarized solitons in birefringent optical fibers [@TY], described by coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations: $$i \partial_t u_i + \partial_x^2 u_i + (|u_i|^2 + \epsilon |u_{1-i}|^2) u_i = 0, \, i =0,1.
\label{eq:nls2}$$
What all these (non-integrable) dispersive wave equations have in common is a second mode which can draw energy from the propagating wave. When the solitary wave is taken to model a pseudo-particle, this corresponds to an internal oscillatory degree-of freedom. This transfer creates an effective energy barrier, preventing slow waves from escaping the collision location.
In the following paragraphs, we analyze the behavior shown in figures \[fig:2bounce\]c and \[fig:2bounce\]d. The general form of the ODE model is given below in . We provide the critical velocity for capture in and displayed in figure \[fig:sgmap\]a and \[fig:sgmap\]b. The locations of the 2-bounce windows, and the narrower 3-bounce windows is given in equation as special solutions of an iterated map we define below.
Each system above is well-known to possess a variational form [@Mal:02]: their solutions minimize a Lagrangian $$L(u,x,t) = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\cal L}\bigl({u(x,t)\bigr)} \ dx \ dt.
\label{eq:lagrange}$$ ODEs are derived by assuming the solution depends on a few time-dependent parameters $u(x,t) \approx u_{\rm ansatz}(X_1(t),\ldots,X_n(t))$, inserting this ansatz into integral and integrating out the $x$-dependence to obtain a finite-dimensional Lagrangian whose Euler-Lagrange equations describe the evolution of the parameters $\vec X(t)$.
For systems -, the ansatz depends on a variable $X(t)$, parameterizing the distance between the two interacting solitary pulses in systems and and the pulse position in and , and a variable $A(t)$ measuring the amplitude of a second mode of oscillation—two such modes in the ODE model equations for system . The ODE models take the general form (after some rescalings) $$\label{eq:general_ode}
m \ddot X + U'(X) + F'(X) A =0;\;
\ddot A + \omega^2 A + c F(X) =0,$$ where $c$ or $\omega^{-1}$ is a small parameter, allowing the use of perturbation methods. The ODE model for systems and contain additional terms but can be treated using the methods described herein. We refine our terms describing the ODE model: an $n$-bounce solution is one in which $X(t)$ escapes to infinity after $n$ interactions, and $n$-bounce resonance is such a solution for which, additionally $A(t) \to 0$ as $t \to \pm \infty$ so that $v_{\rm in} = v_{\rm out}$.
We consider two such models here. After rescaling time, system is modeled by the equations $$U(X) = -2 \operatorname{sech}^2{X}; \; F(X) = -2 \tanh{X}\operatorname{sech}{X}; \label{eq:sg_defs}$$ where $m =4$, $ \omega^2=2/\epsilon-\epsilon/2$ and $c=\epsilon$. The ODEs that model equation are algebraically complex and are studied in [@AOM:91; @GooHab:05], but their essential dynamics (determined by the topology of the phase-space) are captured by making $U(X)$ the Morse potential and choosing a simple $F(X)$ which vanishes at infinity: $$U(X)=e^{-2X}-e^{-X} \text{ and } F(X) = e^{-X}.
\label{eq:phi4_model}$$ Equation conserves $H= \frac{m}{2}\dot X^2 + U(X) + \frac{1}{2c}(\dot A^2 + \omega^2 A^2) + F(X) A$, where the first two terms describe energy in the propagating wave, the second two, energy in $A$ and the final one, the coupling energy.
The dynamics of $X(t)$ in , neglecting $A$, conserves an energy $E= \frac{m}{2}\dot X^2 + U(X)$, and the trajectories lie on level sets of $E$, figure \[fig:phaseplane\], with $E>0$ along unbounded ($E<0$ along bounded) trajectories and separatrix orbits along which $E=0$.
![The uncoupled phase portrait due to the potential $U(X)$ in (a) equations and (b) equations .[]{data-label="fig:phaseplane"}](figure2.jpg){width="3in"}
In the first instance the phase plane has two heteroclinic orbits connecting degenerate (saddle-type) fixed points at $(X,\dot X) = (\pm \infty,0)$, while the second has one homoclinic to $(+\infty,0)$.
When $A(t)$ is allowed to vary, the level sets of $E$ cease to be invariant. Define capture (escape) to be a trajectory that crosses a separatrix from the region of unbounded trajectories to that of bounded trajectories (bounded to unbounded). We construct approximate solutions via matched asymptotic approximations where ‘outer solutions’ consist of expansions near the degenerate saddle points, which are connected via ‘inner solutions,’ i. e. separatrix orbits. An energy change calculated over each separatrix orbit is used to match together two consecutive outer approximations near infinity.
Over a full trajectory from one saddle-approach to the next, the total change in $E$ is the Melnikov integral [@GH:83] $$\begin{split}
\Delta E &= \int_{-\infty}^\infty \frac{dE}{dt} dt = \int_{-\infty}^\infty (m \ddot X + U'(X))\dot X dt\\
& = -\int_{-\infty}^\infty A \frac{d}{dt}F(X(t)) dt = \int_{-\infty}^\infty F(X(t)) \frac{dA}{dt} dt
\label{eq:DeltaE1}
\end{split}$$ assuming $F(X(t))\to 0$ as $|t| \to \infty$. Equation may be solved for $A$ by variation of parameters and used to simplify . Under the assumption that $A(t)\to 0$ as $t\to-\infty$, this is $$\label{eq:DeltaE}
\Delta E = -\frac{c}{2} \left \lvert \int_{-\infty}^\infty F(X_{\rm S}(t))e^{i\omega t} dt \right \rvert ^2,$$ the Fourier transform of $F({X_{\rm S}}(t))$ evaluated at $\omega$, the resonant frequency of $A(t)$. Here $X(t)$ has been approximated by $X_{\rm S}(t)$, the solution along the separatrix. The critical velocity, which solves $m {v_{\rm c}}^2/2 = \Delta E$, is [@GooHab; @GooHab:05]: $$\label{eq:vc}
{v_{\rm c}}= \sqrt{\frac{c}{m}} \left \lvert \int_{-\infty}^\infty F({X_{\rm S}}(t))e^{i\omega t} dt \right \rvert .$$ For system , ${X_{\rm S}}= \sinh^{-1}(t-t_1)$ and ${v_{\rm c}}= \pi \sqrt\epsilon e^{-\omega}. $ While for system , ${X_{\rm S}}= \log {\left(1+\frac{(t-t_1)^2}{2m}\right)}$ and ${v_{\rm c}}= \sqrt{2c}\pi e^{-\omega\sqrt{2m}}.$ These are shown in figure \[fig:sgmap\]a and b (with $c=\epsilon^2$, $m=1$ and $\omega=\epsilon^{-1/2}$ in ).
The time $t_1$ is the ‘symmetry time’ of the first inner solution, at which ${X_{\rm S}}=0$ in model and $\frac{d}{dt} {X_{\rm S}}=0$ in model . If $E>0$ after the first interaction, the wave moves off toward infinity. If $E<0$ the wave turns around. The oscillator $A(t)$ has become excited and the variation of parameters formula shows that, for large $t$, $$\begin{split}
A(t) \sim &-\frac{c}{\omega} \sin{\omega(t-t_1)} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} F({X_{\rm S}}(\tau)) \cos{\omega(\tau-t_1)} d\tau \\
&+\frac{c}{\omega} \cos{\omega(t-t_1)}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} F({X_{\rm S}}(\tau))
\sin{\omega(\tau-t_1)} d\tau.
\label{eq:A_asympt}
\end{split}$$ In model , $F({X_{\rm S}}(t))$ is odd about $t_1$, so the first integral vanishes identically and $A(t) \propto \cos{\omega(t-t_1)}.$ In model , $F({X_{\rm S}}(t))$ is even about $t_1$, so $A(t) \propto \sin{\omega(t-t_1)}.$ The solution now alternates between two behaviors—negative energy ‘outer solutions’ dominated by the degenerate fixed point at $\pm\infty$ and near-separatrix solutions with center time $t_i$, until at some step $n\ge2$, $E_n>0$ and the pulse escapes.
Equation gives $\Delta E$ along the first near-separatrix solution. At each subsequent interaction, at time $t_i$, a similar calculation is performed [@GooHab; @GooHab:05], with new terms that arise because $A(t)$ no longer approaches zero as in backward time along the near-separatrix solution, but instead is asymptotically given by a sum of terms like , one for each previous collision. The energy level $E$ after the $n$th interaction depends, thus, not only on the initial energy, but on the sequence of times $t_1$ through $t_n$. The time difference $t_j - t_{j-1}$, in turn, is a function of the energy level $E_{j-1}$, since the period of this nonlinear oscillator depends on its energy, as we show below.
This time-change can be calculated by the matching conditions between the near-separatrix solution centered at $t_{j-1}$ and the near-saddle-expansion (outer solution) immediately following, and then the near saddle expansion to the next near-separatrix solution.
Under the assumption that as $X \to \infty$, $U(X) \sim -\alpha^2 e^{-2 \beta X}/2,$ we examine the large-$X$ behavior of the first near-separatrix solution. A divergent integral for $t-t_1$ is regularized as: $$t-t_1 =\sqrt{\frac{m}{2}} \int_{X_1}^X \frac{dY}{\sqrt{-U(Y)} }\\
\approx \frac{\sqrt m}{\alpha} e^{\beta X} +{\mathcal R},
\label{eq:tt1}$$ where ${\mathcal R} = \frac{\sqrt m}{2} \int_{X_1}^\infty \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{-U(Y)}} - \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\alpha} e^{\beta Y} \right) dY - \frac{\sqrt m}{\alpha\beta} e^{\beta X_1}$. A calculation for the ensuing large-$X$-saddle (outer) approximate solution with energy $E_1<0$, assumed to reach its maximum $X=X^*$ at $t=t^*$, yields $$\cos{ \left(\sqrt {\frac{-2E_1}{m}}\beta(t^*-t)\right)} = \frac{\sqrt{-2E_1}}{\alpha} e^{\beta X}.
\label{eq:tstar}$$ Matching with yields, via a consistency condition, $t^*-t_1$. The calculation for $t_2-t^*$ is identical and eliminating $t^*$ gives $t_2-t_1$. This calculation and its conclusion are unchanged for each time interval $(t_{j-1},t_j)$ and energy $E_{j-1}$, yielding $$\label{eq:dt}
t_j-t_{j-1} = 2{\cal R} + \sqrt{\frac{m}{-2E_{j-1}}}\frac{\pi}{\beta}.$$
As $t-t_j \to \infty$ along the $j$th near-separatrix solution, $$A(t) \sim \sum_{k=1}^{j} \sigma_k \frac{2\sqrt{\epsilon}}{\omega}\operatorname{trig}{\omega(t-t_k)},
\label{eq:A_series}$$ where $\sigma_k \operatorname{trig}x = (-1)^{k+1} \cos x $ in model and $\sigma_k\operatorname{trig}x =- \sin x $ in model . This implies $$\label{eq:DeltaE_general}
E_j = E_{j-1} -\frac{ m {v_{\rm c}}^2}{2} \bigl( 1 + 2 \sum_{k=1}^{j-1} \sigma_{j-k} \cos{\omega(t_j-t_k)} \bigr),$$ with initial energy $E_0 = \frac{m v_0^2}{2}$. Equations and , applied alternately, constitute the separatrix map.
Summing equation , we find $$\label{eq:njumps}
E_n = E_0 - \frac{m {v_{\rm c}}^2}{2} \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{j=1}^n \sigma_{j-k}\cos{\omega(t_j-t_k)}.$$ If $E_n>0$, the waves escape to infinity with escape velocity $v_{\rm out} = \pm \sqrt{2 E_n/m}$ and $t_{n+1}$ undefined in . A solution is an $n$-bounce resonance if $E_n = E_0$, i.e. if $$\begin{gathered}
0 = \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{k=1}^n \sigma_{j-k}\cos{\omega(t_k-t_j)} \\
= \Re\left( \sum_{j=1}^n \sum_{k=1}^n \sigma_{j-k}e^{i\omega(t_k-t_j)} \right)
= Q_n Q_n^*,
\end{gathered}$$ i. e. $Q_n=0$ where $Q_n = \sum_{j=1}^{n} \sigma_j e^{i \omega t_j}$ .
For an exact $n$-bounce resonant solution, $E_{n-j} = E_j$. Letting $\theta_j = \omega(t_{j+1}-t_j)$, this implies $\theta_{n-j}=\theta_j$ which yields the following conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{\textbf{If}} \, n=2m: && \sum_{j=1}^m (-1)^{j+1}\sin{\bigl ( \sum_{k=j}^m \theta_k-\frac{\theta_m}{2} \bigr)} &=0;\\
&\text{\textbf{If}} \, n=2m+1: && \sum_{j=1}^m (-1)^{j+1}\cos{\bigl (\sum_{k=j}^m \theta_k\bigr) }&=0.\end{aligned}$$ For model , we find for 2- and 3-bounce resonances: $$v_n^{(2)} = \sqrt{ {v_{\rm c}}^2 - \frac{\omega^2}{4n^2}}
\text{ and }
v_{n\pm}^{(3)} = \sqrt{ {v_{\rm c}}^2 - \frac{\omega^2}{4(n\pm \frac{1}{6})^2}},
\label{eq:vn}$$ while for $n\ge 4$ these formulas must be solved numerically, in conjunction with .
In models and , ${\cal R}=o(1)$ in equation , whereas ${\cal R}$, calculated numerically, is $O(1)$ for the model studied in [@GooHab:05]. Thus must be modified to include nonzero $\cal R$.
Most initial conditions do not lead to exact $n$-bounce resonances and we approximate the dynamics by iterating the map defined by and . The equivalent to figure \[fig:2bounce\]d may be created by varying $E_{\rm in} = m v_{\rm in}^2/2$, and iterating until $E_n=E_{\rm out} = m v_{\rm out}^2/2 >0$. In addition, the graph is color-coded by $n$, the number of bounces preceding escape. In figures \[fig:sgmap\]c and \[fig:sgmap\]d we compare solutions of this map to solutions of the sine-Gordon model and find impressive agreement for $\epsilon = 0.25$. The resonant initial velocities given by equation are marked in figure \[fig:sgmap\]c. In [@GooHab:05] we show, for the map describing , clusters of $(n+1)$-bounce windows accumulate at the edges of each $n$-bounce window, repeated at diminishing scales, with an intricacy that would be difficult to achieve from ODE initial-value simulations. For a wider view of fractal behavior, figure \[fig:sgmap\]e shows, using false-color, $n$, the number of bounces or interactions before the kink escapes, as a function of both $\epsilon$ and the initial velocity. The black curve gives ${v_{\rm c}}(\epsilon)$, and the fractal structure to its left shows how the windows appear and disappear as $\epsilon$ is varied.
In summary, we have explained the intricate chaotic dynamics arising in the interactions of solitary waves by the dynamics of simple iterated separatrix maps. Our method applies to many such systems studied over the past 25 years. We have shown that the 2-bounce resonance is the simplest manifestation of this chaotic scattering process.
![(Color Online) (a): The critical velocity ${v_{\rm c}}$ for model . (b): As (a), for model . (c): $v_{\rm in}$ vs. $v_{\rm out}$ for the discrete map with the number of bounces coded by color; from $v_n^{(2)}$ are marked by $\bullet$ and $v_{n\pm}^{(3)}$ by $\blacktriangledown$. (d): As (c), for numerical integration of ODE . (e): Number of bounces as a function of both $\epsilon$ and the initial velocity.[]{data-label="fig:sgmap"}](Figure3.jpg){width="3.25in"}
*Acknowledgements:* R. G. was supported by NSF DMS-0204881 and DMS-0506495. We thank Michel Peyrard and Michael Weinstein for their reading and helpful suggestions. We dedicate this to Alwyn Scott, who provided valuable suggestions and encouragement.
[9]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, (); , ****, (); ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (; ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, (); ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In [@kobayashi-rieck-growth-rate] the authors defined the [*growth rate of the tunnel number of knots*]{}, an invariant that measures that asymptotic behavior of the tunnel number under connected sum. In this paper we calculate the growth rate of the tunnel number of m-small knots in terms of their bridge indices.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Nara Women’s University Kitauoya Nishimachi, Nara 630-8506, Japan'
- 'Department of mathematical Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701'
author:
- Tsuyoshi Kobayashi
- 'Yo’av Rieck'
date:
-
-
title: 'The growth rate of the tunnel number of m-small knots'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Let $M$ be a compact connected orientable 3-manifold and $K \subset M$ a knot. $K$ is called [*admissible*]{} if $g(E(K)) > g(M)$ and inadmissible otherwise (throughout this paper $E(\cdot)$ denotes knot exterior and $g(\cdot)$ denotes the Heegaard genus; see Section \[sec:background\] for these and other basic definitions). Let $nK$ denote the connected sum of $n$ copies of $K$. In [@kobayashi-rieck-growth-rate] the authors defined the [*growth rate*]{} of the tunnel number of $K$ to be: $${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) = \limsup_{n \to \infty} \frac{g(E(nK)) - ng(E(K)) + n-1}{n-1}$$ The main result of [@kobayashi-rieck-growth-rate] shows that if $K$ is admissible then ${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) <1$, and ${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) = 1$ otherwise. This concept was the key to constructing a counterexample to Morimoto’s Conjecture [@KobayashiRieckMC] and [@KobayashiRieckAnnouncement]. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all knots considered are assumed to be admissible (note that this is always the case for knots in the three sphere $S^3$).
In this paper we continue our investigation of the growth rate of the tunnel number. In Part 2 we give an upper bound on the growth rate of admissible knots (this is an improvement of the bound given in [@kobayashi-rieck-growth-rate]), and in Part 3 we obtain a lower bound on the growth rate of admissible m-small knots (a knot is called [*m-small*]{} if its meridian is not a boundary slope of an essential surface). With this we obtain an exact calculation of the growth rate of m-small knots. Before stating this result we define the following notation that will be used extensively throughout the paper:
\[notation:bridge indices\] Let $K \subset M$ be an admissible knot. We denote $g(E(K)) - g(M)$ by $g$ and for $i=1,\dots,g$ we denote the bridge index of $K$ with respect to Heegaard surfaces of genus $g(E(K)) - i$ by $b_i^*$. That is, $b_i^*$ is the minimal integer so that $K$ admits a $b_i^*$ bridge position with respect to some Heegaard surface of $M$ of genus $g(E(K)) - i$; we call such a decomposition a [*$(g(E(K)) - i, b^{*}_{i})$ decomposition*]{}. Note that for a knot $K \subset S^{3}$ we have that $g = g(E(K))$, $b_{g}^*(K)$ is the bridge index of $K$, and $b_{g-1}^{*}(K)$ is the torus bridge index of $K$. We note that, for any knot $K \subset M$, $b_{i}^{*}$ forms an increasing sequence of positive integers: $0 < b_{1}^{*} < \cdots < b_{g}^{*}$. To see this, fix $i \geq 1$ and let ${\Sigma}$ be a Heegaard surface that realizes the bridge index $b_i^*$, that is, ${\Sigma}$ is a genus $g(E(K)) - i$ Heegaard surface for $M$ with respect to which $K$ has bridge index $b_i^*$. By tubing ${\Sigma}$ once (see Definition \[dfn:tubing\]) we obtain a Heegaard surface of genus $g(E(K)) - (i-1)$ that realizes a $(g(E(K)) - (i-1),b_{i}^*-1)$ decomposition for $K$. This shows that $b_{i-1}^* \leq b_i^*-1$.
We are now ready to state:
\[thm:main\] Let $M$ be a compact connected orientable 3-manifold and $K \subset M$ be an admissible knot. Then ${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) \leq \min_{i=1,\dots,g}
\big\{1- \frac{i}{b_i^*}\big\}$. If, in addition, $K$ is m-small then equality holds: $${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) = \min_{i=1,\dots, g} \bigg\{1- \frac{i}{b_i^*}\bigg\}$$ Moreover, for m-small knots the limit of $\frac{g(E(nK)) - ng(E(K)) +
n-1}{n-1}$ exists.
As noted in Notation \[notation:bridge indices\], the indices $b_i^*$ form an increasing series of positive integers. It follows that $b_i^* \geq i$; moreover, $b_i^* = i$ implies that $b_1^* = 1$. Applying this to an index $i$ that realizes that the equality ${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) = 1- \frac{i}{b_i^*}$ we obtain the following simple and useful consequence of Theorem \[thm:main\] that strengthens the main result of [@kobayashi-rieck-growth-rate] in the case of m-small knots:
\[cor:bounds\] If $K \subset M$ is an admissible m-small knot, then $$0 \leq {\mbox{gr}}(K) <1$$ Moreover, ${\mbox{gr}}(K) = 0$ if and only if $b_1^* = 1$.
There are several results about the spectrum of the growth rate and we summarize them here. It is well known that there exist manifolds $M$ that admit minimal genus Heegaard splittings $\Sigma$ of genus at least 2 and of Hempel distance at least 3. We fix such $M$ and $\Sigma$ and for simplicity we assume that $M$ is closed. Let $C$ be a handlebody obtained by cutting $M$ along $\Sigma$ and $K$ a core of $C$, that is, $K$ is a core of a solid torus obtained by cutting $C$ along appropriately chosen meridian disks. Then $\Sigma$ is a Heegaard surface for $E(K)$; it follows that $K$ is inadmissible. Clearly, the Hempel distance does not go down after drilling $K$. Hence the Hempel distance of $\Sigma \subset E(K)$ is at least 3. It is a well known consequence of Thurston-Perelman’s Geometrization Theorem that manifolds that admit a Heegaard surface of genus at least 2 and Hempel distance at least 3 are hyperbolic. Thus $K \subset M$ is a hypebolic knot in a hyperbolic manifold. As mentioned above, the growth rate of inadmissible knots is 1. This proves existence of hyperbolic knots in hyperbolic manifolds with growth rate 1. It was shown in [@kobayashi-rieck-growth-rate] that torus knots and 2-bridge knots have growth rate 0. Kobayashi and Saito [@KobayashiSaito] constructed knots with growth rate $-1/2$. Theorem \[thm:main\] enables us to calculate the growth rate of the knots constructed by Morimoto, Sakuma and Yokota in [@skuma-morimoto-yokata] (perhaps with finitely many exceptions), which we denote by $K_{MSY}$. We explain this here. The knots $K_{MSY}$ enjoy the following properties:
1. $K_{MSY}$ are hyperbolic and m-small: this was announced by by Morimoto in a preprint available at [@morimoto3].
2. $g(E(K_{MSY})) = 2$: this was proved by Morimoto, Sakuma, and Yokota [@skuma-morimoto-yokata].
3. $b_1^{*}(K_{MSY}) = 2$ (in other words, the torus bridge index of $K_{MSY}$ is 2): it was shown in [@skuma-morimoto-yokata] that $b_{1}^{*} > 1$, and it is easy to observe that $b_{1}^{*} \le 2$ (see, for example, [@kobayashi-rieck-growth-rate]).
4. $b_2^{*}(K_{MSY}) \geq 4$ (in other words, the bridge index of $K_{MSY}$ is at least 4): since $b_{2}^{*}(K_{MSY}) > b_{1}^{*}(K_{MSY})$, we only need to exclude the possibility $b_{2}^{*}(K_{MSY}) = 3$. Assume for a contradiction that $b_{2}^{*}(K_{MSY}) = 3$. Then $K_{MSY}$ is a tunnel number 1, 3-bridge knot. Kim [@kim] proved that every tunnel number 1, 3-bridge knot has torus bridge index 1, contradicting the previous point. Recently R Bowman, S Taylor and A Zupan [@BowmanTaylorZupan] showed that $ b_{2}^{*}(K_{MSY}) = 7$ for all but finitely many of the knots $K_{MSY}$ (see Remak \[rmk:RecentWork\]).
Using these facts, Theorem \[thm:main\] implies that ${\mbox{gr}}_t(K_{MSY}) = 1/2$. This is the first example of knots with growth rate in the open interval $(0,1)$ and provides partial answer to questions posed in [@kobayashi-rieck-growth-rate]. In summary we have the following; we emphasize that only (4) is new:
The following holds:
1. There exist hyperbolic knots in hyperbolic manifolds with growth rate 1.
2. There exist hyperbolic knots in $S^{3}$ with growth rate 0.
3. There exist knots in $S^{3}$ with growth rate -1/2.
4. There exist hyperbolic knots in $S^{3}$ with growth rate 1/2.
In [@BakerKobayashiRieck] K Baker and the authors use Theorem \[thm:main\] to show that for any $\epsilon > 0$ there exists a hyperbolic knot $K \subset S^3$ with $1 - \epsilon < {\mbox{gr}}_t(K) < 1$. This implies, in particular, that the spectrum of the growth rate is infinite.
\[rmk:RecentWork\] We take this opportunity to mention a few recent results about $b_i^*$ that appeared since we first started writing this paper; for precise statements see references.
1. In [@IchiharaSaito], given positive integers $g_M <i \leq g_K$ and $n$, K Ichihara and T Saito constructed manifolds $M$ and knots $K \subset M$ so that $g(M) = g_M$, $g(E(K)) = g_K$, and $b_i^*(K) - b_{i-1}^*(K) \geq 2$ (see [@IchiharaSaito Corolloar 2]; the notation there is different from ours); their arguments can easily be applied to construct knots such that $b_i^*(K) - b_{i-1}^*(K) \geq n$ (informally, we may phrase this as an a[*rbitrarily large gap*]{}).
2. In [@Zupan] Zupan studies the bridge indices of iterated torus knots showing, in particular, that there exist iterated torus knots realizing arbitrarily large gaps between $b_{i-1}^*$ and $b_i^*$ for any $i$ in the range where both indices are defined. An easy argument shows that iterated torus knots are m-small; every knot $K$ considered by Zupan fulfils $b_1^*(K) = 1$, and so has ${\mbox{gr}}(K) = 0$ by Corollary \[cor:bounds\].
3. In [@BowmanTaylorZupan] Bowman, Taylor, and Zupan calculate the bridge indices of generic iterated torus knots (see [@BowmanTaylorZupan] for definitions). They give conditions on the parameters that imply that $b_g^* = p$, where here the knot considered is obtained by twisting the torus knot $T_{p,q}$, $p < q$. (We note that for twisted torus knot $g=2$). Applying this to $K_{MSY}$ we see that all but finitely many of these knots have $b_2^*=7$, improving on our estimate $b_2^* \geq 4$. We remark that in [@BowmanTaylorZupan] linear lower bound on $b_1^*$ was also obtained, showing that many twisted torus knots have a gap between $b_1^*$ and $b_2^*$; since $b_2^*$ can be made arbitrarily large, this can be seen as a second gap.
Before describing the structure and contents of this paper in more detail we introduce some necessary concepts. Let ${\Sigma}$ be a Heegaard surface of a compact 3-manifold $M$, and $A$ an essential annulus properly embedded in $M$. The annulus $A$ is called a [*Haken annulus for ${\Sigma}$*]{} (Definition \[dfn:haken annulus\]) if it intersects ${\Sigma}$ in a single simple closed curve that is essential in $A$. For an integer $c \geq 0$, the manifold obtained by drilling $c$ curves simultaneously parallel to meridians of $K$ out of $E(K)$ is denoted by $E(K)^{(c)}$ (note that $E(K)^{(0)} = E(K)$). The $c$ tori ${\partial}E(K)^{(c)} \setminus {\partial}E(K)$ are denoted by $T_1,\dots,T_c$. There are $c$ annuli properly embedded disjointly in $E(K)^{(c)}$, denoted by $A_1,\dots,A_c$, so that one component of ${\partial}A_i$ is a meridian on ${\partial}E(K)$ and the other is a longitude of $T_i$ ($i=1,\dots,c$). (We note that in general these annuli are not uniquely determined up to isotopy.) Annuli with these properties are called [*a complete system of Hopf annuli*]{} (Definition \[dfn:hopf-annuli\]). Let ${\Sigma}$ be a Heegaard surface for $E(K)^{(c)}$. The Hopf annuli $A_1,\dots,A_c$ are called [*a complete system of Hopf–Haken Annuli for ${\Sigma}$*]{} (Definition \[dfn:hopf-haken-annuli\]) if ${\Sigma}\cap A_i$ is a single simple closed curve that is essential in $A_i$ ($i=1,\dots, c$).
Part 2 starts with Section \[sec:haken annuli-definitions\] where we describe basic behavior of Haken annuli under amalgamation. In Section \[sec:tfae\] we consider $(g', b)$ decomposition of $K$ (that is, $b$-bridge decomposition of $K$ with respect to a genus $g'$ Heegaard surface) and relate it to existence of Hopf Haken Annuli. Specifically, we prove that $K$ admits a $(g(E(K))-c,c)$ decomposition if and only if $E(K)^{(c)}$ admits a complete system of Hopf Haken Annuli for some Heegaard surface of genus $g(E(K))$ (Theorem \[thm:tfae\]).
In Section \[sec:sft\] we prove that given knots $K_1,\dots,K_n$ and integers $c_1,\dots,c_n \geq 0$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n c_i = n-1$, $E(K_1\#\cdots\#K_n)$ admits a system of $n-1$ essential tori $\mathcal{T}$ (called [*swallow follow tori*]{}) so that the components of $E(K_1\#\cdots\#K_n)$ cut open along $\mathcal{T}$ are homeomorphic to $E(K_1)^{(c_1)},\dots,E(K_n)^{(c_n)}$. By amalgamating Heegaard surfaces of $E(K_1)^{(c_1)},\dots,E(K_n)^{(c_n)}$ along the tori of $\mathcal{T}$ we obtain a Heegaard surface for $E(K_1\#\cdots\#K_n)$; this implies the following special case of Corollary \[cor:sft\]: $$g(E(K_1\#\cdots\#K_n)) \leq \sum_{i=1}^{n} g(E(K_i)^{(c_i)}) - (n-1)$$
In the final section of Part 2, Section \[sec:upper-bound\], we combine these facts to prove that for each $i$ we have: $${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) \leq 1- i/b_i^*$$ Thus we obtain the upper bound stated in Theorem \[thm:main\].
To some degree, Part 3 complements Part 2. We begin with Section \[sec:strongHH\] that complements Sections \[sec:haken annuli-definitions\] and \[sec:tfae\]. As mentioned above, in Sections \[sec:haken annuli-definitions\] and \[sec:tfae\] we prove that $K$ admits a $(g(E(K))-c,c)$ decomposition if and only if $E(K)^{(c)}$ admits a complete system of Hopf Haken Annuli for some Heegaard surface of genus $g(E(K))$. We are now ready to state the Strong Hopf Haken Annulus Theorem, which generalise the Hopf Haken Annulus Theorem (Theorem 6.3 of [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small]) is one of the highlights of this work. The proof is given in Section \[sec:strongHH\]. For the definition of a Heegaard splitting of $(N;F_1,F_2)$ (where $N$ is a manifold and $F_1$, $F_2$ are partitions of some of the components of $\partial N$), see Section \[sec:background\] .
\[thm:strongHH\] For $i=1,\dots,n$, let $M_i$ be a compact connected orinetable 3-manifold and $K_i \subset M_i$ a knot. Suppose $E(K_i) \not\cong T^{2} \times I$, $E(K_i)$ is irreducible, and ${\partial}N(K_i)$ is incompressible in $E(K_i)$. Let $F_1$, $F_2$ be a partition of some of the components of ${\partial}M$, where $M = \#_{i=1}^{n} M_i$. Let $c \geq 0$ be an integer. Then one of the following holds:
1. There exist a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $(E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_{i})^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)$ admitting a complete system of Hopf–Haken annuli.
2. For some $1 \leq i \leq n$, $E(K_i)$ admits an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_{i})^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)]$.
One curious consequence of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] (which is proved in Section \[sec:strongHH\]) is the following, where $b_g^*$ is as in Notation \[notation:bridge indices\]:
\[cor:GenusOfXc\] Let $K \subset S^{3}$ be a connected sum of m-small knots. Then for $c \ge b_{g}^{*}$, $$g(E(K)^{(c)}) = c$$
Section \[sec:minimal-genus-sft\] complements Section \[sec:sft\]. Recall that in Section \[sec:sft\] we used swallow follow tori to show that given [*any*]{} collection of integers $c_1,\dots,c_n \geq 0$ whose sum is $n-1$ we have that $g(E(K_1\#\cdots\#K_n)) \leq \sum_{i=1}^{n} g(E(K_i)^{(c_i)}) - (n-1)$. In Section \[sec:minimal-genus-sft\] we prove that if $K_i$ is m-small for each $i$, then any Heegaard splitting for $E(K_1\#\cdots\#K_n)$ admits an iterated weak reduction to $n-1$ swallow follow tori. This implies that any minimal genus Heegaard splitting admits an iterated weak reduction to [*some*]{} $n-1$ swallow follow tori that decompose $E(K_1\#\cdots\# K_n)$ as $E(K_1)^{(c_1)},\dots,E(K_n)^{(c_n)}$, giving [*some*]{} integers $c_1,\dots,c_n \geq 0$ whose sum is $n-1$. The integers $c_1,\dots,c_n$ are very special (see Example \[ex:sft2\]).
In Section \[sec:growth-rate\], which complements Section \[sec:upper-bound\], we combine these results to give a lower bound on the growth rate of the tunnel number of m-small knots. Given $K$, we “expect” that $g(E(K)^{(c)}) = g(E(K)) + c$; we define the function ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ that measures to what extent $g(E(K)^{(c)})$ fails to behave “as expected”: $${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) = g(E(K)) + c - g(E(K)^{(c)})$$ For any knot $K$ and any integer $c \geq 0$, we show that ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ fulfills: $${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(0)=0 \mbox{ and } {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c)\le{{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c+1)\le{{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c)+1$$
We study ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ for m-small knots, calculating it exactly in terms of the bridge indices of $K$ (Proposition \[pro:fk\]). In particular, for m-small knots ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ is bounded. In fact, for large enough $c$ Proposition \[pro:fk\] implies: $${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) = g(E(K)) - g(M)$$ We do not know much about the behavior of ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ in general; for example, we do not know if there exists a knot for which ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ is unbounded (see Question \[que:bounded\]).
We express the growth rate of tunnel number of $m$-small knots in terms of ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ by showing (Corollary \[cor:sft-strong4\]) that: $$\frac{g(E(nK)) - ng(E(K)) + n-1}{n-1} = 1 - \frac{\max\{\sum_{i=1}^n
{{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)\}}{n-1}$$ where the maximum is taken over all collections of integers $c_1,\dots,c_n \geq 0$ whose sum is $n-1$. The growth rate is then the limit superior of this sequence. We combine this interpretation of the growth rate with the calculation of ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ to obtain the exact calculation of the growth rate of m-small knots stated in Theorem \[thm:main\].
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We thank Mark Arnold and Jennifer Schultens for helpful correspondence.
Preliminaries {#sec:background}
=============
By [*manifold*]{} we mean a smooth 3 dimensional manifold. All manifolds considered are assumed to be connected orientable and compact. We assume the reader is familiar with the basic terms of 3-manifold topology (see for example [@hempel] or [@jaco]). Thus we assume the reader is familiar with terms such as compression, boundary compression, boundary parallel, and essential surface.
We use the notation $\partial$, $\mbox{cl}$, and $\mbox{int}$ denote boundary, closure, and interior, respectively. For a submanifold $H$ of a manifold $M$, $N(H,M)$ denotes a closed regular neighborhood of $H$ in $M$. When $M$ is understood from context we often abbreviate $N(H,M)$ to $N(H)$.
By a [*knot*]{} $K$ in a 3-manifold $M$ we mean a smooth embedding of $S^1$ into $M$, taken up to ambient isotopy. The [*exterior*]{} of $K$, $E(K)$, is $\mbox{cl}(M \setminus N(K))$. The slope on the torus $\partial E(K) \setminus \partial M = \partial N(K)$ that bounds a disk in $N(K)$ is called the [*meridian*]{} of $K$. A knot $K$ is called [*m-small*]{} if there is no essential meridional surface in $E(K)$, that is, there is no essential surface $S \subset E(K)$ with non empty boundary so that ${\partial}S$ consists of meridians of $K$.
We assume the reader is familiar with the basic terms regarding Heegaard splittings, such as handlebody, compression body, meridian disk, etc. Recall that a compression body $C$ is a connected 3-manifold obtained from $F \times [0,1]$ (where here $F$ is a possibly empty disjoint union of closed surfaces) and a (possibly empty) collection of 3-balls by attaching 1-handles to $F \times \{1\}$ and the boundary of the balls. Following standard conventions, we refer to $F \times \{0\}$ as ${\partial}_- C$ and $\partial C \setminus {\partial}_{-} C$ as ${\partial}_+ C$. We use the notation $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ for the Heegaard splitting given by the compression bodies $C_1$ and $C_2$. The basic concepts of reductions of a Heegaard splitting are summarized here:
\[dfn:reducibility of heegaard splittings\]
1. A Heegaard splitting $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ is called *stabilized *if there exist meridian disks $D_1 \subset
C_1$ and $D_2 \subset C_2$ such that ${\partial}D_1$ intersects ${\partial}D_2$ transversely (as submanifolds of ${\Sigma}$) in one point. Otherwise, the Heegaard splitting is called *non-stabilized. *****
2. A Heegaard splitting $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ is called *reducible *if there exist meridian disks $D_1 \subset
C_1$ and $D_2 \subset C_2$ such that ${\partial}D_1 = {\partial}D_2$. Otherwise, the Heegaard splitting is called *irreducible. *****
3. A Heegaard splitting $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ is called *weakly reducible *if there exist meridian disks $D_1 \subset
C_1$ and $D_2 \subset C_2$ such that ${\partial}D_1 \cap {\partial}D_2 =
\emptyset$. Otherwise the splitting is called *strongly irreducible. *****
4. A Heegaard splitting $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ is called *trivial *if $C_1$ or $C_2$ is a trivial compression body, that is, a compression body with no 1-handles. Otherwise the Heegaard splitting is called *non-trivial.*****
Let $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ be a weakly reducible Heegaard splitting of a manifold $M$. Let $\Delta_i \subset C_i$ be a non empty set of disjoint meridian disks so that $\Delta_1 \cap \Delta_2 = \emptyset$. By [*waek reduction*]{} along $\Delta_1 \cup \Delta_2$ we mean the (possibly disconnected) surface obtained by first compressing ${\Sigma}$ along $\Delta_1 \cup \Delta_2$, and then removing any component that is contained in $C_1$ or $C_2$. Casson and Gordon [@casson-gordon] showed that if an irreducible Heegaard splitting is weakly reducible, then an appropriately chosen weak reduction yields a (possibly disconnected) essential surface, say $F$.
With $F$ as in the previous paragraph, let $M_1,\dots,M_k$ be the components of $M$ cut open along $F$. It is well known that ${\Sigma}$ induces a Heegaard surface on each $M_i$, say ${\Sigma}_i$. We say that ${\Sigma}$ is obtained by [*amalgamating*]{} ${\Sigma}_1,\dots,{\Sigma}_k$. This is a special case of amalgamation; the general definition will be given below as the converse of iterated weak reduction. The genus after amalgamation is given in the following lemma; see Remark 2.7 of [@schultens-FXS1] for the case $m=1$ (we leave the proof of the general case to the reader):
\[lem:genus after amalgamation\] Let $C_1 \cup_{{\Sigma}} C_2$ be a weakly reducible Heegaard splitting and suppose that after weak reduction we obtain $F$ (as above). Suppose that $M$ cut open along $F$ consists of two components, and denote the induced Heegaard splittings by $C_1^{(1)} \cup_{{\Sigma}_1} C_2^{(1)}$ and $C_1^{(2)} \cup_{{\Sigma}_2} C_2^{(2)}$. Let $F_1,\dots,F_m$ be the components of $F$. Then $$g({\Sigma}) = g({\Sigma}_1) + g({\Sigma}_2) - \sum_{i=1}^m g(F_i) + (m-1)$$ In particular, if $F$ is connected then $g({\Sigma}) = g({\Sigma}_1) + g({\Sigma}_2) - g(F)$.
It is distinctly possible that not all the Heegaard splittings induced by weak reduction are strongly irreducible. When that happens we may weakly reduce some (possibly all) of the induced Heegaard splitting, and repeat this process. We refer to this as [*repeated*]{} or [*iterated*]{} weak reduction. The converse is called amalgamation. Scharlemann and Thompson [@scharl-abby] proved that any Heegaard splitting admits a repeated weak reduction so that the induced Heegaard splittings are all strongly irreducible; we refer to this as [*untelescoping*]{}.
Let $N$ be a manifold and $\{F_{1},F_{2}\}$ a partition of some components of ${\partial}N$. Note that we do [*not*]{} require every component of $\partial N$ to be in $F_1$ or $F_2$. We say that $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ is a Heegaard splitting of $(N;F_1,F_2)$ if $F_1 \subset {\partial}_- C_1$ and $F_2 \subset {\partial}_- C_2$. We extend the terminology of Heegaard splittings to this context, so, for example, $g(N;F_1,F_2)$ is the genus of a minimal genus Heegaard splitting of $(N;F_1,F_2)$.
The following proposition allows us, in some cases, to consider weak reduction instead of iterated weak reduction. The proof is simple and left to the reader.
\[pro:untel to a conn sep surfce implies weak reduction\] Let $F$ be a component of the surface obtained by repeated weak reduction of $C_1 \cup_{{\Sigma}_1} C_2$. If $F$ is separating, then some weak reduction of $C_1 \cup_{{\Sigma}_1} C_2$ yields exactly $F$.
Relative Heegaard Surfaces {#sec*RelativeSplittings}
==========================
In this section we study relative Heegaard surfaces. The results of this section will be used in Section \[sec:strongHH\] and the reader may postpone reading it until that section. Let $b \geq 1$ be an integer and $T$ be a torus. For $1 \leq i \leq 2b$, let $A_{i} \subset T$ be an annulus. We say that $\{A_1,\dots,A_{2b}\}$ gives a [*decomposition of $T$ into annuli*]{} (or simply a [*decomposition of $T$*]{}) if the following two conditions hold:
1. $\cup_{i=1}^{2b} A_i = T$, and
2. 1. If $b >1$, then $A_i \cap A_j = \emptyset$ whenever $i \ne j$ are non consecutive integers (modulo $2b$), and $A_i \cap A_{i+1} = \partial A_{i} \cap \partial A_{i+1}$ is a single simple closed curve.
2. If $b = 1$, then $A_1 \cap A_2 = \partial A_1 = \partial A_2$.
We begin by defining a relative Heegaard surface; note that the definition can be made more general by considering an arbitrary collection of boundary components (below we only consider a single torus) and a decomposition into arbitrary subsurfaces (below we only consider annuli); however the definition below suffices for our purposes:
\[def:RalitiveSplitting\] Let $M$ be a compact connected orientable 3-manifold and $T$ a torus component of $\partial M$. Let $\{A_1,\dots,A_{2b}\}$ be a decomposition of $T$ into annuli. A compact surface $S \subset M$ is called a *Heegaard surface for $M$ relative to $\{A_1,\dots,A_{2b}\}$ *(or simply a *relative Heegaard surface, *when no confusion may arise) if the following conditions hold:****
1. $\partial S = \cup_{i=1}^{2b} \partial A_i$,
2. $M$ cut open along $S$ consists of two components (say $C_1$ and $C_2$),
3. For $i=1,2$, $C_{i}$ admits a set of compressing disks $\Delta_{i}$ with $\partial \Delta_i \subset S$, so that $C_{i}$ compressed along $\Delta_{i}$ consists of:
1. exactly $b$ solid tori, each containing exactly one $A_{i}$ as a longitudinal annulus;
2. a (possibly empty) collection of collar neighborhoods of components of $\partial M \setminus T$;
3. a (possibly empty) collection of balls.
The genus of a minimal genus relative Heegaard surface is called the *relative genus.***
For an integer $c \geq 1$, let $Q^{(c)}$ be (annulus with $c$ holes) $\times S^{1}$. (To avoid confusion we remark that $Q^{(c)}$ can be described as (sphere with $c+2$ holes) $\times S^{1}$, but in the context of this paper an annulus is more natural.) Note that $Q^{(c)}$ admits a unique Seifert fiberation. Our goal is to calculate the genus of $Q^{(c)}$ relative to a given decomposition of a component of $\partial Q^{(c)}$ into annuli. We say that slopes $\beta$ and $\gamma$ of a torus are *complimentary *if they are represented by simple closed curves that intersect each other transversely once.**
\[prop:RelativeGenus\] Let $\{A_1,\dots,A_{2b}\}$ be a decomposition of a component of $\partial Q^{(c)}$ (say $T$) into annuli, and denote that the slope defined by these annuli by $\beta$. Denote the slope defined by the Seifert fibers on $T$ by $\gamma$. Then we have:
- When $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are complimentary slopes, the genus of $Q^{(c)}$ relative to $\{A_1,\dots,A_{2b}\}$ is $c$.
- When $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are not complimentary slopes, the genus of $Q^{(c)}$ relative to $\{A_1,\dots,A_{2b}\}$ is $c+1$.
We immediately obtain:
\[cor:RelHSforQc\] The surfaces in Figure \[fig:RelHS\] are minimal genus Heegaard splitting for $Q^{(c)}$ relative to $\{A_{1},\dots,A_{2b}\}$; the left figure is complimentary slopes and the right figure is non-complimentary slopes.
![Relative Heegaard surfaces[]{data-label="fig:RelHS"}](Figure1){height="1.8in"}
We postpone the proof of Proposition \[prop:RelativeGenus\] to the end of this section, as it will be an application of the next proposition which is of independent interest. We fix the following notation: glue $Q^{(b)}$ to $Q^{(c)}$ along a single boundary component and denote the slope of the Seifert fiber of $Q^{(b)}$ on the torus $Q^{(b)} \cap Q^{(c)}$ by $\beta$ and the slope of the Seifert fiber of $Q^{(c)}$ by $\gamma$. The manifold obtained is denoted .
\[pro:GenusOfQbc\] The genus of fulfils:
- If $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are complimentary slopes, then $g\big(\qbc\big) = b+c$.
- If $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are not complimentary slopes, then $g\big(\qbc\big) = b+c+1$.
We immediately obtain:
\[cor:HSforQbc\] The surfaces in Figure \[fig:HSforQbc\] are minimal genus Heegaard splitting for $\qbc$.
![Heegaard surfaces for []{data-label="fig:HSforQbc"}](Figure2){height="1.6in"}
A surface in a Seifert fibered space is called [*vertical*]{} if it is everywhere tangent to the fibers and [*horizontal*]{} if it is everywhere transverse to the fibers. It is well known that given an essential surface in a Seifert fibered space we may assume it is vertical or horizontal; see for example, [@jaco].
The surfaces in Figure \[fig:HSforQbc\] are Heegaard surfaces for , showing the following, which we record here for future reference:
\[rmk:graph\] When $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are complimentary, $g\big(\qbc\big) \leq b+c$. When $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are not complimentary, $g\big(\qbc\big) \leq b+c+1$.
Hence we only need to show that when $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are complimentary, $g\big(\qbc\big) \geq b+c$ and when $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are not complimentary, $g\big(\qbc\big) \geq b+c+1$.
If $\beta = \gamma$ then is a $b+c$ times punctured annulus cross $S^1$ and the result was proved by Schultens in [@schultens-FXS1]. For the remainder of the proof we assume that $\beta \ne \gamma$. Then is a graph manifold whose underlying graph consists of two vertices connected by a single edge. We apply Theorem 1.1 of Schultens [@schultens-graph] and refer the reader to that paper for notation and details. To conform to its noation, following [@schultens-graph], we decompose along two parallel copies of $Q^{(b)} \cap Q^{(c)}$ as $\qbc = Q_{b} \cup M_{e} \cup Q_{c}$. $Q_{b}$ and $Q_{c}$ are called the [*vertex manifolds*]{} and $M_{e}$ is the [*edge manifold*]{}. Note that $Q_{b} \cong Q^{(b)}$, $M_{e} \cong T^{2} \times [0,1]$, and $Q_{c} \cong Q^{(c)}$.
Let $S$ be a minimal genus Heegaard splitting for . In the following claim we analyze completely what happens when $g(S) = 2$ or when $S$ is strongly irreducible:
\[clm:SisSIinQbc\] The following three conditions are equivalent:
1. $S$ is strongly irreducible.
2. The following conditions hold:
- $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are complimentary.
- $g(S) = 2$.
- $b=c=1$.
3. $g(S) = 2$.
\(1) implies (2). Suppose that $S$ is strongly irreducible. By [@schultens-graph] we may assume that $S$ is standard. In particular, $S \cap Q_b$ (respectively $S \cap Q_c$) is either horizontal, pseudohorizontal, vertical, or pseudovertical. However, the first two cases are impossible as they require $S$ to meet every boundary component of $Q_b$ (respectively $Q_c$). Hence $S \cap Q_b$ and $S \cap Q_c$ consist of vertical or pseudovertical components. In particular, the intersection of $S$ with the torus $Q_b \cap M_e$ (respectively $Q_c \cap M_e$) is a Seifert fiber of $Q_b$ (respectively $Q_c$).
Assume first that $S \cap M_e$ is as in Case (1) of [@schultens-graph Theorem 1.1], that is, $S \cap M_e$ is obtained from a collection incompressible annuli, say $\mathcal{A}$, by tubing along at most one boundary parallel arc (in [@schultens-graph], tubings are referred to as [*1-surgary*]{}). Suppose that $\mathcal{A}$ consists of boundary parallel annuli. Since the tubing is performed, if at all, along a boundary parallel arc, we see that no component of $S \cap M_e$ connects the components of $\partial M_e$. This contradicts the fact that $S$ is connected and must meet both $Q_b$ and $Q_c$. Hence some component of $\mathcal{A}$ meets both components of $\partial M_e$, showing that $\beta = \gamma$, contradicting our assumption.
Hence Case (2) of [@schultens-graph Theorem 1.1] holds, and $S \cap M_e$ consists of a single component that is obtained by tubing together two boundary parallel annuli, one at each boundary component of $M_e$; moreover, [@schultens-graph Theorem 1.1] shows that these annuli define complementary slopes. See the left side of Figure \[fig:HSinMe\]. As argued above, the slopes defined by these annuli are $\beta$ and $\gamma$. This gives the first condition of (2).
![Heegaard surface in $M_{e}$[]{data-label="fig:HSinMe"}](Figure3){height="1.5in"}
On the right side of Figure \[fig:HSinMe\] we see two surfaces. One is $S \cap M_e$, and in its center we marked the boundary of the obvious compressing disk. It is easy to see that the other surfce is isotopic to $S \cap M_e$. On it we marked the boundary of four disks, each shaped like $90^o$ sector. After gluing of opposite sides of the cube to obtained $M_e$, these sectors form a compressing disk on the opposite side of the obvious disk. This demonstrates that $S \cap M_e$ compresses into both sides. If $S \cap Q_b$ is pseudovertical then it compresses, and together with one of the compressing disks for $S \cap M_e$ we obtain a weak reduction, contradicting our assumption. Hence $S \cap Q_b$ consists of annuli; similarly, $S \cap Q_c$ consists of annuli. Hence $\chi(S) = \chi(S \cap M_{e}) = -2$. The second condition of (2) follows.
Since $g(S) = 2$, $\partial \qbc$ consists of at most four tori. On the other hand, $\partial \qbc$ consists of $b+c+2$ tori, for $b,c \geq 1$. Hence $b=c=1$, fulfilling the third and final condition of (2). This completes the proof that (1) implies (2).
It is trivial that (2) implies (3).
To see that (3) implies (1), assume that $S$ weakly reduces. Since $S$ is a minimal genus Heegaard surface and $g(S) = 2$, an appropriate weak reduction yields an essential sphere, contradicting the fact that is irreducible.
This completes the proof of Claim \[clm:SisSIinQbc\].
If $S$ is strongly irreducible, Proposition \[pro:GenusOfQbc\] follows from Claim \[clm:SisSIinQbc\]. For the reminder of the proof we assume as we may that $S$ weakly reduces to a (possibly disconnected) essential surface, say $F$. By the construction of we see that every component of $F$ separates; hence by Proposition \[pro:untel to a conn sep surfce implies weak reduction\] we may assume that $F$ is connected. Recall that we assumed that $\beta \neq \gamma$. This clearly implies that we may suppose that (after isotopy if necessary) $F$ is disjoint from the torus $Q^{(b)} \cap Q^{(c)}$; without loss of generality we assume that $F \subset Q^{(b)}$.
We induct on $b+c$.
[**Base case: $b+c = 2$.**]{} Note that in the base case $b = c = 1$. It is easy to see that the only connected essential surface in $Q^{(1,1)}_{\beta,\gamma}$ is the torus $Q^{(b)} \cap Q^{(c)}$. Hence $F$ is isotopic to this surface and the weak reduction induces Heegaard splittings ${\Sigma}_b$ and ${\Sigma}_c$ on $Q^{(b)}$ and $Q^{(c)}$, respectively; note that both $Q^{(b)}$ and $Q^{(c)}$ are homeomorphic to $Q^{(1)}$. By Schultens [@schultens-FXS1], $g(Q^{(1)}) = 2$. by Lemma \[lem:genus after amalgamation\] amalgamation gives: $$g(Q^{(1,1)}_{\beta,\gamma}) = g(S) = g({\Sigma}_b) + g({\Sigma}_c) - g(F)
\ge g(Q^{(1)}) + g(Q^{(1)}) - g(F) = 2+2-1=3$$ By Remark \[rmk:graph\], if $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are complimentary slopes then $g(Q^{(1,1)}_{\beta,\gamma}) \leq 2$; hence $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are not complimentary slopes and together with Remark \[rmk:graph\] the proposition follows in this case.
[**Inductive case: $b+c > 2$.**]{} Assume, by induction, that the proposition holds for any integers $b', c' > 0$, with $b' + c' < b+c$.
[**Case One: $F$ is isotopic to $Q^{(b)} \cap Q^{(c)}$.** ]{} Then weak reduction induces Heegaard splittings on $Q^{(b)}$ and $Q^{(c)}$. Similar to the argument above (using that $g(Q^{(b)}) = b+1$ and $g(Q^{(c)}) = c+1$ by [@schultens-FXS1]) we have, $$g(\qbc) \ge g(Q^{(b)}) + g(Q^{(c)}) - g(F) = b+c+1$$ As in the base case it follows from Remark \[rmk:graph\] that $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are not complimentary slopes. Together with Remark \[rmk:graph\], the proposition follows in this case.
[**Case Two: $F$ is not isotopic to $Q^{(b)} \cap Q^{(c)}$.** ]{} Then $F$ is essential in $Q^{(b)}$ and is therefore isotopic to a vertical or horizontal surface. Since $F$ is closed and $\partial Q^{(b)} \neq \emptyset$, we have that $F$ cannot be horizontal. We conclude that $F$ is a vertical torus and decomposes $Q^{(b)}$ as $Q^{(b')}$ (for some $b' < b$) and a disk with $b - b' +1$ holes cross $S^1$. By induction, the genus of $Q^{(b',c)}_{\beta,\gamma}$ fulfills the conclusion of Proposition \[pro:GenusOfQbc\]; by [@schultens-FXS1], the genus of disk with $b-b'+1$ holes cross $S^1$ is $b-b'+1$; similar to the argument above we get $$g(\qbc) \ge g(Q^{(b',c)}_{\beta,\gamma}) + (b-b'+1) - 1 = g(Q^{(b',c)}_{\beta,\gamma}) + b-b'$$
Together with Remark \[rmk:graph\], this completes the proof of Proposition \[pro:GenusOfQbc\].
We are now ready to prove Proposition \[prop:RelativeGenus\]:
The surfaces in Figure \[fig:RelHS\] are relative Heegaard surfaces realizing the values given in Proposition \[prop:RelativeGenus\]. To complete the proof we only need to show that these surfaces realize the minimal relative genus.
Let $\Sigma$ be a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $Q^{(c)}$ relative to $\{A_{1},\dots,A_{2b}\}$. By tubing $\partial \Sigma$ along the annuli $A_{2i}$ and drilling a curve parallel to the core of $A_{2i}$ ($i=1,\dots,b$; recall Figure \[fig:RelHS\]) we obtain a Heegaard surface for of genus $g(S) + b$. Thus $g({\Sigma}) \geq g(\qbc) - b$. By Proposition \[pro:GenusOfQbc\], when $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are complimentary $g(\qbc) = b+c$ and when $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are not complimentary $g(\qbc) = b+c+1$. Thus we see that $g({\Sigma}) \geq c$ (when the $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are complimentary) and $g({\Sigma}) \geq c+1$ (otherwise).
This completes the proof of Proposition \[prop:RelativeGenus\].
\[part:upper-bound\]
Haken Annuli {#sec:haken annuli-definitions}
============
A primary tool in our study are Haken annuli. Haken annuli were first defined in [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small], where only a single annulus was considered. We generalize the definition to a collection of annuli below. Note the similarity between a Haken annulus and a Haken sphere or Haken disk (by a [*Haken sphere*]{} we mean a sphere that meets a Heegaard surface in a single [simple closed curve]{} that is essential in the Heegaard surface, see [@haken] or [@jaco Chapter 2], and by a [*Haken disk*]{} we mean a disk that meets a Heegaard surface in a single [simple closed curve]{} that is essential in the Heegaard surface [@casson-gordon]).
\[dfn:haken annulus\]
Let $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ be a Heegaard splitting of a manifold $M$. A collection of essential annuli $\mathcal{A} \subset M$ are called *Haken annuli *for $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ (or simply *Haken annuli, *when no confusion may arise) if for every annulus $A \in \mathcal{A}$ we have that $A \cap {\Sigma}$ consists of a single [simple closed curve]{} that is essential in $A$.****
\[rmk:HakenAannuliForDC\] For an integer $n \ge 2$, let $D(n)$ be a (disk with $n$ holes)$\times S^1$ and denote the components of ${\partial}D(n)$ by $T_0, T_1, \dots , T_n$. By the construction of minimal genus Heegaard splittings given in the proof of Proposition 2.14 of [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small], we see that for each positive integers $p$ with $1 \le p \le n$ there is a genus $n$ Heegaard surface of $(D(n); \cup_{i=0}^{p-1} T_i, \cup_{i=p}^n T_i)$ which admits a collection $\{A_1,\dots,A_p\}$ of Haken annuli connecting $T_i$ to $T_n$ ($i=0,\dots,p-1$). By Schultens [@schultens-FXS1], we see that this is a minimal genus Heegaard splitting of $D(n)$. See Figure \[fig:HSofDn\].
![Heegaard surface in $D(n)$[]{data-label="fig:HSofDn"}](Figure4){height="1.5in"}
In Propositions 3.5 and 3.6 of [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small] we studied the behavior of Haken annuli under amalgamation. We generalise these propositions as Proposition \[pro:haken annulus after amalgamation, general setting\] below. We first explain the construction that is used in Proposition \[pro:haken annulus after amalgamation, general setting\]. Let $C_{1} \cup_{{\Sigma}} C_{2}$ be a Heegaard splitting for a manifold $M$ that weakly reduces to a (possibly disconnected) essential surface $F$. Suppose that $M$ cut open along $F$ consists of two components, say $M^{(i)}$ $(i=1,2)$. We denote the image of $F$ in $M^{(i)}$ by $F^{(i)}$ and the Heegaard splitting induced on $M^{(i)}$ by $C_{1}^{(i)} \cup_{{\Sigma}^{(i)}} C_{2}^{(i)}$. Suppose that there are Haken annuli for $C_1^{(i)} \cup_{{\Sigma}^{(i)}} C_2^{(i)}$, say $\mathcal{A}^{(i)}$, satisfying the following two conditions:
- there exists a unique component of $\mathcal{A}^{(1)}$, say $A^{(1)}$, which intersects $F^{(1)}$ in a single simple closed curve, other components are disjoint from $F^{(1)}$, and
- each component of $\mathcal{A}^{(2)}$ intersects $F^{(2)}$ in a single simple closed curve isotopic in $F$ to $A^{(1)} \cap F^{(1)}$.
Then let $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(1)}$ be a collection of mutually disjoint annuli obtained from $\mathcal{A}^{(1)}$ by substituting $A^{(1)}$ with $\vert \mathcal{A}^{(2)} \vert$ parallel copies of $A^{(1)}$ whose boundaries are identified with $\mathcal{A}^{(2)} \cap F^{(2)}$. Finally let $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}} =
\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}^{(1)} \cup \mathcal{A}^{(2)}$. Note that $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}$ is a system of mutually disjoint annuli properly embedded in $M$. It is easy to adopt the proofs of Propositions 3.5 and 3.6 of [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small] and obtain:
\[pro:haken annulus after amalgamation, general setting\] Let $M$, $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$, and $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}$ be as above. Then the components of $\widetilde{\mathcal{A}}$ form Haken annuli for $C_1\cup_{\Sigma}C_2$.
Various decompositions of knot exteriors {#sec:tfae}
========================================
In this section we compare two structures: Hopf-Haken annuli and $(h, b)$ decompositions. After defining the two we prove (Theorem \[thm:tfae\]) that they are equivalent.
Let $K$ be a knot in a 3-manifold $M$ and $h \ge 0$, $b \ge 1$ integers. We say that $K$ admits a [*$(h, b)$ decomposition*]{} (some authors use the term genus $h$, $b$ bridge position) if there exists a genus $h$ Heegaard splitting $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ of $M$ such that $K \cap C_i$ is a collection of $b$ simultaneously boundary parallel arcs ($i=1,2$; note that in this paper we do not consider $(h,0)$ decomposition).
Let $K$ be a knot in a compact manifold $M$. Recall that $E(K)^{(c)}$ is obtained from $E(K)$ by removing $c$ curves that are simultaneously isotopic to meridians of $K$. The trace of the isotopy forms $c$ annuli which motivates the definition below (Definitions \[dfn:hopf-annuli\] and \[dfn:hopf-haken-annuli\] generalize Definition 6.1 of [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small]):
\[fig:bridge-position\]
\[dfn:hopf-annuli\] Let $K \subset M$ be a knot in a compact manifold and $c > 0$ an integer. Let $A_{1},\dots,A_{c}$ be annuli disjointly embedded in $E(K)^{(c)}$ so that for each $i$, one component of ${\partial}A_{i}$ is a meridian of ${\partial}N(K)$ and the other is a longitude of $T_{i}$ (recall $T_{1},\dots,T_{c}$ denote the components of ${\partial}E(K)^{(c)} \setminus {\partial}E(K)$). Then $\{ A_{1},\dots,A_{c} \}$ is called a [*complete system of Hopf annuli*]{}. We emphasize that the complete system of Haken annuli for $E(K)^{(c)}$ is *not *unique up-to isotopy.**
\[dfn:hopf-haken-annuli\] Let $K \subset M$ be a knot in a compact manifold, $c > 0$ an integer, ${\Sigma}$ a Heegaard surface for $E(K)^{(c)}$, and $\{ A_{1},\dots,A_{c} \}$ a complete system of Hopf annuli. $\{ A_{1},\dots,A_{c} \}$ is called a [*complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli for ${\Sigma}$*]{} if for each $i$, ${\Sigma}\cap A_i$ is a single simple closed curve that is essential in $A_i$.
\[dfn:tubing\] Let $K \subset M$ be a knot in a compact manifold, ${\Sigma}$ a Heegaard surface for $E(K)$, and $c > 0$ an integer. Suppose that there exists a genus $h-c$ Heegaard surface for $M$ (say $S$) so that $K$ is $c$ bridge with respect to $S$, and the surface obtained by tubing $S$ along $c$ arcs of $K$ cut along $S$ on one side of $S$ is isotopic to ${\Sigma}$. Then we say that ${\Sigma}$ is obtained by [*tubing $S$ to one side (along $K$)*]{}. See Figure \[fig:tubing\].
![Tubing a $(h-c, c)$-decomposition[]{data-label="fig:tubing"}](Figure5){height="3.5in"}
\[thm:tfae\] Let $M$ be a compact manifold and $K \subset M$ a knot and suppose the meridian of $K$ does not bound a disk in $E(K)$. Let $c, \ h$ be positive integers. Then the following two conditions are equivalent:
1. $K$ admits an $(h-c, c)$ decomposition.
2. $E(K)^{(c)}$ admits a genus $h$ Heegaard splitting that admits a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli.
[$(1) \implies (2)$:]{} Let $S \subset M$ be a surface defining a ($h-c$, $c$) decomposition. Then $S$ separates $M$ into two sides, say “above” and “below”; pick one, say above. Since the arcs of $K$ above $S$ form $c$ boundary parallel arcs (say $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_c$), there are $c$ disjointly embedded disks above $K$ (say $D_1,\dots,D_c$) so that ${\partial}D_i$ consists of two arcs, one $\alpha_i$ and the other along $S$ (for this proof, see Figure \[fig:tubing\]). Tubing $S$ $c$ times along $\alpha_{1},\dots,\alpha_{c}$ we obtain a Heegaard surface for $E(K)$ (say ${\Sigma}$). We may assume that the tubes are small enough, so that they intersect each $D_{i}$ in a single spanning arc. Denote the compression bodies obtained by cutting $E(K)$ along ${\Sigma}$ by $C_1$ and $C_2$ with ${\partial}N(K) \subset \partial_{-} C_1$. Then each $D_i \cap C_2$ is a meridional disk. Let $A_1,\dots,A_c$ be $c$ meridional annuli properly embedded in $C_1$ near the maxima of $K$. Then $(\cup_i A_i) \cap {\partial}N(K)$ consists of $c$ meridians, say $\alpha'_1,\dots,\alpha'_c$. For each $i$, we isotope $\alpha'_i$ along the annulus $A_i$ to the curve $A_i \cap {\Sigma}$ and then push it slightly into $C_2$, obtaining $c$ curves, say $\beta_1,\dots,\beta_c$, parallel to meridians. Drilling $\cup_i \beta_i$ out of $E(K)$ gives $E(K)^{(c)}$. Using the disks $D_i \cap C_2$ it is easy to see that ${\Sigma}$ is a Heegaard surface for $E(K)^{(c)}$. Clearly, the trace of the isotopy from $\cup_{i=1}^n \alpha'_i$ to $\cup_{i=1}^n \beta_i$ forms a complete system of Hopf annuli, and by construction every one of these annuli intersects ${\Sigma}$ in a single curve that is essential in the annulus. This completes the proof of $(1) \implies (2)$.
[$(2) \implies (1)$:]{} Assume that $E(K)^{(c)}$ admits a Heegaard surface of genus $h$, say ${\Sigma}$, with a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli, say $\{ A_1, \dots , A_c \}$. Let $E(K)' = \mbox{cl}(E(K)^{(c)} \setminus \cup_i N(A_i))$. Note that $E(K)'$ is homeomorphic to $E(K)$. Let $S'$ be the meridional surface ${\Sigma}\cap E(K)'$. We may consider $M$ as obtained from $E(K)'$ by meridional Dehn filling and $K$ as the core of the attached solid torus. By capping off $S'$ we obtain a closed surface $S \subset M$. The following claim completes the proof of $(2)
\implies (1)$:
\[clm:ObtainingBridgeDecomposition\] $S$ defines a ($h-c$, $c$) decomposition for $K$.
Recall that the components of ${\partial}E(K)^{(c)} \setminus {\partial}E(K)$ were denoted by $T_1, \dots , T_c$, as in Definition \[dfn:hopf-haken-annuli\], so that $A_i \cap T_i \ne \emptyset$ and $A_i \cap T_j = \emptyset$ (for $i \ne j$). Let $C_1$, $C_2$ be the compression bodies obtained from $E(K)^{(c)}$ by cutting along ${\Sigma}$, where ${\partial}N(K) \subset {\partial}_- C_1$. Since ${\Sigma}\cap A_i$ is a single simple closed curve which is essential in $A_i$ we have $T_i \subset {\partial}_- C_2$ ($i=1,\dots,c$). Denote the annulus $A_j \cap C_i$ by $A_{i,j}$ ($i=1,2$, $j=1, \dots , c$).
Let $C_i' = C_i \cap E(K)'$ $(i=1,2)$. It is clear that $S'$ cuts $E(K)'$ into $C_1'$ and $C_2'$. Since $A_i \cap {\partial}N(K)$ is a meridian of $K$, and by assumption the meridian of $K$ does not bound a disk in $E(K)$, we have that $A_{i,j}$ is incompressible in $C_i$. Hence a standard innermost disk, outermost arc argument shows that there is a system of meridian disks $\mathcal{D}_i$ of $C_i$ which cuts $C_i$ into ${\partial}_-C_i \times [0,1]$ such that $\mathcal{D}_i \cap (\cup A_{i,j})=\emptyset$.
Now we consider $C_2$ cut along $\cup A_{2,j}$. Since $\mathcal{D}_2 \cap (\cup A_{2,j})=\emptyset$, there are components $T_1 \times [0,1], \dots , T_c \times [0,1]$ of $C_2$ cut along $\mathcal{D}_2$, where $A_{2,j} \subset T_j \times [0,1]$ $(j=1, \dots , c)$. Here we note that $T_j \times [0,1]$ cut along $A_{2,j}$ is a solid torus in which the image of $T_j \times \{ 0 \}$ is a longitudinal annulus (note that the image of $T_j \times \{ 0 \}$ is exactly $T_j \cap C_2'$). This shows that $\{ T_1 \cap C_2', \dots , T_c \cap C_2' \}$ is a primitive system of annuli in $C_2'$, that is, there is a system of meridian disks $D_{2,1}, \dots , D_{2,c}$ in $C_2'$ such that $D_{2,j}\cap (T_j \cap C_2')$ consists of a spanning arc of $T_j \cap C_2'$, and $D_{2,j}\cap (T_k \cap C_2') = \emptyset$ $(j \ne k)$. Let $C_2''$ be the manifold obtained from $C_2'$ by adding $c$ 2-handles along $T_1 \cap C_2', \dots , T_c \cap C_2'$. Since $\{ T_1 \cap C_2', \dots , T_c \cap C_2' \}$ is primitive, $C_2''$ is a genus $(h-c)$ compression body, and the union of the co-cores of the attached 2-handles, which can be regarded as $K \cap C_2''$, are simultaneously isotopic (through the disks $\cup D_{2,j})$ into ${\partial}_+ C_2''$.
Analogously since $\mathcal{D}_1 \cap (\cup A_{1,j})=\emptyset$, there are $c$ components of $C_1$ cut by $\mathcal{D}_1 \cup (\cup A_{1,j})$ which are solid tori such that ${\partial}N(K)$ intersects each solid torus in a longitudinal annulus. Then the arguments in the last paragraph show that $K \cap C_1''$ consists of $c$ arcs which are simultaneously parallel to $S$.
These show that $S$ gives a $(h-c, c)$ decomposition for $K$, completing the proof of the claim.
This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:tfae\].
\[cor:upper-bound-for-X(b)\] Let $K$ be a knot in a compact manifold $M$, and suppose that for some positive integers $h$ and $c$, $K$ admits a ($h-c$, $c$) decomposition. Then
$$g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq h$$
This follows immediately from (1) $\implies$ (2) of Theorem \[thm:tfae\].
Existence of swallow follow tori and bounding $g(E(K_1 \# \cdots \# K_n)^{(c)})$ above {#sec:sft}
======================================================================================
\[dfn:sft\] Let $K \subset M$ be a knot and $c\ge 0$ an integer. An essential separating torus $T \subset E(K)^{(c)}$ is called a [*swallow follow torus*]{} if there exists an embedded annulus $A \subset E(K)^{(c)}$ with one component of ${\partial}A$ a meridian of $E(K)^{(c)}$ and the other an essential curve of $T$, so that $\mbox{int}(A) \cap T = \emptyset$.
In this definition (and throughout this paper) we allow $K$ to be the unknot in $S^3$, in which case $E(K)^{(c)}$ is homeomorphic to a disc with $c$ holes cross $S^1$, and it admits swallow follow tori whenever $c \geq 3$.
Given a swallow follow torus $T$ and an annulus $A$ as above, we can surger $T$ along $A$ to obtain a separating meridional annulus. It is easy to see that since $T$ is an essential torus, the annulus obtained is essential as well. Conversely, given an essential separating meridional annulus we can tube the annulus to itself along the boundary obtaining a swallow follow torus (this can be done in two distinct ways).
How does a swallow follow torus decompose a knot exterior? We first consider the case $c=0$. Let $K = K_1 \#
K_2$ be a composite knot (here we are not assuming that $K_1$ or $K_2$ is prime). Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a decomposing annulus corresponding to the decomposition of $K$ as $K_1 \# K_2$. Thus $E(K)=E(K_1) \cup_{\mathcal{A} } E(K_2)$. Tubing $\mathcal{A}$ along the boundary (say into $E(K_2)$) we obtain a swallow follow torus, say $T$. Clearly, one component of $E(K)$ cut open along $T$ is homeomorphic to $E(K_2)$. The other component is homeomorphic to $E(K_1)$ with two meridional annuli identified, and hence homeomorphic to $E(K_1)^{(1)}$. Thus we see that a swallow follow torus $T \subset E(K)$ decomposes $E(K)$ as $E(K_1)^{(1)} \cup_T E(K_2)$. More generally, given $K,\ K_1,\ K_2$ as above and integers $c,\ c_1,\ c_2
\geq 0$ with $c_1 + c_2 = c$, let $\mathcal{A}$ be a decomposing annulus for $E(K)^{(c)}$, so that $E(K)^{(c)} = E(K_1)^{(c_1)} \cup_{\mathcal{A} } E(K_2)^{(c_2)}$. The swallow follow torus obtained by tubing $\mathcal{A}$ into $E(K_2)^{(c_2)}$ decomposes $E(K)^{(c)}$ as $E(K_1)^{(c_1 + 1)} \cup_T E(K_2)^{(c_2)}$. Since the components of $E(K)^{(c)}$ cut open along a swallow follow torus are themselves of the form $E(K_1)^{(c_1 + 1)}$ and $E(K_2)^{(c_2)}$, we may now extend Definition \[dfn:sft\] inductively:
\[dfn:sfts\] Let $K$ and $c$ be as in the previous paragraph. Let $T_1,\dots,T_r$ (for some $r$) be disjointly embedded tori in $E(K)^{(c)}$. Then $T_1,\dots,T_r$ are called *swallow follow tori *if the following two conditions hold, perhaps after reordering the indices:**
1. $T_1$ is a [[swallow follow torus]{}]{} for $E(K)^{(c)}$.
2. For each $i \ge 2$, $T_i$ is a swallow follow torus for some component of $E(K)^{(c)}$ cut open along $\cup_{j=1}^{i-1} T_{j}$.
We are now ready to state and prove:
\[pro:sft\] For $i=1,\dots,n$, let $K_{i}$ be a (not necessarily prime) knot in a compact manifold and let $c \geq 0$ be an integer. Suppose that $E(K_{i}) \not\cong T^{2} \times [0,1]$ and $\partial N(K_{i})$ is incompressible in $E(K_{i})$.
Then given any integers $c_{1},\dots,c_{n} \geq 0$ whose sum is $c+n-1$, there exist $n-1$ swallow follow tori, denoted $\mathcal{T}$, that decompose $E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_{i})^{(c)}$ as:
$$E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_{i})^{(c)} = \cup_{\mathcal{T}} E(K_i)^{(c_i)}$$
We use the notation as in the statement of the proposition and induct on $n$. If $n=1$ there is nothing to prove. We assume as we may that $n > 1$.
We first claim that for some $i$ we have that $c_{i} \leq c$. Assume, for a contradiction, that $c_{i} > c$ for every $1 \leq i \leq n$. Since $c_{i}$ and $c$ are integers, $c_{i} \geq c+1$. Then we have: $$c+n-1 = \sum_{i=1}^{n} c_{i} \geq n(c+1) = nc + n$$ Moving all term to the right we get that $$0 \geq (n-1)c + 1$$ which is absurd, since $n \geq 1$ and $c \geq 0$. By reordering the indices if necessary we may assume that $c_{n} \leq c$.
Let $A$ be an annulus in $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})$ so that the components of $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})$ cut open along $A$ are identified with $E(K_1 \# \cdots \# K_{n-1})$ and $E(K_{n})$. Since the tori $\partial N(K_{i})$ are incompressible, $A$ is essential in $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})$. Recall that $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$ is obtained from $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})$ by drilling $c$ curves that are parallel to the meridian; since $c_{n} \leq c$ we may choose the curves so that exactly $c_{n}$ components are contained in $E(K_{n})$. After drilling, the components of $E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K)^{(c)}$ cut open along $A$ are identified with $E(K_1 \# \cdots \# K_{n-1})^{(c-c_{n})}$ and $E(K_{n})^{(c_{n})}$. Let $T$ be the torus obtained by tubing $A$ into $E(K)^{(c_{n})}$; clearly the components of $E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K)^{(c)}$ cut open along $T$ are identified with $E(K_1 \# \cdots \# K_{n-1})^{(c-c_{n}+1)}$ and $E(K_{n})^{(c_{n})}$. Since $A$ is essential and $E(K_{i}) \not\cong T^{2} \times [0,1]$, we have the $T$ is essential in $E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_i)^{(c)}$. By construction, there is an essential curve on $T$ that cobounds an annulus with a meridian of $E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_i)^{(c)}$ and we conclude that $T$ is a swallow follow torus.
We induct on $K_1,\dots,K_n$. Let $c' = c-c_n+1$. Then we have $$\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} c_{i} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} c_{i} - c_{n} = c + n - 1 - c_{n} = (c - c_{n}+1) + n-2 = c' + (n-1) -1$$ By induction, $E(K_{1}\# \cdots \# K_{n-1})^{(c')}$ admits $n-2$ swallow follow tori, which we will denote by $\mathcal{T}'$, so that $\mathcal{T}'$ decomposes $E(K_{1}\# \cdots \# K_{n-1})^{(c')} = E(K_{1}\# \cdots \# K_{n-1})^{(c - c_{n}+1)}$ as $$\cup_{\mathcal{T}'} E(K_{i})^{(c_{i})}$$ It follows that $\mathcal{T} = T \cup \mathcal{T}'$ are swallow follow tori for $E(K)^{(c)}$, and the components of $E(K)^{(c)}$ cut open along $\mathcal{T}$ are homeomorphic to $E(K_{1})^{(c_{1})},\dots,E(K_{n})^{(c_{n})}$.
By Proposition \[pro:sft\] and repeated application of Lemma \[lem:genus after amalgamation\] we obtain the following.
\[cor:sft\] With notation as in the statement of Proposition \[pro:sft\] (and in particular for any integer $c \geq 0$, any integers $c_1,\dots,c_n$ whose sum is $c+n-1$), we get:
$$g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq \Sigma_{i=1}^n g(E(K_i)^{(c_i)}) - (n-1)$$
An upper bound for the growth rate {#sec:upper-bound}
==================================
Using the results in the previous sections we can easily bound the growth rate:
\[pro:upper-bound\] Let $K$ be an admissible knot in a closed manifold $M$. Let $g = g(E(K)) - g(M)$ and the bridge indices $\{b_1^*,\dots,b_g^* \}$ be as in Notation \[notation:bridge indices\] in the introduction.
Then
$${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) \leq \min_{i=1, \dots, g} \bigg\{ 1 - \frac{i}{b_i^*} \bigg\}$$
Fix $1 \leq i \leq g$ and a positive integer $n$. Let $k_i>0$ and $0 \leq r < b_{i}^{*}$ be the quotient and remainder when deviding $(n-1)$ by $b_{i}^{*}$; that is: $$k_i b^{*}_i + r = n-1$$ Consider the non-negative integers $b_i^*,\dots,b^*_i,r,0,\dots,0$ (where $b_i^*$ appears $k_i$ times and the symbol $0$ appears $n-(k_i+1)$ times). Applying Corollary \[cor:sft\] to $E(nK)^{(0)}$ we get (recall that $E(nK)^{(0)} = E(nK)$): $$g(E(nK)) \leq k_i g(E(K)^{(b_i^*)}) + g(E(K)^{(r)}) + (n - (k_i + 1))g(E(K)) - (n-1)$$
By definition of $b_{i}^{*}$, $K$ admits a ($g(E(K))-i, b_i^*$) decomposition. Applying Corollary \[cor:upper-bound-for-X(b)\] with $h - c = g(E(K)) - i$ and $c = b_i^*$ gives $$g(E(K)^{(b_i^*)}) \leq g(E(K)) - i + b_i^*$$ Thus we get:
$$\begin{aligned}
g(E(nK)) &\leq& k_i (g(E(K)) - i + b_i^*) + g(E(K)^{(r)}) + (n - (k_i + 1))g(E(K)) -
(n-1) \\ &=& (n-1)g(E(K)) + g(E(K)^{(r)}) - k_i i + (k_i b_i^* - (n-1)) \\
&=& (n-1)g(E(K)) + g(E(K)^{(r)}) - k_i i -r\end{aligned}$$
By denoting the $n$-th element of the sequence in the definition of the growth rate by $S_n$, we get:
$$\begin{aligned}
S_n &=& \frac{g(E(nK)) - n g(E(K)) + (n-1)}{n-1} \\ &\leq& \frac{1}{n-1}
[(n-1)g(E(K)) + g(E(K)^{(r)}) - k_i i -r - n g(E(K)) + (n-1)]\\ &=&
\frac{1}{n-1} [g(E(K)^{(r)}) - g(E(K)) - r - k_i i + (n-1)] \\
&=& \frac{g(E(K)^{(r)}) - g(E(K)) - r}{n-1} + 1 -
\frac{k_i i}{k_i b_i^* + r} \end{aligned}$$
In the last equality we used $k_i b^{*}_i + r = n-1$. Recall that $E(K)^{(r)}$ is obtained by drilling $r$ curve parallel to ${\partial}E(K)$ out of $E(K)$. Therefore by [@rieck], $g(E(K)^{(r)}) \leq g(E(K)) + r$. Hence the first summand above is non-positive, and we may remove that term. Furthermore since $r < b_i^*$, $k_i b_i^* + r < (k_i+1) b_i^* $, which implies $$\label{equ:UpperBound}
S_n < 1 - \frac{i}{b_i^*} \frac{k_i}{k_i+1}$$ Since $\lim_{n \to \infty} k_i = \infty$ we have: $${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) = \limsup_{n \to \infty} S_n \leq
\lim_{k_i \to \infty} \biggl( 1 - \frac{i}{b_i^*} \frac{k_i}{k_i+1}\biggr) =
1 - \frac{i}{b_i^*}$$ As $i$ was arbitrary, we get that $${\mbox{gr}}_t(K) \leq \min_{i=1, \dots , g} \bigg\{1 - \frac{i}{b_i^*}\bigg\}$$ This completes the proof of Proposition \[pro:upper-bound\].
\[part:growth-rate\]
This part is devoted to calculating the growth rate of m-small knots, completing the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Section \[sec:strongHH\] contains the main technical result of this paper, the Strong Hopf Haken Annulus Theorem (Theorem \[thm:strongHH\]). This result guarantees the existence of Hopf–Haken annuli, and complements Sections \[sec:haken annuli-definitions\] and \[sec:tfae\]. In Section \[sec:minimal-genus-sft\] we prove existence of “special” swallow follow tori; this section complements Section \[sec:sft\]. Finally, in Section \[sec:growth-rate\] we calculate the growth rate of m-small knots by finding a lower bound that equals exactly the upper bound found in Section \[sec:upper-bound\].
The Strong Hopf-Haken Annulus Theorem {#sec:strongHH}
=====================================
Given a knot $K$ in a compact manifold $M$ and an integer $c > 0$; recall that the exterior of $K$ is denoted by $E(K)$, the manifold obtained by drilling out $c$ curves simultaneously parallel to the meridian of $E(K)$ is denoted by $E(K)^{(c)}$, and the components of ${\partial}E(K)^{(c)} \setminus {\partial}E(K)$ are denoted by $T_{1},\dots,T_{c}$. Recall also the definitions of Haken annuli for a given Heegaard splitting (\[dfn:haken annulus\]), a complete system of Hopf annuli (\[dfn:hopf-annuli\]), and a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli for a given Heegaard splitting (\[dfn:hopf-haken-annuli\]).
In this section we prove the Strong Hopf Haken Annulus Theorem (Theorem \[thm:strongHH\]), stated in the introduction. Before proving Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] we prove three of its main corollaries:
\[cor:strongHH\] Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] are satisfied with $F_1= F_2 = \emptyset$ and in addition, for each $i$, $E(K_{i})$ does not admit an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(K)^{(c)})]$. Let $h \geq 0$ be an integer. Then $K$ admits an $(h-c, c)$ decomposition if and only if $g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq h$.
Assume first that $K$ admits an $(h-c, c)$ decomposition. Then by Corollary \[cor:upper-bound-for-X(b)\], we have $g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq h$. Note that this direction holds in general and does not require the assumption about meridional surfaces.
Next assume that $g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq h$ and let ${\Sigma}\subset E(K)^{(c)}$ be a genus $h$ Heegaard surface. By the assumptions of the corollary, Conclusion (2) of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] does not hold. Hence by that theorem $E(K)^{(c)}$ admits a genus $h$ Heegaard surface that admits a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli. By $(2) \Rightarrow (1)$ of Theorem \[thm:tfae\], $K$ admits an $(h-c, c)$ decomposition.
\[cor:strongHH2\] We use the notation of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\]. Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] hold and in addition, that each $K_i$ is m-small. Then for any $c$ and any choice of $F_1$ and $F_2$, there is a minimal genus Heegaard splitting of $(E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c)};F_1,F_2)$ that admits a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli.
This follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:strongHH\].
Next we prove Corollary \[cor:GenusOfXc\] which was stated in the introduction:
We fix the notation in the statement of the corollary. First we show that for any knot $K$ (not necessarily the connected sum of m-small knots) if $c \geq b_{g}^{*}$, then the inequality $g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq c$ holds: by definition of $b_{g}^{*}$, $K$ admits a $(0,b_{g}^{*})$ decomposition (recall that $K \subset S^{3}$ and hence $b_{g}^*$ is the bridge index of $K$ with respect to $S^2$). Thus for $c \geq b_{g}^{*}$, $K$ admits a $(0,c)$ decomposition. By viewing this as a $(c-c,c)$ decomposition, Corollary \[cor:upper-bound-for-X(b)\] implies that $g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq c$.
Next we note that the inequality $g(E(K)^{(c)}) \geq c$ holds for $K$ that is a connected sum of m-small knots, and any $c \geq 0$: by Corollary \[cor:strongHH2\], $E(K)^{(c)}$ admits a minimal genus Heegaard surface (say ${\Sigma}$) admitting a complete system of Hopf–Haken annuli. Hence the $c$ tori, $T_1, \dots, T_c$, are on the same side of ${\Sigma}$, which implies $g({\Sigma}) \geq c$; hence $g(E(K)^{(c)}) = g({\Sigma}) \geq c$.
We first fix the notation that will be used in the proof (in addition to the notation in the statement of the theorem). Let $K$ denote $\#_{i=1}^n K_i$. For $c > 0$, $E(K)^{(c)}$ admits an essential torus $T$ that decomposes $E(K)^{(c)}$ as: $$E(K)^{(c)} = X \cup_T Q^{(c)},$$ where $X \cong E(K)$ and $Q^{(c)} \cong \mbox{ (annulus with }c \mbox{ holes)}\times S^1$. Note that $Q^{(c)}$ fibers over $S^1$ in a unique way, and the fibers in $T$ are meridian curves in $X \cap Q^{(c)}$. Since $Q^{(c)}$ is Seifert fibered it is contained in a unique component $J$ of the characteristic submanifold [@jaco], [@jaco-shalen], [@Johannson]. Since ${\partial}N(K_i)$ is incompressible in $E(K_i)$, using Miyazaki’s result [@miyazaki] it was shown in [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small Claim 1] that $K$ admits a unique prime decomposition. Therefore the number of prime factors of $K$ is well-defined. We suppose as we may that each knot $K_i$ is prime; consequently, the integer $n$ appearing in the statement of the theorem is the number of prime factors of $K$.
[**The structure of the Proof.**]{} The proof is an induction on $(n,c)$ ordered lexicographically. We begin with two preliminary special cases. In Case One we consider strongly irreducible Heegaard splittings. In Case Two we consider weakly reducible Heegaard splittings so that no component of the essential surface obtained by untelescoping is contained in $J$. In both cases we prove the theorem directly and without reference to the complexity $(n,c)$. We then proceed to the inductive step assuming the theorem for $(n',c') < (n,c)$ in the lexicographic order. By Cases One and Two we may assume that a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $E(K)^{(c)}$ is weakly reducible and some component of the essential surface obtained by untelescoping it is contained in $J$; this component allows us to induct.
[**Case One. $(E(K)^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)$ admits a strongly irreducible minimal genus Heegaard splitting.**]{} Let $C_1 \cup_{\Sigma}C_2$ be a minimal genus strongly irreducible Heegaard splitting of $(E(K)^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)$. The Swallow Follow Torus Theorem [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small Theorem 4.1] implies that f $n>1$, either ${\Sigma}$ weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus (which contradicts the assumption of Case One) or Conclusion 2 of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] holds. We assume as we may that $n = 1$ in the remainder of the proof of Case One.
Recall the notation $E(K)^{(c)} = X \cup_{T} Q^{(c)}$. Since $T \subset E(K)^{(c)}$ is essential and ${\Sigma}\subset E(K)^{(c)}$ is strongly irreducible, we may isotope ${\Sigma}$ so that ${\Sigma}\cap T$ is transverse and every curve of ${\Sigma}\cap T$ is essential in $T$. Minimize $|{\Sigma}\cap T|$ subject to this constraint. If ${\Sigma}\cap T = \emptyset$ then $T$ is contained in a compression body $C_{1}$ or $C_{2}$, and hence $T$ is parallel to a component of $\partial_- C_{1}$ or ${\partial}_{-}C_{2}$. But then $T$ is parallel to a component of ${\partial}E(K)^{(c)}$, a contradiction. Thus ${\Sigma}\cap T \neq \emptyset$.
Let $F$ be a component of ${\Sigma}$ cut open along $T$. Minimality of $|{\Sigma}\cap T|$ implies that $F$ is not boundary parallel. Then $\partial F \subset T$; since $T$ is a torus, boundary compression of $F$ implies compression into the same side; this will be used extensively below. A surface in a Seifert fibered manifold is called [*vertical*]{} if it is everywhere tangent to the fibers and [*horizontal*]{} if it is everywhere transverse to the fibers (see, for example, [@jaco] for a discussion). We first reduce Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] as follows:
One of the following holds:
1. ${\Sigma}\cap X$ is connected and compresses into both sides, and ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is a collection of essential vertical annuli.
2. Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] holds.
A standard argument shows that one component of ${\Sigma}$ cut open along $T$ compresses into both sides (in $X$ or $Q^{(c)}$) and all other components are essential (in $X$ or $Q^{(c)}$); for the convenience of the reader we sketch it here: let $D_{1}$ be a compressing disk for $C_{1}$. After minimizing $|D_{1} \cap T|$ either $D_{1} \cap T = \emptyset$ (and hence some component of ${\Sigma}$ cut open along $T$ compresses into $C_{1}$) or an outermost disk of $D_{1}$ provides a boundary compression for some component of ${\Sigma}$ cut open along $T$; since boundary compression implies compression into the same side, we see that in this case too some component of ${\Sigma}$ cut open along $T$ compresses into $C_{1}$. Similarly, some component of ${\Sigma}$ cut open along $T$ compresses into $C_{2}$. Strong irreducibility of ${\Sigma}$ implies that the same component compresses into both sides and all other components are incompressible and boundary incompressible. Minimality of $|{\Sigma}\cap T|$ implies that no component is boundary parallel, and hence the incompressible and boundary incompressible components are essential.
The proof of Assertion 1 breaks up into three subcases:
[**Subcase 1: no component of ${\Sigma}\cap X$ is essential.**]{} Then ${\Sigma}\cap X$ is connected and compresses into both sides, and therefore ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ consists of essential surfaces. Since $Q^{(c)}$ is Seifert fibered, every component of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is either horizontal of vertical (see, for example, [@jaco VI.34]). Any horizontal surface in $Q^{(c)}$ must meet every component of ${\partial}Q^{(c)}$; by construction ${\Sigma}\cap {\partial}N(K) = \emptyset$; thus every component of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is vertical (we will use this argument below without reference). This gives Conclusion (1) of the assertion.
[**Subcase 2.a: some component of ${\Sigma}\cap X$ is essential and some component of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is essential.**]{} Let $F$ denote an essential component of ${\Sigma}\cap X$. Since $T$ is incompressible and the components of ${\Sigma}\cap T$ are essential in $T$, no component of ${\Sigma}$ cut open along $T$ is a disk; hence $\chi(F) \ge \chi({\Sigma})$. Let $S$ denote an essential component of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$. Then $S$ is a vertical annulus. In particular, $S \cap T$ consists of fibers in the Seifert fiberation of $Q^{(c)}$. By construction, the fibers on $T$ are meridians of $X$. We see that $F$ is meridional, giving Conclusion (2) of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\].
[**Subcase 2.b: some component of ${\Sigma}\cap X$ is essential and no component of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is essential.**]{} As above let $F$ be an essential component of ${\Sigma}\cap X$. By assumption, no component of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is essential. Hence ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is connected and compresses into both sides. Let $\Delta_{1}$ be a maximal collection of compressing disks for ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ into $Q^{(c)} \cap C_{1}$ and $S_{1}$ the surface obtained by compressing $S$ along $\Delta_{1}$. Since $\Delta_1 \neq \emptyset$, maximality of $\Delta_{1}$ and the no nesting lemma [@no-nesting] imply that $S_{1}$ is incompressible. Suppose first that some non-closed component of $S_{1}$, say $S_{1}'$, is not boundary parallel (this is similar to Subcase 2.a). Then $S_{1}'$ is an essential and hence vertical annulus and we see that $F$ is meridional, giving Conclusion (2) of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] and the assertion follows. We assume from now on that $S_{1}$ consists of boundary parallel annuli and, perhaps, closed boundary parallel surfaces and ball-bounding spheres. Furthermore, we see that:
1. No two closed components of $S_1$ are parallel to the same component of ${\partial}Q^{(c)}$: this follows from connectivity of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ and strong irreducibility of ${\Sigma}$.
2. No two boundary parallel annuli of $S_1$ are nested: otherwise, it follows from connectivity of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ and strong irreducibility of ${\Sigma}$ that ${\Sigma}$ can be isotoped out of $Q^{(c)}$; for more details see [@kobayashi-rieck-local-det Page 249].
We assume as we may that the analogous conditions hold after compressing ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ into $Q^{(c)} \cap C_{2}$. Hence ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is a Haagaard surface for $Q^{(c)}$ relative to the annuli $\{C_{1} \cap T, C_{2} \cap T\}$ (relative Heegaard surfaces were defined in \[def:RalitiveSplitting\]). We may replace ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ with the minimal genus relative Heegaard surface for $Q^{(c)}$ relative to $\{C_{1} \cap T$, $C_{2} \cap T\}$ given in Corollary \[cor:RelHSforQc\]. By pasting this surface to ${\Sigma}\cap X$ we obtain a closed surface, say ${\Sigma}'$, fulfilling for following conditions:
1. ${\Sigma}'$ is a Heegaard surface for $E(K)^{(c)}$: the components of $X$ cut open along ${\Sigma}\cap X$ are the same as the components of $C_1$ and $C_2$ cut open along $\{C_{1} \cap T, C_{2} \cap T\}$. Since $T$ is essential, the annuli $C_{i} \cap T$ are incompressible in $C_i$. It is well known that cutting a compression body along incompressible surfaces yields compression bodies; we conclude that the components of $X$ cut open along ${\Sigma}\cap X$ are compression bodies. By definition of relative Heegaard surface, the annuli of $\{C_{1} \cap T, C_{2} \cap T\}$ are primitive in the compression bodies obtained by cutting $Q^{(c)}$ open along any relative Heegaard surface; it follows that $E(K)^{(c)}$ cut open alone ${\Sigma}'$ consists of two compression bodies.
2. ${\Sigma}'$ is a Heegaard surface for $(E(K)^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)$: in addition to (1) above, we need to show that ${\Sigma}'$ respects the same partition of $\partial E(K)^{(c)} \setminus (\partial N(K),T_{1},\dots,T_{c})$ as ${\Sigma}$. This follows immediately from the facts that the changes we made are contained in $Q^{(c)}$, every component of $F_1$ is contained in $C_1 \cap X$, and every component of $F_2$ is contained in $C_2 \cap X$. Note that (1) and (2) hold for any relative Heegaard surface for $Q^{(c)}$ relative to $\{C_{1} \cap T$, $C_{2} \cap T\}$.
3. $g({\Sigma}') = g({\Sigma})$: minimality of the genus of the relative Heegaard splitting used implies that $g({\Sigma}') \leq g({\Sigma})$; as ${\Sigma}$ was a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $(E(K)^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)$, $g({\Sigma}') = g({\Sigma})$. Note that (3) hold for any minimal genus relative Heegaard surface for $Q^{(c)}$ relative to $\{C_{1} \cap T$, $C_{2} \cap T\}$.
4. ${\Sigma}'$ admits a completes system of Hopf-Haken annuli: By Figure \[fig:RelHS\] we see directly ${\Sigma}'$ admits a complete system of Hopf Haken annuli.
As noted, in the construction above (3) holds for any minimal genus relative Heegaard surface. This is quite different in (4), when considering Hopf-Haken annuli: it is not hard to construct relative Heegaard surfaces that result in a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $(E(K)^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)$ so that all the tori $T_1.\dots,T_c$ are in the compression body containing ${\partial}N(K)$, and hence cannot admit even one Hopf-Haken annulus. This shows that in the course of the proof of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] the given Heegaard surface must be replaced.
The Heegaard surface ${\Sigma}'$ fulfils the conditions of Conclusion (1) of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\]. This completes that proof of Assertion 1.
Before proceeding we fix the following notation and conventions: denote ${\Sigma}\cap X$ by ${\Sigma}_X$. By Assertion 1 we may assume that ${\Sigma}_{X}$ is connected and compresses into both sides and every component of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ is an essential vertical annulus. Note that $X$ cut open along ${\Sigma}_X$ consists of exactly two components, denoted by $C_{i,X}$, where $C_{i,X} = C_i \cap X$ ($i=1,2$). Denote the collection of annuli $T \cap C_{i,X}$ by $\mathcal{A}_i$, and the annuli in $\mathcal{A}_i$ by $A_{i,1},\dots,A_{i,b}$, where $b$ denotes the number of annuli in $\mathcal{A}_i$. We assume from now on that Conclusion (2) of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] does not hold.
The number $b$ fulfils $c \leq b \leq g({\Sigma})$.
Assume for a contradiction that $b < c$. Since ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ consists of $b$ annuli, $Q^{(c)}$ cut open along ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ consists of $b+1 < c+1$ components. Hence some component of $Q^{(c)}$ cut open along ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ contains two of the components of $\partial Q^{(c)} \setminus T$. Hence there is a vatical annulus connecting these components which is disjoint from ${\Sigma}$. Since this annulus is disjoint from ${\Sigma}$ it is contained in a compression body $C_i$ and connects two components of $\partial_- C_i$, which is impossible.
Since ${\Sigma}_X$ is obtained by removing the $b$ annuli ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ and is connected, $b \leq g({\Sigma})$.
This completes the proof of Assertion 2.
The surface ${\Sigma}_X$ defines a $(g({\Sigma})-b, b)$ decomposition of $K$.
For $i=1,2$, let $\Delta_{i}$ be a maximal collection of compressing disks for ${\Sigma}_{X}$ into $C_{i,X}$; by assumption, $\Delta_{i} \neq \emptyset$. Let $S_{i}$ be the surface obtained by compressing ${\Sigma}_{X}$ along $\Delta_{i}$. By maximality and the no nesting lemma [@no-nesting] $S_{i}$ is incompressible. Since the components of ${\Sigma}\cap Q^{(c)}$ are vertical annuli, the boundary components of $S_{i}$ are meridians. Hence, if some non-closed component of $S_{i}$ is essential, we obtain Conclusion (2) of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\], contradicting our assumption. Thus $S_{i}$ consists of boundary parallel annuli and, perhaps, closed boundary parallel surfaces and ball-bounding spheres. As above, strong irreducibility of ${\Sigma}$ and connectivity of ${\Sigma}_X$ imply that these annuli are not nested. We see that $C_{i,X}$ is a compression body and $T \cap C_{i,X}$ consists of $b$ mutually primitive annuli. In fact, we see that ${\Sigma}_{X}$ is a relative Heegaard surface. By the argument of Claim \[clm:ObtainingBridgeDecomposition\], on Page , ${\Sigma}_X$ gives a $(g({\Sigma}) - b, b)$ decomposition.
By Assertion 3 and Theorem \[thm:tfae\], $E(K)^{(b)}$ admits a genus $g({\Sigma})$ Heegaard surface admitting a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli, say ${\Sigma}'$. By Assertion 2, $c \leq b$. Hence $E(K)^{(c)}$ is obtained from $E(K)^{(b)}$ by filling the tori $T_{c+1},\dots,T_b$. Clearly, ${\Sigma}'$ is a Heegaard surface for $E(K)^{(c)}$, admitting a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] in Case One.
Before proceeding to Case Two we introduce notation that will be used in that case. Recall that since $Q^{(c)}$ is Seifert fibered, it is contained in a component of the characteristic submanifold of $E(K)^{(c)}$ denoted by $J$. Since $X \cong E(K)$ and $K = \#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i}$, $X$ admits $n-1$ decomposing annuli which we will denote by $A_1,\dots,A_{n-1}$ ($A_{1},\dots,A_{n-1}$ are not uniquely defined). The components of $X$ cut open along $\cup_{i=1}^{n-1} A_{i}$ are homeomorphic to $E(K_{1}),\dots,E(K_{n})$. Let $V = Q^{(c)} \cup
N(A_1) \cup \cdots \cup N(A_{n-1})$. Then $V$ is Seifert fibered and contains $Q^{(c)}$, and hence after isotopy $V \subset J$. Note that $V \cap \mbox{cl}(E(K)^{(c)} \setminus V)$ consists of $n$ tori, say $T_{1}',\dots,T_{n}'$. Finally note that $X^{(c)}$ cut open along $\cup_{i=1}^{n} {T_i}'$ consists of $n+1$ components, one is $V$, and the remaining homeomorphic to $E(K_{1}),\dots,E(K_{n})$. We denote the component that corresponds to $E(K_i)$ by $X_{i}$. After renumbering if necessary we may assume that $T_{i}'$ is a component of ${\partial}X_{i}$. By construction $T_{i}'$ corresponds to ${\partial}N(K_{i})$.
The proof of the next assertion is a simple argument using essential arcs in base orbifolds, and we leave it to the reader.
If $V$ is not isotopic to $J$ then some $E(K_i)$ contains a meridional essential annulus.
For future reference we remark:
\[rmk:aboutJ\] By Assertion 4, either we have conclusion 2 of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\], or $J=V$. Hence, in the following, we may assume that $J=V$; we will use the notation $J$ from here on. By construction, $J$ is homeomorphic to ($(c+n)$-times punctured disk)$\times S^1$ and hence admits no closed non-separating surfaces.
[**Case Two. $(E(K)^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)$ admits a weakly reducible minimal genus Heegaard surface ${\Sigma}$, and no component of the essential surface obtained by untelescoping ${\Sigma}$ is isotopic into $J$.**]{}
Let $F$ be the (not necessarily connected) essential surface obtained by untelescoping ${\Sigma}$. The assumptions of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] imply that $E(K)^{(c)}$ does not admit a nonseparating sphere; hence the Euler characteristic of every component of $F$ is bounded below by $\chi({\Sigma}) + 4$. After an isotopy that minimizes $|F \cap {\partial}J|$, every component of $F \cap J$ is essential in $J$ and every component of $F \cap \mbox{cl}(E(K)^{(c)} \setminus J)$ is essential in $\mbox{cl}(E(K)^{(c)} \setminus J)$. By the assumption of Case Two, if some component $F'$ of $F$ meets $J$, then $F' \not\subset J$ and hence each component of $F' \cap J$ is a vertical annulus and each component of $F'
\cap \mbox{cl}(E(K)^{(c)} \setminus J)$, say $S$, is a meridional essential surface with $\chi(S) \geq \chi(F'
\cap E(K)^{(c)} ) = \chi(F') \geq \chi(F) \geq \genbd[g({\Sigma})]$, giving Conclusion 2 of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\]. Thus we may assume $F \cap J = \emptyset$.
Let $M_J$ be the component of $E(K)^{(c)}$ cut open along $F$ containing $J$, and let ${\Sigma}_J$ be the strongly irreducible Heegaard surface induced on $M_J$ by untelescoping. Then ${\Sigma}_J$ defines a partition of ${\partial}M_J \setminus (T_{1} \cup \cdots \cup T_{c} \cup {\partial}N(K))$, say $F_{J,1}$, $F_{J,2}$. Since ${\Sigma}$ is minimal genus, ${\Sigma}_J$ is a minimal genus splitting of $(M_J;F_{J,1},F_{J,2})$.
For $i=1,\dots,n$, denote $X_{i} \cap M_J$ by $X_{i}'$. Note that $X_{i}' \cap J = T_{i}'$; the meridian of $X_{i}$ defines a slope of $T_{i}'$, denoted by $\mu_{i}'$. By filling $X_{i}'$ along $\mu_{i}'$ we obtain a manifold, say $M_{i}'$, and the core of the attached solid torus is a knot, say $K_{i}' \subset M_{i}'$. Then $M_{J}$ is naturally identified with $E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_{i}')^{(c)}$, and ${\Sigma}_{J}$ is a strongly irreducible Heegaard surface for $(E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_{i}')^{(c)};F_{J,1},F_{J,2})$. It is easy to see that $K_i'$ fulfill the assumptions of Theore \[thm:strongHH\]; in particular, the assumptions of Case Two imply that $E(K_i') \not\cong T^2 \times I$. Therefore, by Case One, one of the following holds:
1. Conclusion (2) of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\]: for some $i$, $X_{i}'$ admits a meridional essential surface $F_{i}'$ with $\chi(F_{i}') \geq {\genbd[g({\Sigma}_J )]} \geq {\genbd[g({\Sigma})]}$.
2. Conclusion (1) of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\]: there exists a Heegaard surface ${\Sigma}_{J}'$ for $M_{J}$ so that the following three conditions hold:
1. $g({\Sigma}_{J}') = g({\Sigma}_{J})$,
2. ${\Sigma}_{J}'$ is a Heegaard splitting for $(E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_{i}')^{(c)};F_{J,1},F_{J,2})$,
3. ${\Sigma}_{J}'$ admits a complete system of Hopf–Haken annuli.
Assume first that (1) holds. Since $X_{i}'$ is a component of $X_{i}$ cut open along the (possibly empty) surface $F \cap X_i$, and every component of $F \cap X_i$ is incompressible, we have that $F_{i}'$ is essential in $X_{i}$. By construction, the meridians of $X_{i}$ and $X_{i}'$ are the same. Finally, $\chi(F_{i}') \ge \genbd[g({\Sigma})]
=\genbd[g(E(K)^{(c)}; F_1, F_2)]$. This gives Conclusion 2 of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\].
Assume next that (2) happens. By condition (2)(b), ${\Sigma}_J'$ induces the same partition on the components of $\partial M_j \setminus \{T_1,\dots,T_c,\partial N(K)\}$ as ${\Sigma}_J$. Thus we may amalgamate the Heegaard surfaces induced on the components of $\mbox{cl}(E(K)^{(c)} \setminus M_{J})$ with ${\Sigma}_J'$, obtaining a Heegaard surface for $(E(K)^{(c)};F_1,F_2)$, say ${\Sigma}''$. By Proposition \[pro:haken annulus after amalgamation, general setting\], ${\Sigma}''$ admits a complete system of Hopf–Haken annuli. Since $g({\Sigma}_J') = g({\Sigma}_{J})$, we have that $g({\Sigma}'') = g({\Sigma})$; hence ${\Sigma}''$ is a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $(E(K)^{(c)};F_1,F_2)$. This gives Conclusion 1 of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\], completing the proof of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] in Case Two.
With these two preliminary cases in hand we are now ready for the inductive step. For the remainder of the proof we assume that Conclusion 2 of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] does not hold. Fix $K_1,\dots,K_n$ and $c \geq 0$ and assume, by induction, that Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] holds for any example with complexity $(n',c') < (n,c)$ ordered lexicographically. Let ${\Sigma}$ be a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$. By Case One, we may assume that ${\Sigma}$ is not strongly irreducible; hence ${\Sigma}$ admits an untelescoping. By Case Two, we may assume that some component $F'$ of the essential surface $F$ obtained by untelescoping ${\Sigma}$ is isotopic into $J$. By Remark \[rmk:aboutJ\], $J$ is a Seifert fibered space over a punctured disk and the components of $E(\# K_i)^{(c)} \setminus J$ are identified with $E(K_1),\dots,E(K_n)$. After isotopy we may assume that $F'$ is horizontal or vertical (see, for example, [@jaco VI.34]; recall that a surface in a Seifert fibered space is horizontal if it is everywhere transverse to the fibers and vertical if it is everywhere tangent to the fibers). However ${\partial}J \neq \emptyset$ and ${\partial}F' = \emptyset$, and therefore $F'$ cannot be horizontal. We conclude that $F'$ is a vertical torus that separates $J$ and hence $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$. Thus $F'$ decomposes $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c)}$ as: $$E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c)} = E(\#_{i \in I} K_i)^{(c_1)} \cup_{F'} E(\#_{i \not\in I} K_i)^{(c_2)},$$ where $c_1 + c_2 = c+1$ and $I \subset \{1,\dots,n\}$. Since $F'$ is connected and separating, by Proposition \[pro:untel to a conn sep surfce implies weak reduction\] ${\Sigma}$ weakly reduces to $F'$ and the weak reduction induces (not necessarily strongly irreducible) Heegaard splittings on $E(\#_{i \in I} K_i)^{(c_1)}$ and $E(\#_{i \not\in I} K_i)^{(c_2)}$. We divide the proof into Cases 1 and 2 below:
[**Case 1: $I = \emptyset$ or $I = \{1,\dots,n\}$.**]{} By symmetry we may assume that $I = \{1,\dots,n\}$. Then $F'$ decomposes $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c)}$ as $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)} \cup_{F'} D(c_2)$ where $D(c_{2})$ is a $c_{2}$ times punctured disk cross $S^1$. There are two possibilities: ${\partial}N(K) \subset E(\#_{i =1}^n K_{i})^{(c_{1})}$ (Subcases 1.a) and ${\partial}N(K) \subset D(c_2)$ (Subcases 1.b).
![Case 1.a[]{data-label="fig:Case1a"}](Figure7){height="1.4in"}
[**Subcase 1.a: $I = \{1,\dots,n\}$ and ${\partial}N(K) \subset E(\#_{i = 1}^n K_{i})^{(c_1)}$.**]{} For this subcase, see Figure \[fig:Case1a\]. Recall that $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c)} = E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)} \cup_{F'} D(c_2)$ with $c_1+c_2=c+1$; by reordering $T_1,\dots,T_c$ if necessary we may assume that $T_1,\dots,T_{c_1-1} \subset {\partial}E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)}$ and $T_{c_1},\dots,T_c \subset {\partial}D(c_2)$. Since $F'$ is not boundary parallel $c_2 \geq 2$; thus $c_1 < c$. Thus $(n,c_1) < (n,c)$ (in the lexicographic order) and hence we may apply induction to $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)}$. Let ${\Sigma}_1'$ be the Heegaard surface induced on $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)}$ by the weak reduction of ${\Sigma}$. By assumption Conclusion 2 of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] does not hold; it is easy to see that $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)}$ fulfills the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\], and since $g({\Sigma}_{1}') < g({\Sigma})$, Conclusion (2) does not hold for $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)}$. Therefore the inductive hypothesis shows that $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)}$ admits a Heegaard surface ${\Sigma}_1$ fulfilling the following three conditions:
1. $g({\Sigma}_{1}) = g({\Sigma}_{1}')$;
2. ${\Sigma}_{1}$ and ${\Sigma}_{1}'$ induces the same partition of the components of
$\partial E(\#_{i = 1}^n K_{i})^{(c_1)} \setminus \{T_1,\dots,T_{c_1-1},F',\partial N(K)\}$;
3. ${\Sigma}_{1}$ admits a complete system of Hopf–Haken annuli.
Denote the union of the $c_1-1$ Hopf–Haken annuli connecting ${\partial}N(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})$ to $T_1,\dots,T_{c_1-1}$ by $\mathcal{A}_1$ and the Hopf–Haken annulus connecting ${\partial}N(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})$ to $F'$ by $A$ (note that $c_1-1=0$ is possible; in that case $\mathcal{A}_1 = \emptyset$). There exists a minimal genus Heegaard surface ${\Sigma}_2$ for $D(c_2)$ that admits $c_2$ Haken annuli $A_{c_{1}},\dots,A_{c}$ so that one component of ${\partial}A_i$ is a longitude of $T_i$ and the other is on $F'$ and parallel to $A \cap F'$ there (recall Remark \[rmk:HakenAannuliForDC\]). We denote $\cup_{i=c_{1}}^{c} A_{i}$ by $\mathcal{A}_{2}$. As shown in Proposition \[pro:haken annulus after amalgamation, general setting\], the annuli obtained by attaching a parallel copy of $A$ to each annulus of $\mathcal{A}_2$ union $\mathcal{A}_1$ are Haken annuli for the Heegaard surface obtained by amalgamating ${\Sigma}_1$ and ${\Sigma}_2$; we will denote this surface by $\hat {\Sigma}$. By construction, these annuli form a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli for $\hat {\Sigma}$. Since $g(\hat {\Sigma}) = g({\Sigma}_{1}) + g({\Sigma}_{2}) - 1$ and $g({\Sigma}) = g({\Sigma}_{1}') + g({\Sigma}_{2}) - 1$, by Condition (1) above we have $g(\hat{{\Sigma}})=g({\Sigma})$. By construction ${\Sigma}$ and ${\Sigma}'$ induce the same partition of the components of $\partial E(K)^{(c)} \setminus \{T_{1},\dots,T_{c},\partial N(K)\}$. Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] follows in Subcase 1.a.
[**Subcase 1.b: $I = \{1,\dots,n\}$ and ${\partial}N(K) \subset D(c_{2})$.**]{}
![Subcase 1.b[]{data-label="fig:Case1b"}](Figure8){height="1.4in"}
For this subcase see Figure \[fig:Case1b\]. Since Subcase 1.b is similar to Subcase 1.a we omit some of the easier details of the proof. As in Subcase 1.a, $F'$ decomposes $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c)}$ as $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)} \cup_{F'} D(c_2)$ with $c_1+c_2=c+1$; we reorder $T_1,\dots,T_c$ so that $T_1,\dots,T_{c_1} \subset {\partial}E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)}$ and $T_{c_1+1},\dots,T_c \subset {\partial}D(c_2)$. By induction there exists a minimal genus Heegaard surface ${\Sigma}_{1}$ for $E(\#_{i=1}^n K_i)^{(c_1)}$ fulfilling conditions analogous to (1)–(3) listed in Subcase 1.a. In particular, ${\Sigma}_{1}$ admits a complete system of $c_1$ Hopf–Hakn annuli, say $\mathcal{A}_1$, so that one boundary component of each annulus of $\mathcal{A}_{1}$ is a longitude of $T_{i}$ ($i=1,\dots,c_{1}$) and the other is a curve of $F'$. As in Subcase 1.a, there exists a minimal genus Heegaard surface ${\Sigma}_{2}$ for $D(c_2)$ admitting a system of $c_{2}$ Haken annuli (recall Remark \[rmk:HakenAannuliForDC\]), denoted by $\mathcal{A}_{2} \cup A$, so that $\mathcal{A}_{2}$ consists of $c_{2} - 1$ annuli connecting meridians of ${\partial}N(\# K_{i})$ to the longitudes of $T_{c_{1}+1},\dots,T_{c}$, and $A$ connects a meridian of ${\partial}N(\# K_{i})$ to a curve of $F'$; by construction, this curve is parallel to the curves of $\mathcal{A}_{1} \cap F'$. As shown in Proposition \[pro:haken annulus after amalgamation, general setting\], the annuli obtained by attaching a parallel copy of $A$ to each annulus of $\mathcal{A}_1$ union $\mathcal{A}_2$ are Haken annuli for the Heegaard surface obtained by amalgamating ${\Sigma}_1$ and ${\Sigma}_2$; we will denote this surface by $\hat {\Sigma}$. By construction, these annuli form a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli for $\hat {\Sigma}$. As in Case 1.a, $g(\hat{{\Sigma}}) = g({\Sigma})$ and $\hat {\Sigma}$ induces the same partition on the components of $\partial E(K)^{(c)} \setminus \{T_{1},\dots,T_{c},\partial N(K)\}$ as ${\Sigma}$. Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] follows in Subcase 1.b.
[**Case 2: $\emptyset \neq I \not= \{1,\dots,n\}$.**]{} See Figure \[fig:Case2\] for this case.
![Case 2[]{data-label="fig:Case2"}](Figure9){height="1.4in"}
Since Case 2 is similar to Subcase 1.a we omit some of the easier details of the proof. By symmetry we may assume that ${\partial}N(K) \subset {\partial}E(\#_{i \in I} K_i)^{(c_{1})}$. Let ${\Sigma}_{1}'$ and ${\Sigma}_{2}'$ be the Heegaard surfaces induced on $E(\#_{i \in I} K_{i})^{(c_{1})}$ and $E(\#_{i \not\in I} K_{i})^{(c_{2})}$ (respectively) by ${\Sigma}$. Since both $|I|$ and $n - |I|$ are strictly less than $n$, we may apply induction to both $E(\#_{i \in I} K_{i})^{(c_{1})}$ and $E(\#_{i \not\in I} K_{i})^{(c_{2})}$. By induction, there exists a minimal genus Heegaard surfaces ${\Sigma}_{1}$ and ${\Sigma}_{2}$ for $E(\#_{i \in I} K_{i})^{(c_{1})}$ and $E(\#_{i \not\in I} K_{i})^{(c_{2})}$ (respectively) fulfilling the following three conditions:
1. $g({\Sigma}_{1}) = g({\Sigma}_{1}')$ and $g({\Sigma}_{2}) = g({\Sigma}_{2}')$;
2. ${\Sigma}_{1}$ induces the same partition of the components of\
$\partial E(\#_{i \in I} K_{i})^{(c_{1})} \setminus \{\partial N(K), T_{1},\dots,T_{c_{1}-1}\}$ as ${\Sigma}_{1}'$; similarly, ${\Sigma}_{2}$ induces the same partition of the components of $\partial E(\#_{i \not\in I} K_{i})^{(c_{2})} \setminus \{T_{c_{1}},\dots,T_{c}\}$ as ${\Sigma}_{2}'$.
3. ${\Sigma}_{1}$ admits a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli, say $A \cup \mathcal{A}_1$, where $A$ connects $\partial N(K)$ to $F'$ and the components of $\mathcal{A}_1$ connect $\partial N(K)$ to $T_1,\dots,T_{c_1 - 1}$; similary ${\Sigma}_{2}$ admit complete systems of Hopf–Haken annuli $\mathcal{A}_2$ whose components connect $F'$ to $T_{c_1},\dots,T_{c}$.
As shown in Proposition \[pro:haken annulus after amalgamation, general setting\], the annuli obtained by attaching a parallel copy of $A$ to each annulus of $\mathcal{A}_2$ union $\mathcal{A}_1$ are Haken annuli for the Heegaard surface obtained by amalgamating ${\Sigma}_1$ and ${\Sigma}_2$; we will denote this surface by $\hat {\Sigma}$. By construction, these annuli form a complete system of Hopf-Haken annuli for $\hat {\Sigma}$. As above $g(\hat{{\Sigma}}) = g({\Sigma})$ and $\hat {\Sigma}$ induces the same partition of the components of $\partial E(K)^{(c)} \setminus \{T_{1},\dots,T_{c},\partial N(K)\}$ as ${\Sigma}$. Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] follows in Case 2.
This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\].
Weak reduction to swallow follow tori and calculating $g(E(K)^{(c)})$ {#sec:minimal-genus-sft}
=====================================================================
Let $K_1\subset M_{1},\dots,K_n \subset M_{n}$ be knots in compact manifolds and $c>0$ an integer. When convenient, we will denote $\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i}$ by $K$. Let $c_1, \dots, c_n \geq 0$ be integers such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_i = c + n - 1$. By Proposition \[pro:sft\] there exist $n-1$ swallow follow tori $\mathcal{T} \subset E(K)^{(c)}$ that decompose it as $E(K)^{(c)} = \cup_{\mathcal{T}} E(K_{i})^{(c_i)}$. By amalgamating minimal genus Heegaard surfaces for $E(K_{i})^{(c_i)}$ we obtain a Heegaard surface for $E(K)^{(c)}$; however, it is distinctly possible that the surface obtained is not of minimal genus. This motivates the following definition:
Let $K_{1}\subset M_{1},\dots,K_{n} \subset M_{n}$ be prime knots in compact manifolds and $c \geq 0$ an integer. Let $\mathcal{T} \subset E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$ be a collection of $n-1$ swallow follow tori giving the decomposition $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)} = \cup_\mathcal{T} E(K_{i})^{(c_i)}$, for some integers $c_{i} \geq 0$. We say that $\mathcal{T}$ is [*natural*]{} if it is obtained from a minimal genus Heegaard surface for $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$ by iterated weak reduction; equivalently, $\mathcal{T}$ is called natural if $$g(E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}) = \sum_{i=1}^n g(E(K_{i})^{(c_i)}) - (n-1)$$
As explained in Section \[sec:sft\], given [*any*]{} collection of $n-1$ swallow follow tori $\mathcal{T} \subset E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$ that give the decomposition $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)} = \cup_\mathcal{T} E(K_{i})^{(c_i)}$, the integers $c_1,\dots,c_n$ satisfy the equation $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_i = c+n-1$. We will often use this fact without reference; compare this to Proposition \[pro:sft\] where the converse was established.
\[ex:sft1\] In Theorem \[thm:sft\] below we prove existence of natural swallow follow tori under certain assumptions. The following example shows that this is not always the case. We first analyze basic properties of knots that admit natural swallow follow tori: let $K_1, K_2 \subset S^3$ be prime knots and $T \subset E(K_1 \# K_2)$ a natural swallow follow torus. By exchanging the subscripts if necessary we may assume that $T$ decomposes $E(K_{1} \# K_{2})$ as $E(K_{1})^{(1)} \cup_{T} E(K_{2})$. By definition of naturallity, $$g(E(K_{1} \# K_{2})) = g(E(K_{1})^{(1)}) + g(E(K_{2})) - 1$$ It is easy to see that $g(E(K_{1})^{(1)}) \geq g(E(K_{1}))$. Combining these, we see that $g(E(K_{1} \# K_{2})) \geq g(E(K_{1})) + g(E(K_{2})) - 1$. Morimoto [@morimoto-proc-ams] constructed examples of prime knots $K_{1}$, $K_{2}$ for which $g(E(K_{1} \# K_{2})) = g(E(K_{1})) + g(E(K_{2})) - 2$. We conclude that for these knots, $E(K_{1} \# K_{2})$ does not admit a natural swallow follow torus.
\[ex:sft2\] The following example is of a more subtle phenomenon. It shows that even when $E(K_{1} \# K_{2})$ does admit a natural swallow follow torus, not every swallow follow torus is natural. In this sense, the weak reduction found in Theorem \[thm:sft\] is special as it finds natural swallow follow tori.
Let $K_{MSY} \subset S^{3}$ be the knot constructed by Morimoto Sakuma and Yokota in [@skuma-morimoto-yokata] and recall the notation $2K_{MSY} = K_{MSY} \# K_{MSY}$. It was shown in [@skuma-morimoto-yokata] that $g(E(K_{MSY})) = 2$ and $g(E(2K_{MSY}))=4$.
We claim that $g(E(K_{MSY})^{(1)})=3$. By [@rieck], either $g(E(K_{MSY})^{(1)})=2$ or $g(E(K_{MSY})^{(1)})=3$. Assume for a contradiction that $g(E(K_{MSY})^{(1)})=2$. By Corollary \[cor:sft\] (with $c=0$, $c_1=1$, and $c_2=0$) we have $$g(E(2K_{MSY})) \leq g(E(K_{MSY})^{(1)}) + g(E(K_{MSY})) - 1 = 2+2-1=3$$ a contradiction. Hence $g(E(K_{MSY})^{(1)}) = 3$.
Let $K$ be any non-trivial 2-bridge knot. It is well known that $g(E(K))=2$. We claim that $g(E(K_{MSY} \# K)) =3$. Since tunnel number one knots are prime [@norwood], $g(E(K_{MSY} \# K)) \geq 3$. On the other hand, since $K$ admits a $(1, 1)$ decomposition, by Theorem \[thm:tfae\] we have that $g(E(K)^{(1)}) = 2$. As above, Corollary \[cor:sft\] gives $$g(E(K_{MSY} \# K)) \leq g(E(K_{MSY})) + g(E(K)^{(1)}) - 1 = 2 + 2 - 1 = 3$$ Hence $g(E(K_{MSY} \# K)) =3$.
$E(K_{MSY} \# K)$ admits two swallow follow tori, say $T_1$ and $T_2$, that decompose it as follows:
1. $g(E(K_{MSY} \# K)) = E(K_{MSY})^{(1)} \cup_{T_1} E(K)$, and
2. $g(E(K_{MSY} \# K)) = E(K_{MSY}) \cup_{T_2} E(K)^{(1)}$.
In each case, amalgamating minimal genus Heegaard surfaces for the manifolds appearing on the right hand side yields a Heegaard surface for $E(K_{MSY} \# K)$ whose genus fulfills (Lemma \[lem:genus after amalgamation\]):
1. $g(E(K_{MSY})^{(1)}) + g(E(K)) - g(T_1) = 3 + 2 - 1 = 4,$ and
2. $g(E(K_{MSY})) + g(E(K)^{(1)}) - g(T_2) = 2 + 2 - 1 = 3.$
We conclude that $T_{2}$ is a natural swallow follow torus but $T_1$ is not.
In this section we show that if $K_i$ is m-small for all $i$, then any minimal genus Heegaard surface for $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$ weakly reduces to a natural collection of swallow follow tori. The statement of Theorem \[thm:sft\] is more general and allows for non-minimal genus Heegaard surfaces.
\[thm:sft\] Let $K_{i} \subset M_{i}$ be prime knots in compact manifolds so that $E(K_i)$ not homeomorphic to $T^2 \times I$, $E(K_i)$ is irreducible, and ${\partial}N(K_i)$ is incompressible in $E(K_i)$. Let ${\Sigma}$ be a (not necessarily minimal genus) Heegaard surface for $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$. Then one of the following holds:
1. ${\Sigma}$ admits iterated weak reductions that yield a collection of $n-1$ swallow follow tori, say $\mathcal{T}$, giving the decomposition $$E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)} = \cup_\mathcal{T} E(K_{i})^{(c_i)}$$ where $c_{1},\dots,c_{n}$ are integers such that ${\Sigma}_{i=1}^{n} c_i = c+n - 1$.
2. For some $i$, $K_i$ admits an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi (S) \geq \genbd[g( {\Sigma})]$.
The main corollary of Theorem \[thm:sft\] allows us to calculate $g(E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)})$ in terms of $g(E(K_{i})^{(c_{i})})$.
\[cor:sft-strong\] In addition to the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:sft\], suppose that no $K_i$ admits an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)})]$. Then $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$ admits a natural collection of $n-1$ swallow follow tori; equivalently, there exist integers $c_1, \dots, c_n \geq 0$ so that $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_i = c + n - 1$ and $$g(E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}) = {\Sigma}_{i=1}^n g(E(K_{i})^{(c_{i})}) - (n-1)$$
Apply Theorem \[thm:sft\] to a minimal genus Heegaard splitting of $E(\#_{i=1}^{n}K_i)^{(c)}$ and apply Lemma \[lem:genus after amalgamation\].
We get:
\[cor:sft-strong2\] In addition to the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:sft\], suppose that no $K_i$ admits an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)})]$. Then $$g(E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}) = \min\Big\{\sum_{i=1}^n g(E(K_{i})^{(c_{i})}) - (n-1)\Big\}$$ where the minimum is taken over all integers $c_1, \dots, c_n \geq 0$ with ${\Sigma}c_i = c + n - 1$.
By Corollary \[cor:sft\], for any collection of integers $c_1,\dots,c_n$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n c_i = c+ n - 1$ we have that $$g(E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}) \leq \sum_{i=1}^n g(E(K_{i})^{(c_{i})}) - (n-1)$$ and by Corollary \[cor:sft-strong\], there exist integers $c_1,\dots,c_n$ for which equality holds. The corollary follows.
We induct on $(n,c)$ ordered lexicographically. Recall that in the beginning of the proof of Theorem \[thm:strongHH\] we showed that $(n,c)$ is well defined. If $n = 1$ there is nothing to prove; assume from now on $n > 1$.
Assume Conclusion (2) of Theorem \[thm:sft\] does not hold, that is, for each $i$, $E(K_i)$ does not admit an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi (S)
\geq \genbd[g({\Sigma})]$. Then by the Swallow Follow Torus Theorem [@kobayashi-rieck-m-small Theorem 4.1] ${\Sigma}$ weakly reduces to a swallow follow torus, say $T$. $T$ decomposes $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_i)^{(c)}$ as $E(K_I)^{(c_I)} \cup_T
E(K_J)^{(c_J)}$, where $I \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}$ (possibly empty), $c_I + c_J
=c+1$, $K_I = \#_{i \in I} K_i$, and $K_J = \#_{i \not\in I} K_i$. Denote the Heegaard surfaces induced on $E(K_I)^{(c_I)}$ and $E(K_J)^{(c_J)}$ by ${\Sigma}_I$ and ${\Sigma}_J$, respectively.
[**Case One: $\emptyset \neq I \neq \{1,\dots,n\}$:**]{} In this case both $E(K_I)^{(c_I)}$ and $E(K_J)^{(c_J)}$ are exteriors of knots with strictly less than $n$ prime factors and hence we may apply induction to both. Since $g({\Sigma}_I) < g({\Sigma})$, conclusion (2) of Theorem \[thm:sft\] does not hold for $E(K_I)^{(c_I)}$. Hence, by induction, ${\Sigma}_I$ admits iterated weak reduction that yields a collection of $|I| - 1$ swallow follow tori (say $\mathcal{T}_I \subset E(K_I)^{(c_I)}$) so that the following conditions hold:
1. $\mathcal{T}_I$ decompose $E(K_I)^{(c_I)}$ as $\cup_{\mathcal{T}_I} E(K_i)^{(c_i)}$ (for $i \in I$),
2. $\sum_{i \in I} c_i = c_{I} + |I| - 1$.
Similarly, ${\Sigma}_J$ admits iterated weak reduction that yields a collection of $(n-|I|) - 1$ swallow follow tori (say $\mathcal{T}_J \subset E(K_J)^{(c_J)}$) so that the following conditions hold:
1. $\mathcal{T}_J$ decompose $E(K_J)^{(c_J)}$ as $\cup_{\mathcal{T}_J} E_i^{(c_i)}$ (for $i \not\in I$),
2. $\sum_{i \not\in I} c_i = c_{J} + (n-|I|) - 1$.
Thus after iterated weak reduction of ${\Sigma}$ we obtain $\mathcal{T} = T \cup \mathcal{T}_{I} \cup \mathcal{T}_{J}$. By the above, $\mathcal{T}$ decomposes $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)}$ as $\cup_{\mathcal{T}} E(K_{i})^{(c_{i})}$, so that $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_{i} = \sum_{i \in I} c_{i} + \sum_{i \not\in I} c_{i} = c_{I} + |I| - 1 + c_{J} + (n-|I|) - 1 = c + n -1$ (recall that $c_I + c_J = c+1$). This proves Theorem \[thm:sft\] in Case One.
[**Case Two: $I = \emptyset$ or $I = \{1,\dots,n\}$.**]{} By symmetry we may assume that $I = \{1,\dots,n\}$. In that case $E(K_{J})^{(c_J)} \cong D(c_{J})$, a disk with $c_{J}$ holes cross $S^{1}$, and $T$ gives the decomposition: $$E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c)} = E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c_{I})} \cup_{T} D(c_{J})$$ Since $T$ is essential (and in particular, not boundary parallel) $c_{J} \geq 2$. Since $c_{I} + c_{J} = c+1$, we have that $c_{I} < c$. Thus the complexity of $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c_{I})}$ is $(n,c_{I}) < (n,c)$ and we may apply induction to $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c_{I})}$. Let ${\Sigma}_{I}$ be the Heegaard surface for $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c_{I})}$ induced by weak reduction. By induction, ${\Sigma}_{I}$ admits a repeated weak reduction that yields a system of $n-1$ swallow follow tori, say $\mathcal{T}_{I}$, that decomposes $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c_{I})}$ as $$E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c_{I})} = \cup_{\mathcal{T}_{I}} E(K_{i})^{(c_{i})}$$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_{i} = c_{I} + n -1$. Let $T'$ be a component of $\mathcal{T}_{I}$. Then $T'$ decomposes $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c_{I})}$ as $E(\#_{i=1}^{n} K_{i})^{(c_{I})} = E(\#_{i \in I'} K_{i})^{(b_{1})}
\cup_{T'} E(\#_{i \not\in I'} K_{i})^{(b_{2})}$, for some $I' \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\}$ and some integers $b_{1},b_{2} \geq 0$ with $b_{1} + b_{2} = c_I +1$. Since $T' \subset \mathcal{T}_{I}$, we have that $\emptyset \neq I' \neq \{1,\dots,n\}$. By Proposition \[pro:untel to a conn sep surfce implies weak reduction\], we see that ${\Sigma}$ weakly reduce to $T'$. This reduces Case Two to Case One, completing the proof of Theorem \[thm:sft\].
Calculating the growth rate of m-small knots {#sec:growth-rate}
============================================
In this final section we complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Let $K \subset M$ be an m-small admissible knot in a compact manifold. Recall the notation $nK$ and $E(K)^{(c)}$.
The difference between $g(E(K)^{(c)})$ and $g(E(K)) + c$ is measured by a function denoted ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ that plays a key role our work:
\[def:fk\] Given a knot $K$, we define the function ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}: \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0} \to \mathbb{Z}$ to be $${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) = g(E(K)) + c - g(E(K)^{(c)})$$
We immediately see that ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ has the following properties, which we will often use without reference:
1. ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(0)= 0$.
2. For $c \ge 0$, ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) \leq {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c+1) \leq {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c)+1$: this follows from the fact (proved in [@rieck]) that for all $c \geq 0$, $g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq g(E(K)^{(c+1)}) \leq g(E(K)^{(c)}) + 1$
3. For $c \ge 0$, $0 \leq {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) \leq c$ (follows easily from (2)).
Before proceeding, we rephrase Corollaries \[cor:sft-strong\] and \[cor:sft-strong2\] in terms of ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$:
\[cor:sft-strong3\] Let $K \subset M$ be a knot in a compact manifold and let $n$ be a positive integer. Suppose that $E(K)$ does not admit a meridional essential surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(nK))]$. Then there exist integers $c_1\dots,c_n \geq 0$ with ${\Sigma}c_i=n-1$ so that: $$g(E(nK)) = n g(E(K)) - \sum_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)$$
By Corollary \[cor:sft-strong\] (with $c=0$) there exist $c_1,\dots,c_n \ge 0$ with ${\Sigma}c_i = n-1$, so that $g(E(nK)) = \sum_{i=1}^n g(E(K)^{(c_{i})}) - (n-1)$. We get:
$$\begin{aligned}
g(E(nK)) &=& \Big[ \sum_{i=1}^n g(E(K)^{(c_i)})\Big] -(n-1) \\
&=& \Big[\sum_{i=1}^n g(E(K)) + c_i - {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)\Big]-(n-1) \\
&=& n g(E(K)) + \Big[\sum_{i=1}^n c_i\Big] - \Big[\sum_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)\Big]-(n-1)\\
&=& n g(E(K)) + (n-1) - \Big[\sum_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)\Big]-(n-1)\\
&=& n g(E(K)) - \sum_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)\end{aligned}$$
A similar argument shows that Corollary \[cor:sft-strong2\] gives:
\[cor:sft-strong4\] Let $K \subset M$ be a knot in a compact manifold and let $n$ be a positive integer. Suppose that $E(K)$ does not admit a meridional essential surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(nK))]$. Then we have: $$\begin{aligned}
g(E(nK)) &=& \min\big\{ng(E(K)) - {\Sigma}_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)\big\} \\
&=& ng(E(K)) - \max \big\{ {\Sigma}_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)\big\} \end{aligned}$$ where the minimum and maximum are taken over all integers $c_1,\dots,c_n \geq 0$ with $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_i=n-1$.
Recall (Notation \[notation:bridge indices\]) that we denote $g(E(K)) - g(M)$ by $g$ and the bridge indices of $K$ with respect to Heegaard surfaces of genus $g(E(K)) - i$ by $b_i^*$ ($=1,\dots,g$), so that $0<b^{*}_1<\dots<b^{*}_i<\dots<b^{*}_g$. We formally set $b_0^* = 0$ and $b_{g+1}^* = \infty$. Note that these properties imply that for every $c \geq 0$ there is a unique index $i$ ($0 \leq i \leq g$), depending on $c$, so that $b^{*}_i \leq c < b^{*}_{i+1}$; we will use this fact below without reference.
In the following proposition we calculate ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c)$ when $E(K)$ does not admit an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(K)^{(c)})]$.
\[pro:fk\] Let $K$ be a knot and $c \geq 0$ an integer. Let $0 \leq i \leq g$ be the unique index for which $b^{*}_i \leq c < b^{*}_{i+1}$. Then ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) \geq i$. If in addition $E(K)$ does not admit an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(K)^{(c)})]$ then equality holds: $${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) = i$$
We first prove that ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) \geq i$ holds for any knot. Since ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ is a non-negative function we may assume $i \geq 1$. By the definition of $b^{*}_i$, $K$ admits a ($g(E(K)) - i$, $b^{*}_i$) decomposition. Since $c \geq b^{*}_i$, $K$ admits a $(g(E(K)) - i, c)$ decomposition. By Corollary \[cor:upper-bound-for-X(b)\] we have that $g(E(K)^{(c)}) \leq g(E(K)) -i + c$. Therefore, ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) = g(E(K)) + c - g(E(K)^{(c)}) \geq g(E(K)) + c - (g(E(K)) -i+c) = i$.
Next we assume, in addition, that $E(K)$ does not admit an essential meridional surface $S$ with $\chi(S) \geq \genbd[g(E(K)^{(c)})]$. We will complete the proof of the proposition by showing that ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) < i+1$; suppose for a contradiction that ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) \geq i+1$. Thus $g(E(K)^{(c)}) = g(E(K)) + c - {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) \leq g(E(K)) + c - (i+1)$.
Assume first that $i=g$. Then by Corollary \[cor:strongHH\] (with $g(E(K))+c-(g+1)$ corresponding to $h$) we see that $k$ admits a $(g(E(K))+c-(g+1)-c, c)$ decomposition. In particular, $M$ admits a Heegaard surface of genus $(g(E(K)))+c-(g+1)-c$. Hence we see: $$\begin{aligned}
g(M) & \leq & (g(E(K))+c-(g+1)-c \\
& = & g(E(K)) - g-1 \\
& = & g(E(K)) - (g(E(K)) - g(M)) -1 \\
&=& g(M) -1\end{aligned}$$ This contradiction completes the proof when $i=g$.
Next assume that $0 \le i < g$. Applying Corollary \[cor:strongHH\] again (with $g(E(K))+c-(i+1)$ corresponding to $h$ in Corollary \[cor:strongHH\]) we see that $K$ admits a $(g(E(K)) - (i+1), c)$ decomposition. By definition, $b^{*}_{i+1}$ is the smallest integer so that $K$ admits a $(g(E(K)) - (i+1),b^{*}_{i+1})$ decomposition; hence $c \geq b^{*}_{i+1}$. This contradicts our choice of $i$ in the statement of the proposition, showing that ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) < i+1$. This completes the proof of Proposition \[pro:fk\].
As an illustration of Proposition \[pro:fk\], let $K$ be an m-small knot in $S^3$. Suppose that $g=3$, $b^{*}_1=5$, $b^{*}_2=7$, and $b^{*}_3 =
23$. (We do not know if a knot with these properties exists.) Then:
$${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0 \hspace{1in} 0 \leq c \leq 4 \\ 1 \hspace{1in} 5 \leq c \leq 6 \\ 2 \hspace{1in} 7 \leq c \leq 22 \\ 3 \hspace{1in} 23 \leq c \\ \end{array} \right.$$
Not much is known about ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$ for knots that are not m-small:
\[que:bounded\] Does there exist a knot $K$ in a manifold $M$ with unbounded ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$? Does there exist a knot $K$ with ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) > g(E(K)) - g(M)$ (for sufficiently large $c$)? What can be said about the behavior of the function ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}$?
With the preparation complete, we are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:main\].
Fix the notation of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Since the upper bound was obtained in Proposition \[pro:upper-bound\], we assume from now on that $K$ is m-small. By Corollary \[cor:sft-strong4\], $g(E(nK)) = n g(E(K)) - \max \{ {\Sigma}_{i=1}^n
{{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i) \}$, where the maximum is taken over all integers $c_{1},\dots,c_{n} \geq 0$ with $\sum_{i=1} ^{n} c_i = n-1$.
Fix $n$ and let $c_1,\dots,c_n \geq 0$ be integers with $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_i = n-1$ that maximize ${\Sigma}_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)$.
\[lem:maximizingsequence\] We may assume that the sequence $c_1,\dots,c_{n}$ fulfills the following conditions for some $1 \leq l \leq n$:
1. $c_{i} \geq c_{i+1}$ ($i=1,\dots,n-1$).
2. For $i \leq l$, $c_{i} \in \{b_{1}^{*},\dots,b_{g}^{*}\}$.
3. $c_{l+1} < b_{1}^{*}$.
4. For $i > l+1$, $c_{i} = 0$.
By reordering the indices if necessary we may assume (1) holds.
Let $l$ be the largest index for which ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_l) \neq 0$. For $i=1,\dots,l$, let $0 \leq j(i) \leq g$ be the unique index for which $b^{*}_{j(i)} \le c_{i} < b^{*}_{j(i)+1}$ (recall that we set $b^{*}_0 =0$ and $b_{g+1}^{*} = \infty$). Define $c'_{1},\dots,c'_{n}$ as follows:
1. For $i \leq l$, set $c'_i =b^{*}_{j(i)}$ (in other words, $c_{i}'$ is the largest $b_{j}^{*}$ that does not exceed $c_{i}$).
2. Set $c'_{l+1} = n-1- (\sum _{i=1} ^{l} c'_i)$.
3. For $i > l+1$ set $c'_{i} = 0$.
By Proposition \[pro:fk\], for $i \leq l$, ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i}) = {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(b^{*}_{j(i)}) = {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i}')$. We get :
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'_{i}) &=& \sum_{i=1}^{l} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'_{i}) + \sum_{i=l+1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'_{i}) \\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^{l} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i}) + \sum_{i=l+1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'_{i}) \\
&\geq& \sum_{i=1}^{l} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i}) \\
&=& \sum_{i=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i}).\end{aligned}$$
(For the last equality, recall that ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i}) = 0$ for $i > l$.)
Since $c_{1},\dots,c_{n}$ maximizes $\sum_{i=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i})$, we conclude that $\sum_{i=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i}')$ and hence ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'_{l+1}) = 0$; thus $c_{l+1}' < b_1^*$. Thus $c'_{1},\dots,c'_{n}$ is a maximizing sequence; it is easy to see that it fulfills conditions (1)–(4).
We will denote the $n^{\rm th}$ term of the defining sequence of the growth rate by $S_{n}$, that is: $$S_{n} = \frac{g(E(nK)) - ng(E(K)) + n-1}{n-1}$$ By Corollary \[cor:sft-strong4\] the following holds:
$$\label{eq:S_n}
S_{n} = 1 - \frac{\max \{ \Sigma_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i) \} }{n-1}$$
In order to bound $S_{n}$ below we need to understand the following optimization problem, where here we are assuming that the maximizing sequence fulfills the conditions listed in Lemma \[lem:maximizingsequence\], and in particular, ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{i})=0$ for $i > l$.
\[prob:original\] Find non negative integers $l$ and $c_1,\dots,c_l$ that maximize $\sum_{i=1}^l {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i)$ subject to the constraints:
1. $\sum_{i=1}^l c_i \leq n-1$
2. $c_{i} \in \{b^{*}_1,\dots,b^{*}_g\}$ (for $1 \leq i \leq l$).
For $i=1,\dots,g$, let $k_i$ be the number of times that $b^{*}_i$ appears in $c_1,\dots,c_l$. By Proposition \[pro:fk\], ${{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(b^{*}_i) = i$; thus Problem \[prob:original\] can be rephrased as follows:
\[prob:rewritten\] Maximize $\sum_{i=1}^g k_i i$ subject to the constraints:
1. $\sum_{i=1}^g k_i b^{*}_i \leq n-1$
2. $k_{i}$ is a non-negative integer
We first solve this optimization problem over $\mathbb{R}$; we use the variables $x_1, \dots, x_g$ instead of $k_1, \dots, k_g$.
\[prob:over-R\] Given $n \in \mathbb{R}$, $n > 1$, maximize $\sum_{i=1}^g x_{i} i$ subject to the constraints
1. $\sum_{i=1}^g x_i b^{*}_i \leq n-1$
2. $x_1 \ge 0, \dots, x_g \ge 0$
It is easy to see that for any sequence $x_1,\dots,x_g$ that realizes maximum we have that $\sum_{i=1}^g x_i b^{*}_i = n-1$, for otherwise we can increase the value of $x_1$, thus increasing $\sum_{i=1}^g x_{i} i$ and contradicting maximality. Problem \[prob:over-R\] is an elementary linear programming problem (known as the standard maximum problem) and is solved using the simplex method which gives:
\[lem:over-R\] There is a (not necessarily unique) index $i_0$, which is independent of $n$, such that a solution of Problem \[prob:over-R\] is given by$$x_{i_0} = \frac{n-1}{b_{i_0}^*}, \ \ \ \ x_i = 0 (i \neq i_0)$$ Hence the maximum is $$\frac{(n-1)i_0}{b_{i_0}^*}$$
The notation used in this proof was chosen to be consistent with notation often used in linear programming texts. Let ${\bf \overrightarrow N},{\bf \overrightarrow F}$ and $\vec{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{g}$ denote the following vectors $${\bf \overrightarrow N} = (b_{1}^{*},\dots,b_{g}^{*}), \ \ \ {\bf \overrightarrow F} = (1,\dots,g), \ \mbox{ and } \ \vec{x} = (x_{1},\dots,x_{g})$$ For $n \in \mathbb{R}$, $n>1$, let $\Delta_{n}$ be $$\Delta_{n} = \{\vec{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{g} \ | {\bf \overrightarrow N} \cdot \vec{x} = n-1, x_{1} \geq 0,\dots,x_g \geq 0 \}$$ Note that $\Delta_{n}$ is a simplex and its codimension $k$ faces are obtained by setting $k$ variables to zero. Problem \[prob:over-R\] can be stated as: $$\mbox{maximize } \ \ {\bf \overrightarrow F}\cdot \vec{x}, \ \ \mbox{ subject to } \ \ \vec{x} \in \Delta_{n}$$ Since the gradient of ${\bf \overrightarrow F}\cdot \vec{x}$ is ${\bf \overrightarrow F}$ and the normal to $\Delta_{n}$ is ${\bf \overrightarrow N}$, the gradient of the restriction of ${\bf \overrightarrow F}\cdot \vec{x}$ to ${\Delta_{n}}$ is the projection $${\bf \overrightarrow P} = {\bf \overrightarrow F} -
\frac{{\bf \overrightarrow F} \cdot {\bf \overrightarrow N}}{|{\bf \overrightarrow N}|^{2}}{\bf \overrightarrow N}$$ Note that ${\bf \overrightarrow P}$ is independent of $n$. The maximum of ${\bf \overrightarrow N}\cdot \vec{x}$ on ${\Delta_{n}}$ is found by moving along $\Delta_{n}$ in the direction of ${\bf \overrightarrow P}$. This shows that the maximum is obtained along a face defined by setting some of the variables to zero, and the variables set to zero are independent of $n$. Lemma \[lem:over-R\] follows by picking $i_{0}$ to be one of the variables not set to zero.
Fix an index $i_{0}$ as in Lemma \[lem:over-R\]. If $b^{*}_{i_{0}} | n-1$ then the maximum (over $\mathbb{R}$) found in Lemma \[lem:over-R\] is in fact an integer and hence is also the maximum for Problem \[prob:original\]. This allows us to calculate $S_{n}$ in this case:
\[lem:divisible\] If $b^{*}_{i_{0}} | n-1$ then $S_{n} = 1 - {i_{0}}/{b^{*}_{i_{0}}}$.
$$S_{n} = 1 - \frac{\max \{ \Sigma_{i=1}^n {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_i) \} }{n-1} = 1 - \frac{(n-1)i_0}{(n-1)b_{i_0}^*} = 1 - \frac{i_0}{b_{i_0}^*}$$
We now turn our attention to the general case, where $b^{*}_{i_{0}}$ may not divide $n-1$. We will only consider values of $n$ for which $n > b_{i_{0}}^{*}$. As in Section \[sec:upper-bound\], let $k_{i_{0}}$ and $r$ be the quotient and remainder when dividing $n-1$ by $b_{i_{0}}^{*}$, so that $$\label{eq:Dividing}
n-1 = k_{i_{0}}b_{i_{0}}^{*} + r, \ \ \ \\ \ 0 \leq r < b_{i_0}^{*}$$ Let $c_j \geq 0$ ($1 \leq j \leq n$) be integers with $\sum_{j=1}^{n} c_{j}= n - 1$ that maximize $\sum_{j=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_j)$. We will denote $n-r$ by $n'$. Let $c_j' \geq 0$ ($1 \leq j \leq n'$) be integers with $\sum_{j=1}^{n'} c'_{j}= n' - 1$ that maximize $\sum_{j=1}^{n'} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'_j)$.
\[clm:sum\] $\sum_{j=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_j) \leq \sum_{j=1}^{n'} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'_j) + r$.
Starting with the sequence $c_1,\dots,c_n$, we obtain a new sequence by subtracting one from exactly one $c_j$ (with $c_j > 0$). Let $c_{j}'''$ be a sequence of non negative integers obtained by repeating this process $r$ times. Then $\sum_{j=1}^{n} c_{j}''' = n-1-r = n'-1$. Let $c_{j}''$ be the sequence obtained from $c_{j}'''$ by removing $r$ zeros (note that this is possible as there indeed are at least $r$ zeros). We get: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^{n'} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'_j) + r &\geq \sum_{j=1}^{n'} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c''_{j}) + r & \mbox{ since } c_{j}' \mbox{ maximizes}\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c'''_{j}) + r & \mbox{ since } {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(0) = 0 \\
&\geq \sum_{j=1}^{n} {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c_{j}) & \mbox{ since } {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c) + 1 \geq {{\ensuremath{f_K}}}(c+1)\end{aligned}$$
This proves Claim \[clm:sum\].
Note that $b_{i_{0}}^{*} | n'-1$ and so we may apply Lemma \[lem:divisible\] to calculate $S_{n'}$. We get (in the first line we use Equation (\[eq:S\_n\]) from Page ):
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{n} &= 1 - \frac{\max \{ \Sigma_{i=1}^n f(c_i) \} }{n-1} & \mbox{Equation}~(\ref{eq:S_n})\mbox{ for } S_{n} \\
&\geq 1 - \frac{\max \{ \Sigma_{j=1}^{n'} f(c'_j) + r \}}{n-1} & \mbox{Claim~}\ref{clm:sum} \\
&= 1 - \frac{n'-1}{n-1}\frac{\max \{ \Sigma_{j=1}^{n'} f(c'_j) \} }{n'-1} -\frac{r}{n-1} & \\
&= \frac{n'-1}{n-1}\Big(1 - \frac{\max \{ \Sigma_{j=1}^{n'} f(c'_j) \} }{n'-1}\Big) + \Big(1 - \frac{n'-1}{n-1}\Big) - \frac{r}{n-1} & \\
&= \frac{n'-1}{n-1}S_{n'} + \Big(1 - \frac{n'-1}{n-1}\Big) - \frac{r}{n-1} & \mbox{Equation}~(\ref{eq:S_n})\mbox{ for } S_{n'} \\
&= \frac{n'-1}{n-1}\Big(1 - \frac{i_{0}}{b^{*}_{i_{0}}}\Big) + \Big(1 - \frac{n'-1}{n-1}\Big) - \frac{r}{n-1}& \mbox{Lemma}~\ref{lem:divisible} \\
&= \frac{n'-1}{n-1}\Big(1 - \frac{i_{0}}{b^{*}_{i_{0}}}\Big) + \Big(1 - \frac{n'+r-1}{n-1}\Big) & \\
&= \frac{n-r-1}{n-1}\Big(1 - \frac{i_{0}}{b^{*}_{i_{0}}}\Big) & \mbox{Substituting } n' = n-r\end{aligned}$$
Recall that in the proof of Proposition \[pro:upper-bound\] (see Page ) we proved Equation (\[equ:UpperBound\]) which says (recall that $k_{i_0}$ was defined in Equation (\[eq:Dividing\]) above): $$S_n < 1 - \frac{i_{0}}{b_{i_{0}}^*} \frac{k_{i_{0}}}{k_{i_{0}}+1}$$ Combining these facts we obtain: $$\frac{n-r-1}{n-1}\Big(1 - \frac{i_{0}}{b^{*}_{i_{0}}}\Big) \leq S_{n} < 1 - \frac{i_{0}}{b_{i_{0}}^*} \frac{k_{i_{0}}}{k_{i_{0}}+1}$$ By Equation (\[eq:Dividing\]) above, $r < b^{*}_{i_{0}}$ and $\lim_{n \to \infty} k_{i_{0}} = \infty$. We conclude that as $n \to \infty$ both bounds limit on $1 - i_{0}/b^{*}_{i_{0}}$, and thus $\lim_{n \to \infty} S_{n}$ exists and equals $1 - i_{0}/b^{*}_{i_{0}}$.
This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
[10]{}
Kenneth L Baker, Tsuyoshi Kobayashi, and Yo’av Rieck The spectrum of the growth rate of the tunnel number is infinite. Preprint, 2015.
R. Sean Bowman, Scott A. Taylor, and A. Zupan. Bridge spectra of twisted torus knots. , doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnu162, 2014.
A. J. Casson and C. McA. Gordon. Reducing [H]{}eegaard splittings. , 27(3):275–283, 1987.
Wolfgang Haken. Some results on surfaces in [$3$]{}-manifolds. In [*Studies in Modern Topology*]{}, pages 39–98. Math. Assoc. Amer. (distributed by Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.), 1968.
John Hempel. . Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1976. Ann. of Math. Studies, No. 86.
Ichihara, Kazuhiro and Saito, Toshio. Knots with arbitrarily high distance bridge decompositions. , 50 (2013), no. 6, 1989–2000.
William Jaco. , volume 43 of [*CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics*]{} American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1980.
W. Jaco, and P.Shalen. ,
K. Johannson, Homotopy equivalences of 3-manifolds, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 761. Springer, (1979).
Kim, Soo Hwan. The tunnel number one knot with bridge number three is a $(1,1)$-knot. , 45(1):67–71, 2005.
Tsuyoshi Kobayashi and Yo’av Rieck. Local detection of strongly irreducible [H]{}eegaard splittings via knot exteriors. , 138(1-3):239–251, 2004.
Tsuyoshi Kobayashi and Yo’av Rieck. , [*Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik*]{} 592 (2006) 63–78.
Tsuyoshi Kobayashi and Yo’av Rieck. , [*Comm. Anal. Geom.*]{} 5 (2006) 1037–1077.
Tsuyoshi Kobayashi and Yo’av Rieck. Knots with $g(E(K)) = 2$ and $g(E(K\# K\# K)) = 6$ and Morimoto’s Conjecture, , 156(2009) 1114–1117.
Tsuyoshi Kobayashi and Yo’av Rieck. Knot exteriors with additive Heegaard genus and Morimoto’s conjecture. , 8 (2008), no. 2, 953–969.
T.Kobayashi, T.Saito. Destabilizing Heegaard splittings of knot exteriors , 157(1):202–212, 2010.
Katura Miyazaki. Conjugation and the prime decomposition of knots in closed, oriented [$3$]{}-manifolds. , 313(2):785–804, 1989.
Kanji Morimoto. There are knots whose tunnel numbers go down under connected sum. , 123(11):3527–3532, 1995.
Kanji Morimoto. Essential surfaces in the exteriors of torus knots with twists on 2-strands. Available at http://morimoto.ii-konan.jp/TKSML.pdf.
Kanji Morimoto, Makoto Sakuma, and Yoshiyuki Yokota. Examples of tunnel number one knots which have the property “[$1+1=3$]{}”. , 119(1):113–118, 1996.
Norwood, F. H. Every two-generator knot is prime. , 86(1):143–147, 1982.
Yo’av Rieck. Heegaard structures of manifolds in the [D]{}ehn filling space. , 39(3):619–641, 2000.
Martin Scharlemann. Local detection of strongly irreducible [H]{}eegaard splittings. , 90(1-3):135–147, 1998.
Martin Scharlemann. Heegaard splittings of compact 3-manifolds. In [*Handbook of geometric topology*]{}, pages 921–953. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
Martin Scharlemann and Abigail Thompson. Thin position for [$3$]{}-manifolds. In [*Geometric topology (Haifa, 1992)*]{}, volume 164 of [ *Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 231–238. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994.
Jennifer Schultens. The classification of [H]{}eegaard splittings for (compact orientable surface)[$\,\times\, S\sp 1$]{}. , 67(2):425–448, 1993.
Jennifer Schultens. eegaard splittings of graph manifolds. 8, 831–876 (electronic), 2004.
A. Zupan. Bridge spectra of iterated torus knots. 22 (2014), no. 5, 931–963
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Goerss, Henn, Mahowald and Rezk construct a complex of permutation modules for the Morava stabilizer group $\mathbb G_2$ at the prime 3. We describe how this can be done using techniques from homological algebra.'
address: |
School of Mathematics\
University of Manchester\
PO Box 88\
Manchester M60 1QD\
United Kingdom
author:
- Peter Symonds
bibliography:
- 'link.bib'
title: On the construction of permutation complexes for profinite groups
---
Goerss, Henn, Mahowald and Rezk construct a complex of permutation modules for the Morava stabilizer group G\_2 at the prime 3. We describe how this can be done using techniques from homological algebra.
Goerss, Henn, Mahowald and Rezk construct a complex of permutation modules for the Morava stabilizer group <b>G</b><sub>2</sub> at the prime 3. We describe how this can be done using techniques from homological algebra.
Introduction {#intro}
============
In [@ghmr], Goerss, Henn, Mahowald and Rezk consider the special extended Morava stabilizer group $\mathbb G^1_2 = \mathbb S^1_2
\rtimes \operatorname{Gal}$ at the prime 3 and construct an exact sequence of compact modules $$0 \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}} \what
{\mathbb Z} _3 \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{SD_{16}}
\what {\mathbb Z}_3(\chi) \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{SD_{16}}
\what {\mathbb Z}_3(\chi) \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}
\what {\mathbb Z} _3 \rightarrow \what {\mathbb Z} _3 \rightarrow 0,$$ where $G_{24}$ is a subgroup of order 24 etc, and $\what {\mathbb Z}
_3 (\chi )$ is a copy of $\what {\mathbb Z}_3$ on which $SD_{16}$ acts via a character $\chi \co {SD_{16}} \rightarrow \{ \pm 1 \}$. They then use this to construct a certain tower of spectra.
The aim of this note is to show how methods from the homological algebra and representation theory of these groups can help in the algebraic part of this construction.
Background
==========
Let $G$ be a profinite group and let $R$ be a complete noetherian local ring with finite residue class field $k$ of characteristic $p$. For example, $R$ could be the $p$–adic integers.
We work in the category of compact $R\llbracket G\rrbracket $–modules, $\mathcal C_R(G)$, (see Symonds [@s2] for definitions, properties and more references).
The next result is basic, but does not seem to have appeared in the literature.
\[ks\] If $G$ is a virtual pro–$p$–group then the Krull–Schmidt property holds for (topologically) finitely generated modules in $\mathcal C_R(G)$, ie every such module can be expressed as a finite sum of indecomposable modules and this decomposition is essentially unique in the sense that the multiplicity of each isomorphism type is the same in any such decomposition.
Let $H \unlhd _o G$ be an open normal pro–$p$ subgroup. If $M$ is a finitely generated $R\llbracket G\rrbracket $–module then $k \otimes _{R\llbracket H\rrbracket }M$ is finite dimensional and we can decompose $M$ as a finite sum of indecomposable modules using induction on $\dim _k k \otimes_{R\llbracket H\rrbracket }M$.
For this to work we need to know that our induction starts, that is that if $M \ne 0$ then $k \otimes_{R\llbracket H\rrbracket } M \ne 0$. Let $M'$ be a finite quotient of $M$ as an $H$–module; there is a surjection $k \otimes _{R\llbracket H\rrbracket } M \rightarrow k \otimes _{R\llbracket H\rrbracket } M'$. The action of $H$ on $M'$ factors through that of a finite $p$–group $P$, and in this case it is well known that $k \otimes _{R[P]} M' \ne 0$.
All we need to do now is to show that the endomorphism ring of a finitely generated indecomposable module is local, because then the uniqueness of decomposition follows formally (see, for example, Benson [@benson1 1.4.3]).
The proof is just a variant of the one for finite groups (see [@benson1 1.9]). Let $J$ be the Jacobson radical of $R\llbracket G\rrbracket $. For any open normal subgroup $N$ of $G$ let $I_N$ denote the augmentation ideal of $R\llbracket N\rrbracket $. Given an endomorphism $f$ of $M \in
\mathcal C _R(G)$ we set $\operatorname{Im}(f^ \infty) = \cap _{n=1}^\infty \operatorname{Im}(f^n)$ and $\operatorname{Ker}(f^\infty) = \{ x \in M | \forall N \unlhd _o G \,
\forall n \ge 0 \, \exists m \ge 0 \text{ such that }\ f^m (x)
\in J^nM + I_NM \}$.
For each open normal subgroup $N \unlhd _o G$ define $M_N = R
\otimes _{R\llbracket N\rrbracket } M \cong M/I_NM \in \mathcal C_R(G/N)$. Then $M
\cong \operatorname{\varprojlim}M_N$. Since $M$ is finitely generated, $M_N$ is too. Now $f$ induces an endomorphism $f_N$ of $M_N$. Define $\operatorname{Im}(f_N^
\infty) = \cap _{n=1}^\infty \operatorname{Im}(f_N^n)$ and $\operatorname{Ker}(f^\infty_N) =
\{ x \in M_N | \forall n \ge 0 \, \exists m \ge 0 \text{ such
that } f^m (x) \in J^nM_N \}$. From the finite group case of Fitting’s Lemma we know that $M_N = \operatorname{Im}(f_N^\infty) \oplus \operatorname{Ker}(f_N^\infty)$.
But $\operatorname{Im}(f^\infty) \cong \operatorname{\varprojlim}\operatorname{Im}(f_N^\infty)$ and $\operatorname{Ker}(f^\infty) \cong \operatorname{\varprojlim}\operatorname{Ker}(f_N^\infty)$. Hence $M = \operatorname{Im}(f^\infty) \oplus \operatorname{Ker}(f^\infty)$.
Suppose that $M$ is indecomposable and let $I$ be a maximal left ideal in $\operatorname{End}_{\mathcal C_R(G)}(M)$ and let $a$ be an endomorphism not in $I$. Then $1 = ba + f$ for some $b \in \operatorname{End}_{\mathcal
C_R(G)}(M)$ and $f \in I$. But $f$ is not an isomorphism, so $M =
\operatorname{Ker}(f^\infty)$ and $\operatorname{Im}(f^\infty )=0$.
Now $(1+f+\cdots +f^{n-1})ba= 1-f^n$. Let $N \unlhd _o G$ be some arbitrary open normal pro-$p$ subgroup. Since $M$ is finitely generated, for sufficiently large $n$ we have $f^n(M) \subseteq JM +
I_NM \subseteq JM$. Thus $1-f^n$ is onto, by the profinite version of Nakayama’s Lemma [@brumer 1.4]. Also if $(1-f^n)(x)=0$ then $x \in \operatorname{Im}(f^\infty)=0$, so $1-f^n$ is injective. Thus $1-f^n$ is an isomorphism and $a$ has a left inverse, $c$ say.
But $c_N$ must also be a right inverse to $a_N$ on each $M_N$, so $c$ is also a right inverse and $a$ is an isomorphism, as required.
Projective covers exist in $\mathcal C_R(G)$ (Symonds [@s1]), thus so do minimal projective resolutions.
If $S$ is a simple module, let $P_S$ denote the projective cover of $S$. The $P_S$ are precisely the indecomposable projective modules, and any other projective is a product of them.
If there is an open normal pro–$p$ subgroup $H \unlhd _o G$, then any simple module for $R\llbracket G\rrbracket $ is the inflation of one for $k[G/H]$ so, in particular, there are only finitely many simple modules up to isomorphism.
The next result is well known for finite groups.
\[count\] Suppose that $M \in \mathcal C_R(G)$ is projective over $R$ and let $$\cdots \rightarrow P_r \rightarrow
\cdots \rightarrow P_1 \rightarrow P_0 \rightarrow M$$ be the minimal projective resolution of $M$. If $S$ is a simple module then the multiplicity of $P_S$ in $P_r$ is equal to $\dim _{\operatorname{End}(S)}\operatorname{Ext}^r_{R\llbracket G\rrbracket }(M,S)= \dim _{\operatorname{End}(S)} H^r(G, (k \otimes _R M)^* \otimes
_R S)$.
Here $S^*$ denotes the dual over $k$, or rather the contragredient.
(If $k$ is a splitting field for $G/H$, where $H<G$ is open, normal and pro-$p$, then $\operatorname{End}(S) \cong k$.)
(cf Symonds–Weigel [@sw])The multiplicity of $P_S$ in $P_r$ is $$\dim _{\operatorname{End}(S)} \operatorname{Hom}_{R\llbracket G\rrbracket }(P_r,S).$$ The fact that the projective resolution is minimal implies that the differentials in the complex $\operatorname{Hom}_{R\llbracket G\rrbracket }(P_{\bullet},S)$ are zero.
Combining these facts, we find that the multiplicity is $\dim _{\operatorname{End}(S)} \operatorname{Ext}^r _{R\llbracket G\rrbracket }(M,S).$ But $\operatorname{Ext}^r_{R\llbracket G\rrbracket }(M,S) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^r_{R\llbracket G\rrbracket }(R,\operatorname{Hom}_R(M,S))$ (see eg [@benson1 3.1.8]) and $\operatorname{Hom}_R(M,S) \cong (k \otimes _R M)^*\otimes _RS.$
From now on we assume that $G$ is of finite virtual cohomological dimension over $R$. The definition of Tate–Farrell cohomology appears in Scheiderer [@scheiderer] for discrete coefficients and in Symonds [@s2] for compact ones, as does the next result. (See Brown [@brown] for its basic properties in the case of an abstract group.)
For $M$ in $\mathcal C_R(G)$ or $\mathcal D_R(G)$, the Tate–Farrell cohomology $\what{H}^*(G,M)$ is isomorphic to the equivariant Tate–Farrell cohomology of the Quillen complex of $G$ with coefficients in $M$.
\[rank1\] If $G$ has $p$–rank 1 (ie no subgroups isomorphic to $\mathbb Z/p \times \mathbb Z/p$) and only finitely many conjugacy classes of subgroups isomorphic to $\mathbb Z /p$ with representatives $C_1, \ldots , C_n$ then $\what H^*(G,M) \cong \oplus
_{i=1}^n \what H^*(N_G(C_i),M)$ for any $M$ in $\mathcal C_R(G)$ or $\mathcal D_R(G)$.
A similar result for $M=k$ also appears in Henn [@henn].
For $M,N \in \mathcal C_R(G)$ we can also define Tate–Farrell $\operatorname{Ext}$ groups $\smash{\widehat \operatorname{Ext}}^*_G(M,N)$. This allows us to define the stable category $\operatorname{St}_R(G)$ to have the same objects as $\mathcal
C_R(G)$ but morphism groups $\smash{\widehat \operatorname{Ext}}^0_G(M,N)$. We write $\simeq$ for isomorphism in the stable category.
There is another description. We define the Heller translate $\Omega$ on $\mathcal C_R(G)$ by the short exact sequence $\Omega M
\rightarrow P_M \rightarrow M$, where $P_M$ denotes the projective cover of $M$. We also define $\underline{\operatorname{Hom}} _G(M,N)$ to be the quotient of $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal C _R(G) }(M,N)$ by the submodule of all homomorphisms that factor through a projective module. Then $\smash{\widehat
\operatorname{Ext}}^r_G(M,N) \cong \operatorname{\varinjlim}_i \underline{\operatorname{Hom}}_G(\Omega
^{r+i}M,\Omega ^iN)$. In fact we only need to take $i \ge \operatorname{vcd}G$.
For the basic properties of the stable category see Benson [@benson1] for finite groups and [@benson2] for infinite abstract groups. In particular, it is a triangulated category with the inverse of $\Omega$ as translation and the exact triangles coming from short exact sequences in $\mathcal C_R(G)$.
The next statement is basic to our approach, although it is just a corollary of Yoneda’s Lemma.
\[yon\] If the homomorphism $f \co A \rightarrow B$ induces an isomorphism $$f^* \co \smash{\widehat\operatorname{Ext}}^0_G(B,M) \rightarrow
\smash{\widehat\operatorname{Ext}}_G^0(A,M)$$ for all $M \in \mathcal C_R(G)$ then $f$ is an isomorphism in the stable category.
A module $M \in \mathcal C_R(G)$ is *cofibrant* if it is projective on restriction to some open subgroup of $G$.
In fact, if $M$ is cofibrant then it is projective on restriction to any $p$–torsion free subgroup.
Notice that $\Omega ^i M$ is always cofibrant if $i \ge \operatorname{vcd}G$. If $M$ and $N$ are cofibrant then $\smash{\widehat\operatorname{Ext}}^0_G(M,N) \cong
\underline{\operatorname{Hom}}_G(M,N)$.
The definition is taken from [@benson2], as is the next lemma. As the terminology suggests, this is part of a the structure of a closed model category, but we do not need that here.
\[cof\] If $M \simeq N$ in $\operatorname{St}_R(G)$ and $M$ and $N$ are cofibrant then there exist projective modules $P$ and $Q$ such that $M \oplus P \cong N \oplus Q$ in $\mathcal C_R(G)$. If $M$ and $N$ are finitely generated then $P$ and $Q$ can be chosen to be finitely generated.
Let $H \unlhd _oG$ be open normal of finite cohomological dimension. The inclusion of the fixed points induces a map $R \rightarrow
R[G/H]$, which is split over $H$. This induces a map $M \rightarrow
R[G/H] \otimes M \cong \operatorname{Ind}^G_HM$, which is also split over $H$ and where $Q = \operatorname{Ind}^G_HM$ is projective, and finitely generated if $M$ is.
Consider the map $M \rightarrow Q \oplus N$, where the first component is the map constructed above and the second is a stable isomorphism. This map is split over $H$, so the cokernel, call it $P$, is cofibrant, and finitely generated if $M$ and $N$ are.
The long exact sequence for $\smash{\widehat \operatorname{Ext}}^*_G(P,-)$ tells us that $0=\smash{\widehat \operatorname{Ext}}^0_G(P,P) \cong \underline{\operatorname{Hom}}_G(P,P)$, so $P$ is projective and the short exact sequence splits.
The calculation
===============
We set $R= \what {\mathbb Z}_3$, $k=\mathbb F_3$. The Morava stabilizer group $\mathbb S_2$ at the prime 3 can be split as a product $\mathbb S^1_2 \times \what {\mathbb Z}_3$, where $\mathbb
S^1_2$ is the kernel of the reduced norm. There is a natural action of the Galois group $\operatorname{Gal}= \operatorname{Gal}(\mathbb F_9 / \mathbb F_3)$, and we will consider the special extended Morava stabilizer group $\mathbb G^1_2= \mathbb S^1_2 \rtimes \operatorname{Gal}$.
Let $S^1_2$ be the Sylow 3–subgroup of $\mathbb S^1_2$. It is normal in $\mathbb G^1_2$ and $\mathbb G^1_2 = S^1_2 \rtimes SD_{16}$, where $SD_{16}$ is a subgroup isomorphic to the special dihedral group of order 16. In fact, if $\phi$ denotes the generator of $\operatorname{Gal}$ (of order 2) there is an element $\omega \in S^1_2$ of order 8 such that $SD_{16}$ is generated by $\phi$ and $\omega$. There is just one finite 3-subgroup, up to conjugation. It is cyclic of order 3 and we denote it by $C_3$. It is contained in a subgroup $G_{24}$ of order 24, but there is no subgroup of order 48. We can, however, choose conjugacy class representatives so that $SD_{16} \cap G_{24}
= Q_8$, a quaternion group of order 8 generated by $\omega \phi$, which commutes with $C_3$, and $\omega ^2$, which does not. We refer to [@ghmr] for the details.
As a consequence, the simple modules in $\mathcal C _{\what {\mathbb
Z}_3}(G)$ correspond to the simple modules for $SD_{16}$ over ${\mathbb F_3}$. In particular there is a character $\chi$ corresponding to the map $SD_{16} \rightarrow SD_{16}/Q_8 \cong \{
\pm 1 \}$, so $\chi (\phi ) = \chi (\omega ) =-1$. Define a module $N_1$ by $$0 \rightarrow N_1 \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb
G^1_2}_{G_{24}} {\what {\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow {\what {\mathbb
Z}_3} \rightarrow 0,$$ where the right hand arrow is the natural augmentation.
Let $S$ be a simple module and apply $\operatorname{Ext}^*_{\mathbb G^1_2}(-,S)$. We obtain the long exact sequence $$\cdots \rightarrow \operatorname{Ext}_{\mathbb G^1_2}^*({\what {\mathbb Z}_3},S) \rightarrow \operatorname{Ext}_{\mathbb G^1_2} ^*(\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb
Z}_3},S) \rightarrow \operatorname{Ext}_{\mathbb G^1_2}^*(N_1,S) \rightarrow
\cdots.$$ The arrow on the left is just $\smash{H^*({\mathbb G^1_2},S)
\stackrel{\operatorname{res}}{\longrightarrow} H^*(G_{24},S)}$, which is equivalent to $$H^*(S^1_2,S)^{SD_{16}} \stackrel{\operatorname{res}}{\longrightarrow}
H^*(C_3,S)^{C_8} \quad\text{or}\quad
(H^*(S^1_2)\otimes S)^{SD_{16}}
\stackrel{\operatorname{res}}{\longrightarrow} (H^*(C_3)\otimes S)^{C_8}$$ or, more naturally, $$(H^*(S^1_2)\otimes S)^{SD_{16}} \stackrel{\operatorname{res}}{\longrightarrow} ((H^*(C_3)
\oplus H^*(C'_3)) \otimes S)^{SD_{16}},$$ where $C'_3$ is the conjugate of $C_3$ by $\omega$. (Where no coefficients for the cohomology are indicated they are just ${\mathbb F_3}$.)
Now, for any finite ${\mathbb F_3}SD_{16}$–module $A$, the number $$\dim _{\operatorname{End}(S)}(A \otimes S)^{SD_{16}} \cong \dim _{\operatorname{End}(S^*)}
\operatorname{Hom}_{SD_{16}}(S^*,A)$$ is just the multiplicity of the dual $S^*$ as a summand of $A$ ($A$ is completely reducible). So we are just decomposing the ${\mathbb F_3}SD_{16}$–modules and identifying the map $\rho \co H^*(S^1_2) \stackrel{\operatorname{res}}{\rightarrow} H^*(C_3)
\oplus H^*(C'_3)$. But this factors as $$H^*(S^1_2)
\stackrel{\operatorname{res}}{\rightarrow} H^*(C_{S^1_2}(C_3)) \oplus
H^*(C_{S^1_2}(C'_3)) \stackrel{\operatorname{res}}{\rightarrow} H^*(C_3) \oplus
H^*(C'_3).$$ A standard calculation [@ghmr; @henn; @s1] shows that $C_{S^1_2}(C_3) \cong \what {\mathbb Z}_3 \times C_3$. Its cohomology is just $$H^*(C_{S^1_2}(C_3)) \cong H^*(\mathbb Z_3)
\otimes H^*(C_3) \cong E(a_1) \otimes ({\mathbb F_3}[y_1] \otimes
E(x_1)) \cong {\mathbb F_3}[y_1] \otimes E(x_1,a_1),$$ where $E$ denotes an exterior algebra, $a_1,x_1$ are in degree 1 and $y_1$ is in degree 2. The restriction to $C_3$ just kills $a_1$. For $\smash{C_{S^1_2}(C'_3)}$ the result is similar, but we use the subscript 2 for the generators, which we take to be the images of those in the first case under conjugation by $\omega$.
Henn [@henn] shows that the first of the maps above is injective. Its image is generated as an algebra by $x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2,(x_1a_1-x_2a_2),y_1a_1,y_2a_2$. The action of $SD_{16}$ can now be calculated and is given in [@ghmr]: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega _* (x_i) & =-(-1)^ix_{i+1}, &
\omega _* (y_i) & =-(-1)^iy_{i+1}, &
\omega _* (a_i) & =-(-1)^ia_{i+1}, \\
\phi _* (x_i) & =-x_{i+1}, &
\phi _* (y_i) & =-y_{i+1}, &
\phi _* (a_i) & =-a_{i+1},\end{aligned}$$ (where the subscripts are taken modulo 2).
The map $\rho$ is also explicitly calculated in Gorbounov–Siegel–Symonds [@gss].
From this we can read off that $\rho$ is surjective, except in degree 0, where the cokernel is ${\mathbb F_3}(\chi)$ as an $SD_{16}$–module. It is also injective in degrees 0 and 1. In degree 2 the kernel is generated by $x_1a_1-x_2a_2$, which gives a copy of ${\mathbb F_3}(\chi)$ again. In degree 3 the kernel is generated by $y_1a_1$ and $y_2a_2$, so consists of two simples: one trivial generated by $y_1a_1+y_2a_2$ and a copy of ${\mathbb F_3}(\chi)$ generated by $y_1a_1-y_2a_2$.
Thus the minimal projective resolution of $N_1$ starts $$\cdots
\rightarrow P_{\mathbb F_3} \oplus P_{{\mathbb F_3}(\chi)}
\rightarrow P_{{\mathbb F_3}(\chi)} \rightarrow P_{{\mathbb
F_3}(\chi)} \rightarrow N_1 \rightarrow 0.$$ Now $P_{{\mathbb F_3}(\chi)} \cong \operatorname{Ind}^G_{SD_{16}}
{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\chi)$, because the latter is projective and, for any simple $S$, $$\operatorname{Hom}_G(\operatorname{Ind}^G_{SD_{16}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\chi),S) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{SD_{16}}({\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\chi),S),$$ which is non-zero only for $S\cong {\mathbb F_3}(\chi)$ and then it has dimension $1$. So if we define $N_3=\Omega ^2 N_1$ we have an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow N_3 \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^G_{SD_{16}}
{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\chi) \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^G_{SD_{16}}
{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\chi) \rightarrow N_1 \rightarrow 0,$$ where $N_3$ has projective cover $P_{\mathbb F_3} \oplus P_{{\mathbb
F_3}(\chi)}$.
If we work stably we can obtain $\Omega ^2 N_1$ another way. Recall that $C_3$ is the only cyclic subgroup of order 3 in $\mathbb G^1_2$ up to conjugacy. Write $N=\smash{N_{\mathbb G^1_2}(C_3)}$; because $Q_8$ normalizes $C_3$ it also normalizes $\smash{C_{S^1_2}(C_3)}$, and since the centralizer can be of index at most 2 in the normalizer we see that $N \cong C_3 \times \what {\mathbb Z}_3 \rtimes Q_8$.
From we see that $$\operatorname{res}\co \what H^*({\mathbb G^1_2},M) \rightarrow \what H^*(N,M)$$ is an isomorphism, or equivalently that the augmentation map $\smash{\epsilon \co \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_N{\what
{\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow {\what {\mathbb Z}_3}}$ induces an isomorphism $\smash{\widehat \operatorname{Ext}^*_{\mathbb G^1_2}({\what {\mathbb
Z}_3},M)}
\rightarrow \smash{\widehat \operatorname{Ext}_{\mathbb G^1_2}^*(\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb
G^1_2}_N{\what {\mathbb Z}_3},M)}$, for any $M \in \mathcal C_{\what
{\mathbb Z}_3}(G)$. It follows from that $\epsilon$ is a stable isomorphism.
So stably our complex starts $$\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what
{\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_N{\what {\mathbb
Z}_3},$$ which is $\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_N$ applied to the natural augmentation map $\operatorname{Ind}^N_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow
{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}$ over $N$.
But the subgroup $D < G_{24}$ generated by $C_3$ and $\omega \phi$ is normal in $N$, so $N$ acts on $\operatorname{Ind}^N_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb
Z}_3}$ via its image $N/D \cong \what {\mathbb Z}_3 \rtimes C_2$, the infinite virtually 3-adic dihedral group, so we can resolve to obtain $$0 \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^N_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb
Z}_3}(\theta) \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^N_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}
\rightarrow {\what {\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow
0,
\label{eqn:eq1}$$ where $\theta \co Q_8 \rightarrow \{ \pm
1 \}$ is the character with $\theta (\omega \phi )=1$ and $\theta
(\omega ^2)=-1$.
This can be seen systematically using cohomology, as before. More explicitly, the non-zero map on the left is determined by $1 \otimes
\theta \mapsto (g-g^{-1}) \otimes 1$, where $g$ is a generator of the group $\what {\mathbb Z}_3$ and $\theta$ is considered as a basis element of ${\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\theta)$. The sequence is exact because on restriction to $\what {\mathbb Z}_3$ it is just a variation on the standard projective resolution for $\what {\mathbb
Z}_3$.
Similarly, since $G_{24}$ has a quotient $G_{24}/ \langle \omega
\phi \rangle \cong D_6$, the dihedral group of order 6, we also have an exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow {\what {\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow
\operatorname{Ind}^{G_{24}}_{Q_8}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow
\operatorname{Ind}^{G_{24}}_{Q_8}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\theta) \rightarrow
{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\theta) \rightarrow 0,$$ with middle map determined by $1 \otimes 1 \mapsto (c-c^{-1}) \otimes \theta$ where $c$ is a generator of $C_3$.
Inducing this to $N$ gives $$0 \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^N_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^N_{Q_8}{\what
{\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^N_{Q_8}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\theta)
\rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^N_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\theta) \rightarrow
0.
\label{eqn:eq2}$$
Now splice and together at $\operatorname{Ind}^N_{G_{24}}{\what
{\mathbb Z}_3}(\theta)$ and induce up to ${\mathbb G^1_2}$ to obtain $$0 \rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}
\rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{Q_8}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}
\rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{Q_8}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}(\theta)
\rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}
\rightarrow \operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_N{\what {\mathbb Z}_3} \rightarrow
0.$$ The second and third non-zero terms are projective, so stably $\smash{\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}} {\what {\mathbb Z}_3} \simeq N_3}$. But $\smash{\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}} {\what {\mathbb Z}_3}}$ is cofibrant by construction and, on restriction to an open torsion free subgroup, $N_3$ is a third syzygy hence also cofibrant, so by there are finitely generated projective modules $P$ and $Q$ such that $\smash{\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}
\oplus P \cong N_3 \oplus Q}$.
Let $S$ be a simple $\smash{{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}\llbracket {\mathbb
G^1_2}\rrbracket}$–module (recall that these correspond to simple $SD_{16}$–modules). Then $\smash{\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb G^1_2}(\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb
Z}_3},S)} \cong \smash{\operatorname{Hom}_{G_{24}}({\what {\mathbb Z}_3},S)}$. For this to be non-zero we need $\smash{\operatorname{Res}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}} S \cong
\smash{\mathbb F_3}$, so $S$ must be either ${\mathbb F_3}$ or ${\mathbb
F_3}(\chi )$; in both cases the dimension of the $\operatorname{Hom}$ group is 1.
It follows that the projective cover of $\smash{\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb
G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}}$ is $\smash{P_{\mathbb F_3} \oplus
P_{{\mathbb F_3}(\chi )}}$. Now, taking projective covers in $\smash{\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}{\oplus}P \cong N_3
\oplus Q}$, we obtain $$\smash{P_{\mathbb F_3}{\oplus}P_{{\mathbb F_3}(\chi
)}{\oplus}P \cong P_{\mathbb F_3}{\oplus}P_{{\mathbb F_3}(\chi )}
{\oplus}Q},$$ so $P \cong Q$ and thus $\smash{\operatorname{Ind}^{\mathbb
G^1_2}_{G_{24}}{\what {\mathbb Z}_3}} \cong N_3$, by .
This construction generalizes to $\smash{\mathbb G^1_{p-1}}$ for larger primes $p$. It is simpler to discuss if we restrict to the Sylow $p$ subgroup. We now have $N=C_p \times \smash{\what {\mathbb Z}_p^{p-2}}$. Since $\smash{\what {\mathbb Z}_p^{p-2}}$ has cohomological dimension $p-2$, we could take its projective resolution to the penultimate term and inflate to $N$. We then splice on a part induced from a partial projective resolution of ${\what {\mathbb Z}_3}$ over $C_p$ that is long enough to make the last term cofibrant. It is not clear whether this has any significance in homotopy theory.
The Tate–Farrell cohomology of $\mathbb G^1_{p-1}$ is easy to compute (see Symonds [@s1]). It is the low-dimensional cohomology that is difficult to calculate, but that is precisely what is needed to identify the projective modules in the complex. If we are satisfied with a complex with unknown projectives then the construction is much easier and only depends on the structure of $N$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Jiren Liu
- Shude Mao
date: 'Received 2009 month day; accepted 2009 month day'
title: 'On the diffuse soft X-ray emission from the nuclear region of M51'
---
Introduction
============
The Whirlpool galaxy M51 (NGC 5194) is classified as a LINER or Seyfert 2 galaxy from studies of optical emission lines [e.g., @Sta82; @Ho97]. The close distance of M51 (7.8 Mpc, the mean value taken from NED[^1] database) allows detailed studies of its nuclear activity. Radio observations show a bipolar outflow, comprising a southern cloud and a northern loop, which is also seen in the optical emission line map [@For85; @Cra92]. The optical outflow with velocities as high as 1500 km s$^{-1}$ has been reported by @Cec88, who also found that the arcuate radio emission of the southern cloud lies inside the bright optical emission line region, indicating a bow shock caused by the radio jet emanating from the nucleus.
The interaction between the radio jet/outflow and the surrounding gas represents an important feedback mode of active galactic nucleus (AGN), which is crucial for our understanding of galaxy evolution [e.g. @Fab12]. X-ray observations are very effective in studying such phenomena as the radio jet-driven outflow will heat the surrounding gas to X-ray emitting temperatures. Extended X-ray emission from M51 was first detected using the [*Einstein Observatory*]{} [@Pal85], and then with [*ROSAT*]{} [@Mar95; @Ehl95]. The [*BeppoSAX*]{} data of M51 showed that the X-ray emission of the nucleus is only seen directly above 10 keV, implying a neutral hydrogen column density of $N_{\rm H} \sim10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@Fuk01].
Observations of [*Einstein*]{} and [*ROSAT*]{} are limited by their spatial resolution. With its sub-arcsec angular resolution, has provided new insights on M51. @TW01 found that the nuclear X-ray morphology of M51 is similar to that seen in radio and optical observations. The X-ray spectra of the southern cloud and northern loop are similar and can be fitted by a thermal model of temperature $\sim0.55$ keV. The X-ray morphology and spectra suggest that the nuclear X-ray emitting gas of M51 are shock-heated by the bipolar radio outflow from the nucleus. Both the X-ray point sources and the extended X-ray emission from the disk of M51 have been studied using [e.g., @TW04; @Tyl04] and data [e.g., @Dew05; @OW09].
All these X-ray studies are based on CCD data, for which the spectral resolution is around 10 at 1 keV. In contrast, the Reflection Grating Spectrometers (RGS) aboard the telescope [@den01] have a better spectral resolution for moderately extended sources due to their large dispersion power. The RGS spectral resolution is $\sim0.14\theta$Å, where $\theta$ (in units of arcmin) is the angular extent of the source along the dispersion direction. For M51, the spatial extent of the nuclear X-ray emitting region is about 0.5$'$, which corresponds to a spectral resolving power $\lambda/\delta_\lambda\sim150$ at 15 Å given the spatial resolution of [*XMM-Newton*]{}. With this resolution many emission lines, especially the He-like triplet which is a diagnostic tool for the thermal state of plasma, are well resolved.
The triplet consists of a resonance line, two inter-combination lines and a forbidden line. For an optically-thin thermal plasma in ionization equilibrium, the electron collisional excitation is efficient and favors the resonance line. In @Liu12, we studied nine nearby star-forming galaxies (including M51) and found that the forbidden lines of their triplets are comparable to or even stronger than the resonance lines. We proposed the charge-exchange process between highly ionized ions and neutral species as a possible explanation. The charge-exchange captured electrons of the recipient ions are in excited states and their downward cascading favors the forbidden line [e.g. @Den10]. In the special case of M51, however, the explanation is complicated by the presence of the central low-luminosity AGN and the radio jet-driven outflow.
In @Liu12, only the line ratio of the triplet of M51 was studied. In this paper we provide a more detailed study of the RGS spectrum of M51. In particular, we study the spatial distribution of emission lines along the cross-dispersion direction of RGS. As shown in §3, the spatial distribution of the triplet is different from other lines. Given this situation, the image of M51 with sub-arcsec angular resolution is helpful in revealing the triplet distribution. Thus we also analyze the archival data of M51 with an accumulated exposure time of 700 ks, which is much deeper than the short exposure data ($\sim15$ ks) used in previous studies [e.g. @TW01].
We describe the observational data in § 2 and present the results of and data in § 3 and § 4, respectively. Discussion of the results is covered in § 5. Throughout the paper, the errors quoted are for the 90% confidence level. At a distance of 7.8 Mpc, 1 arcsec corresponds to 38 parsec.
Observational data
===================
The two RGSs on-board the telescope are slit-less dispersive spectrometers, and photons from extended sources are recorded on CCD detectors with the dispersion angle and 1D spatial information along the cross-dispersion direction. Because the dispersion directions are different for different observations, to ensure that the dispersed spectra are from similar spatial regions, we use four archival datasets of RGS observations of M51 as listed in Table 1. The maximum difference of position angles between them is about 30 degrees. The total effective exposure time is $\sim$ 100 ks after removing intense flare periods.
ObsID $t_{\rm tot}$ (ks) $t_{\rm eff}$ (ks) Obs time P.A. (degrees)
------------ -------------------- -------------------- ------------ ----------------
0212480801 49 26 2005-07-01 294
0303420101 54 35 2006-05-20 326
0303420201 37 25 2006-05-24 323
0677980701 13 13 2011-06-07 312
: List of RGS observations of M51
Note: $t_{\rm tot}$ is the total exposure, $t_{\rm eff}$ is the useful exposure after removing periods of flares, and P.A. is the position angle.
The most recent version of the Science Analysis System (SAS 14.0) of is used for the reduction of photon events. As stated above, the RGS spectrum is broadened by the spatial extent of the source along the dispersion direction. To produce a broadened redistribution matrix file (RMF), we convolve the RMF produced by the SAS tool [*rgsproc*]{} with a image of M51 (0.4-2 keV) using the [*rgsrmfsmooth*]{} tool written by Andrew Rasmussen. The broadened RMF is calculated separately for each dataset. For background subtraction, we use the model background generated by [*rgsproc*]{} based on the flux of CCD 9 beyond 1$'$ from the on-axis position. Because M51 lies at $\sim1'$ away from the on-axis position for most observations listed in Table 1, the model background is over-predicted. Indeed, the model background exceeds the observed spectrum at $\lambda>28$ Å. Thus we scale down the model background by a factor of 0.6 based on the event distribution of CCD9. Since we focus on emission lines, the uncertainty in the background subtraction will not affect our major results.
{height="2.5in"}
{height="2.8in"}
Because CCD 4 of RGS2 covering $20-24$ [Å ]{}failed early in the mission, the data of the triplet around 22 [Å ]{}are only from RGS1. Similarly, CCD 7 of RGS1 also failed and the data within $10.6-13.8$ [Å ]{} of RGS1 are missing. Figure 1 presents the CCD image of the RGS data of M51 combining both RGS1 and RGS2 for all four observations. The offsets between RGS1 and RGS2 and between different observations have been corrected. The figure shows clearly the well-resolved emission lines.
We use seven datasets with ObsID numbers of 13812, 13813, 13814, 13815, 13816, 15496, 15553, as observed by PI Kip Kuntz. After removing the flare periods, the total effective exposure time is about 700 ks. The datasets are analyzed with [*CIAO*]{} (version 4.6) following standard procedures. As an illustration, Figure 2 presents the counts image of M51 within 0.4-2 keV created by merging all the seven datasets. The over-plotted contours are from the radio 6 cm observation [@Cra92], and show a close correspondence with the X-ray image. The RGS dispersion direction is also illustrated in Figure 2.
XMM-Newton RGS Results
======================
![Spatial distribution of the emission lines of at 15 Å, [$\hbox{Ly}\alpha~$]{}at 19 Å, and forbidden line at 22.1 Å. For clarity, the profile of the forbidden line at 22.1 Å has been multiplied by a factor of 4. ](Ar2_xO.eps){height="2.1in"}
{height="2.2in"}
Spatial distribution of X-ray emission lines
---------------------------------------------
First we study the spatial distribution of the well-resolved X-ray emission lines along the cross-dispersion direction of RGS. The lines at 15 and 17 Å, the and [$\hbox{Ly}\alpha~$]{}lines at 19 and 24.8 Å, and the forbidden line at 22.1 [Å ]{}are studied. The wavelength regions adopted to calculate the photon counts are 14.8 - 15.5 Å, 16.6 - 17.4 Å, 18.6 - 19.4 Å, 24.4 - 25.2 Å, and 21.8 - 22.4 Å, respectively. We find that the profiles of lines at 15 and 17 Å are similar, as are the and [$\hbox{Ly}\alpha~$]{}lines. For clarity, only the profiles of line at 15 Å, [$\hbox{Ly}\alpha~$]{}line at 19 Å, and line at 22.1 [Å ]{}are plotted in Figure 3. We see that the bright line at 15 [Å ]{}is centrally peaked around 50$''$, with a FWHM (full width at half maximum) of $\sim20''$. This FWHM is similar to the spatial resolution of RGS. Since the cross-dispersion position of 50$''$ corresponds to the location of the southern cloud, it means that the emission lines of are mainly from the compact southern cloud.
The [$\hbox{Ly}\alpha~$]{}line at 19 [Å ]{}is also peaked around 50$''$, the same as the lines. The spatial distribution of the forbidden line at 22.1 Å, however, is different from those of the other lines. Its maximum is around 60$''$, 10$''$ offset from the peaks of other lines. This indicates that the forbidden line is from a spatially distinct component, compared with the other lines.
T (keV) N O Ne Fe $_r$ $_f$ $_r$ $_f$ $\chi^2_{\nu}$
--------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- --
$0.52\pm0.02$ $4.4\pm1.1$ $0.6\pm0.1$ $0.6\pm0.2$ $0.3\pm0.1$ $1.3\pm0.7$ $4.1\pm1.0$ $2.2\pm0.9$ $2.5\pm1.2$ 0.91
: Fitting results
Note: the abundances are relative to the solar values; $_{r,f}$ and $_{r,f}$ (in units of 10$^{-5}$ photons s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$) are the line intensities of resonance line, forbidden line, resonance line, and forbidden line, respectively.
X-ray spectrum of M51
---------------------
Since the X-ray emission lines have different spatial distributions, it is optimal to extract spectra within different spatial regions. However, the difference of the scale of $\sim10''$ is too small to allow such spectral extractions from RGS. Thus we only extract one spectrum centered on the nucleus of M51 with a cross-dispersion width about 1$'$. The background-subtracted spectrum of M51 combined from both RGS1 and RGS2 data of all four observations is plotted in Figure 4.
We see that the spectrum of M51 is dominated by emission lines. The triplet is dominated by the forbidden line at 22.1 Å and the triplet also has a forbidden line comparable with its resonance line. The bright Fe L-shell lines around 15 - 17 [Å ]{}indicate that they are not from a photoionized plasma, for which the Fe L-shell lines are expected to be much weaker [e.g., @Kal96; @Sak00]. They are likely due to a collisionally ionized plasma as suggested in previous studies [e.g., @TW01]. Thus we fit an optically thin collisional-ionization-equilibrium (CIE) thermal model [vapec, @Fos12] to the observed RGS spectrum of M51. Only the abundances of the elements of Ne, Fe, O, and N, which show bright emission lines in the spectrum of M51, are allowed to vary. The abundances of other elements are set to solar values [@Lod03].
On the other hand, the forbidden-line dominated triplet of M51 shows a spatial distribution different from other lines. As stated in § 1, it is impossible to explain such an anomalous triplet by a thermal CIE model. Thus we add two Gaussians to represent the resonance and forbidden lines. The inter-combination line is too weak to be fitted. Similarly, we add another two Gaussians to represent the resonance and forbidden lines. The model is subject to an absorption model of [*wabs*]{} [@MM83] with a foreground neutral hydrogen column density of $2 \times 10^{20} \rm cm^{-2}$ [@Nh05]. The fitted results are listed in Table 2 and over-plotted in Figure 4.
The model provides a reasonable fit to the observed spectrum of M51. The fitted temperature is 0.52 keV, similar to that obtained by @TW01. However, the fitted abundances are higher than their values, which are only around 0.1 solar value. The low abundances they obtained are most likely due to the poor spectral resolution of data. We note that the fitted O and N abundances are not affected by the Gaussian fitting to the corresponding and triplets, since they are most likely due to a mechanism different from CIE models and at the fitted temperature, the emissivity of and triplets of the CIE model is weak. The residuals around the Fe and O lines are likely due to the simple convolution modeling of the RMF. There are residuals around 13.5 Å, indicating that the triplet is under-estimated. The residuals around 18.6 [Å ]{}are likely due to the He$\beta$ line.
The temperature diagnostic G ratio of the He-like triplet for a thermal CIE plasma is defined as [@GJ69] $${\rm G}=\frac{{\rm f}+{\rm i}}{{\rm r}},$$ where f, i, and r represents the intensity of the forbidden, inter-combination, and resonance lines, respectively. If we assume the intensity of the inter-combination line is 1/4 of that of the forbidden line [@Smi01], the fitted G ratio of the triplet is $3.9\pm2.3$. Similarly, the fitted G ratio of the triplet is $1.4\pm0.8$. The G ratio of triplet shows that the triplet is not due to CIE thermal plasmas, for which the G ratios are generally smaller than 1. The G ratio of triplet is barely consistent with a CIE model around 10$^6$ K.
{height="2.6in"} {height="2.6in"}
results
=======
As shown in §3.1, the peak of the spatial profile of the forbidden line is offset from those of the other lines by $\sim10''$. This scale can be easily resolved with data. Thus we analyze the data of M51 in this section.
We use the contour binning method [@San06] to divide the nuclear X-ray emitting region of M51 into 34 different bins with a minimum signal to noise ratio of 40. The X-ray spectrum is extracted from each bin with a background spectrum taken from a source-free region outside the nuclear region. We fit a thermal CIE model with variable O, Ne, Mg, and Fe abundances and limit the fitting range to $0.4 - 1.5$ keV. We include a Gaussian (with a center of 21.85 [Å ]{}and a width of 0.25 Å) to represent the triplet. Adding a Gaussian will improve the $\chi^2$ by 4.3 on average. The improvement of $\chi^2$ is 8.1 for the spectra with the Gaussian line fluxes larger than $5\times10^{-7}$ photons s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. We also tested the fitting method by fitting mock spectra with a line flux of $1\times10^{-6}$ photons s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, and found that about 75% of the fitted fluxes are within 3 sigma of the true value.
Due to the limited spectral resolution of data, we do not expect the fitted triplet fluxes to be as accurate as the measurement by the RGS data. Nevertheless, it is likely to provide a qualitative distribution of the triplet, especially for bins with high triplet fluxes. The fitted fluxes of the triplet from the data are plotted in the left panel of Figure 5. For comparison, the binned counts image is plotted in the right panel. We see that the fluxes of the triplet are generally higher for faint bins near the edges. It shows that the fitted triplet has a more extended distribution than that of the total emission within $0.4-2$ keV, which is centered on the southern cloud. The northern regions have more triplet flux than the southern part. This is consistent with the result. Another interesting feature to note is that the southern cloud seems to be enclosed by an arc of triplet in the outward direction.
Discussion
==========
We have analyzed the RGS spectrum of M51, the emission lines of which are well resolved. Most of the spectrum of M51 can be fitted with a thermal CIE model of temperature $\sim0.5$ keV, except for the triplet, which is forbidden-line dominated. The lines at 15 and 17 [Å ]{} are centrally peaked around the cross-dispersion position of 50$''$ with a FWHM of 20$''$. This indicates that they are mainly from the compact southern cloud. The [$\hbox{Ly}\alpha~$]{}line at 19 [Å ]{}and [$\hbox{Ly}\alpha~$]{}line at 25 [Å ]{}also peak around the same position as the lines. In contrast, the peak of the forbidden line is about 10$''$ offset from the other lines. The triplet map obtained with the data shows that most of the fluxes of the triplet are located at faint regions, instead of the southern cloud where the other lines peak around.
As stated in § 1, the forbidden-line-dominated triplet of M51 cannot be due to a thermal CIE plasma, and we have proposed the charge-exchange process as a possible explanation. Nevertheless, the existence of low-luminosity AGN and the radio jet-driven outflow in the nuclear region of M51 makes other explanations possible, including photoionization and non-equilibrium-ionization plasmas. Below we discuss them in turn.
For a photoionized plasma, the emission is dominated by recombination, which also favors the forbidden line. One characteristic feature of the photoionization model is the spatial profile. As the central AGN is the ionizing source, the ionizing flux will decline as $r^{-2}$ and photoionization is most important for regions close to AGN. This has been illustrated by the optical study of M51 [@Bra04], which shows that photoionization is dominant within the inner region ($r<1''$) and the shock model is preferred outside ($r\sim2.5''$). The mapped morphology of the triplet from data shows no fluxes around the nucleus and is most prominent at the outer regions. This is inconsistent with the photoionization model.
All the optical, radio and X-ray studies of M51 support a scenario in which the nuclear gas of M51 is shock-heated by the radio outflow emanating from the nucleus [@Cec88; @For85; @TW01]. In this situation, the non-equilibrium-ionization (NEI) plasma is another possible explanation for the anomalous triplet. If a plasma is shock-heated suddenly, the ionization process lags behind heating, and will result in an ionizing plasma. The inner-shell collisional ionization of ions can lead to excited ions and enhance the forbidden line emission [e.g., @L99]. However, this only happens in a short transition period when the fraction is non-negligible. Using the [*Sedov*]{} model [@Bor01], we find that the G ratio of the triplet is around 3 at an ionization time $n_et\sim3.5\times10^9$ cm$^{-3}$s. This timescale is too short compared with the spatial extent we studied. A more likely explanation is a recombining NEI plasma.
When a blast wave expands into a rarefied medium, a recombining plasma could be produced due to rapid adiabatic cooling, as proposed to explain the radiative recombination continuum features in some supernova remnants (SNRs) [e.g., @Yam12]. The spatial distribution of the triplet mapped by the data is consistent with this scenario. A unique test of a recombining plasma is the associated radiative recombination continuum. However, due to the presence of strong Fe lines, it is hard to tell whether there is a radiative recombination continuum of (at 16.8 Å) in the spectrum of M51.
On the other hand, to explain the anomalous triplet with the charge-exchange process, the interacting interfaces between the highly ionized gas and neutral species are needed. The observed HI [@Wal08] and CO [@Kod11] maps of M51 are well correlated with the spirals. CO is also detected on 1-2 arcsec scales around the nucleus [@Mat07]. Currently there is no much information of neutral materials on 10$''$ scales of M51. Further observations are needed to test the existence of neutral materials on 10$''$ scale. Different from the recombining plasma, the charge-exchange model shows no radiative recombination continuum, but has enhanced emission lines from preferred energy levels ($n=4-7$ for OVII) [e.g. @Bei03]. Future spatially-resolved high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy by the soft X-ray spectrometer of Astro-H will be able to test the existence of the radiative recombination continuum of M51.
We thank the referee for their valuable comments and Lijun Gou and Richard Long for reading of the draft. This work is supported by a National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholar Grant (11203032), and by the Strategic Priority Research Program “The Emergence of Cosmological Structures“ of the Chinese Academy of Sciences Grant No. XDB09000000 and NSFC grant 11333003 (SM). This research has made use of archival data. is an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA). In addition, the research used observations obtained with the X-ray observatory, which is operated by Smithsonian Astronomical Observatory on behalf of NASA.
[99]{} Beiersdorfer, P., Boyce, K. R., Brown, G. V., Chen, H., et al. 2003, Science, 300, 1558
Bradley, L. D., Kaiser, M. E., Baan, W. A. 2004, ApJ, 603, 463
Borkowski, K. J., Lyerly, W. J., Reynolds, S. P. 2001, ApJ, 548, 820
Cecil, G. 1988, ApJ, 329, 38
Crane, P. C. & van der Hulst, J. M. 1992, AJ, 103, 1146
den Herder, J. W. et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L7
Dennerl, K. 2010, SSR., 157, 57
Dewangan, G. C., Griffiths, R. E., Choudhury, M., Miyaji, T., Schurch, N. J. 2005, ApJ, 635, 198
Ehle, M., Pietsch, W., Beck, R. 1995, A&A, 295, 289
Fabian, A. C. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 455
Ford, H. C., Crane, P. C., Jacoby, G. H., Lawrie, D. G., van der Hulst, J. M. 1985, ApJ, 293, 132
Foster, A. R., Ji, L., Smith, R. K. and Brickhouse, N. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 128
Fukazawa, Y., Iyomoto, N., Kubota, A., Matsumoto, Y., Makishima, K. 2001, A&A, 374, 73
Gabriel, A. H. & Jordan, C. 1969, MNRAS, 145, 241
Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V., Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJS, 112, 315
Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., Arnal, E. M., Bajaja, E., Morras, R., Poppel, W. G. L. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 440, 775
Kallman, T. R., Liedahl, D., Osterheld, A., Goldstein, W., Kahn, S. 1996, ApJ, 465, 994
Kinkhabwala, A. et al. 2002, ApJ, 575, 732
Koda, J., Sawada, T., Wright, M. C. H., Teuben, P., Corder, S. A., Patience, J., Scoville, N., Donovan Meyer, J., Egusa, F. 2011, ApJS, 193, 19
Liedahl, D. A. 1999, X-Ray Spectroscopy in Astrophysics, edited by J. V. Paradijs and J. A. M. Bleeker, Lecture Notes in Physics, 520, 189
Liu, J., Wang, Q. D., Mao, S. 2012, MNRAS, 420, 3389
Lodders, K. 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220
Marston, A. P., Elmegreen, D., Elmegreen, B., Forman, W., Jones, C., Flanagan, K. 1995, ApJ, 438, 663
Matsushita, S., Muller, S., Lim, J. 2007, A&A, 468, L49
Morrison, R. & McCammon, D. 1983, ApJ, 270, 119
Owen, R. A. & Warwick, R. S. 2009, MNRAS, 394, 1741O
Palumbo, G. G. C., Fabbiano, G., Trinchieri, G., Fransson, C. 1985, ApJ, 298, 259
Sako, M., Kahn, S. M., Paerels, F., Liedahl, D. A. 2000, ApJ, 543, L115
Sanders, J. S. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 829
Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., & Raymond, J. C. 2001, ApJL, 556, L91
Stauffer, J. R. 1982, ApJS, 50, 517
Terashima, Y. & Wilson, A. S. 2001, ApJ, 560, 139
Terashima, Y. & Wilson, A. S. 2004, ApJ, 601, 735
Tyler, K., Quillen, A. C., LaPage, A., Rieke, G. H. 2004, ApJ, 610, 213
Walter, F., Brinks, E., de Blok, W. J. G., Bigiel, F., Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., Thornley, M. D., Leroy, A. 2008, AJ, 136, 2563
Yamaguchi, H., Ozawa, M., Ohnishi, T. 2012, AdSpR, 49, 451
[^1]: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The magnetization of three high-quality single crystals of YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6+x}$, from slightly overdoped to heavily underdoped, has been measured using torque magnetometry. Striking effects in the angular dependence of the torque for the two underdoped crystals, a few degrees above the superconducting transition temperature ($T_c$) are described well by the theory of Gaussian superconducting fluctuations using a single adjustable parameter. The data at higher temperatures ($T$) are consistent with a strong cut-off in the fluctuations for $T\gtrsim1.1T_c$. Numerical estimates suggest that inelastic scattering could be responsible for this cut-off.'
author:
- 'I. Kokanović$^{1,2}$, D. J. Hills$^{1}$, M. L. Sutherland$^{1}$, R. Liang$^{3}$ and J. R. Cooper$^1$'
title: 'Diamagnetism of YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6+x}$ crystals above $T_c$ : evidence for Gaussian fluctuations '
---
Cuprate superconductors show much stronger thermodynamic fluctuations than classical ones because of their higher transition temperatures ($T_c$), shorter Ginzburg-Landau (GL) coherence lengths and quasi-two dimensional layered structures with weakly interacting CuO$_2$ planes [@Bulaevskii; @Larkin]. Observations of diamagnetism [@LuLi] and large Nernst coefficients over a broad temperature ($T$) range well above $T_c$ for several types of cuprate [@Xu; @Wang06] are intriguing [@Kivelson]. They are often cited as evidence for pre-formed Cooper pairs without the long-range phase coherence needed for superconductivity. In contrast, in Ref. it is argued that phase and amplitude fluctuations set in simultaneously. However the fluctuations are still considered to be strong in that the mean-field transition temperature $T_c^{MF}$, obtained by applying entropy and free energy balance considerations to heat capacity data, is substantially larger than $T_c$ especially for underdoped cuprates. In standard GL theory the coefficient of the $|\psi|^2$ term in the free energy, where $\psi$ is the order parameter, changes sign at $T_c^{MF_1}$, as explained in footnote . If $|\psi|^4$ and higher order terms are neglected, $T_c^{MF_1}$ can be obtained from a Gaussian fluctuation (GF) analysis of the magnetic susceptibility and other physical properties [@Bulaevskii].
One difficulty in this area is separating the fluctuation (FL) contribution to a given property from the normal state (N) background. Recently this has been dealt with for the in-plane electrical conductivity $\sigma_{ab}(T)$ of YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6+x}$ crystals by applying very high magnetic fields ($B$) [@Alloul]. When analyzed using GF theory, $\sigma_{ab}^{FL}(T)$ was found to cut off even more rapidly above $T\gtrsim1.1T_c$ than previously thought [@Genova; @Vidal]. It was also strongly reduced at high $B$ and the fields needed to suppress $\sigma_{ab}^{FL}(T)$ extrapolated to zero between 120 and 140 K depending on $x$, which tends to support a vortex or Kosterlitz-Thouless scenario. Therefore questions such as the applicability of GF theory $vs.$ a phase fluctuation or mobile vortex scenario and the extent to which $T_c$ is suppressed below $T_c^{MF_1}$ by strong critical fluctuations, are still being discussed. They are of general interest because superconducting fluctuations could limit the maximum $T_c$ that can be obtained in a given class of material [@Tallon2011], and moreover [@Alloul] the fluctuation cut-off could be linked in some way to the pairing mechanism.
Here we report torque magnetometry data measured [@exptldetails] from $T_c$ to 300 K for tiny YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6+x}$ (YBCO) single crystals from overdoped (OD) to heavily underdoped (UD). These were grown in non-reactive BaZrO$_3$ crucibles from high-purity (5N) starting materials. Evidence for the quality of the UD crystals includes extremely sharp x-ray peaks [@Liang2000], and substantial mean free paths from quantum oscillation measurements [@Audouard2009]. The OD89 crystal is from another preparation batch which had narrow superconducting transitions and a maximum $T_c$ of 93.8 K [@Kirby2005]. We analyze the results using GF theory which, unlike some other approaches, predicts the *magnitude* of the observed effects as well as their $T$-dependence. We show that it gives excellent single-parameter fits to the striking angular dependence of the torque, which has previously been attributed to the presence of a very large magnetic field scale [@LuLi]. We also show that inelastic scattering is a plausible mechanism for cutting off the fluctuations at higher $T$ and a possible alternative to strong fluctuations for limiting $T_c$.
Although measurements of the London penetration depth [@Kamal] below $T_c$ and thermal expansion [@Meingast] above and below $T_c$ for optimally doped (OP) YBCO crystals, give evidence for critical fluctuations described by the 3D-XY model, up to $\pm$ 10 K from $T_c$, we argue later that these do not alter our overall picture.
A crystal with magnetization $M$ in an applied magnetic field $B$ attached to a piezoresistive cantilever causes a change in electrical resistance proportional to the torque density $\tau\equiv\underline{M}\times\underline{B}$. If $B$ is parallel to the $c$-axis of a cuprate crystal, then in the low field limit the contribution to $M$ in the $c$-axis direction from Gaussian fluctuations ($M_c^{FL}$) is given by [@Larkin]: $${M_c^{FL}(T)=-\frac{\pi k_BTB}{3 \Phi_0^2}\frac{
\xi_{ab}^{2}(T)}{s\sqrt{1+[2\xi_{ab}(T)/\gamma s)]^2}}} \label{1}$$ Here $\gamma = \xi_{ab}(T)/\xi_{c}(T)$ is the anisotropy, defined as the ratio of the $T$-dependent coherence lengths $\parallel$ and $\bot$ to the layers, i.e. $\xi_{ab,c}(T) = \xi_{ab,c}(0)/\epsilon^{1/2}$ with $\epsilon=\ln(T/T_c^{MF_1})$ [@Larkin; @Alloul]. The distance between the CuO$_2$ bi-layers is taken as $s$ = 1.17 nm, and $ \Phi_0$ and $k_B$ are the pair flux quantum and Boltzmann’s constant respectively. For $B\perp c$ the fluctuation magnetization is negligibly small.
As the angle $\theta$ between the applied field and CuO$_2$ planes is altered, $\tau(\theta)$ will vary as $\tau(\theta)= \frac{1}{2}\chi_D(T)B^2\sin2\theta$, as long as $M\propto B$. Thus, fits to $\tau(\theta) \propto B^2\sin2\theta$ give $\chi_D(T)\equiv\chi_c(T)-\chi_{ab}(T)$, which is the susceptibility anisotropy. Fig. 1 shows torque data for UD57 up to 15 K above the low-field $T_c$ of 57 K. Much of our data, including the two curves for UD57 in Fig. 1 at higher $T$ follow a $\sin2\theta$ dependence very closely, however there are striking deviations at lower $T$ arising from non-linearity in $M(B)$ that we discuss later.
![ Color online. Angular dependence of the torque density for the UD57 YBa$_{2}$Cu$_{3}$O$_{6.5}$ crystal in 10 T at $T$= 58.1, 60.3, 61.5, 66.9 and 72.2 K after correcting for a fixed instrumental offset of 10$^\circ$ and subtracting the gravitational term [@exptldetails]. The solid lines show single parameter fits to the formula for 2D GF derived from Eq. 2 plus $\chi_D^N(T)$ shown in Fig. 2a. Note the $\sin2\theta$ behavior at higher $T$. []{data-label="rawdata1"}](Fig1mod.eps){width="7.0cm"}
Fig. 2a shows $\chi_D(T)$ obtained from $\sin2\theta$ fits for three doping levels at high enough $T$ so that $M$ remains $\propto B$. The solid lines for OD89 and UD57 are fits up to 300 K that include $\chi_c^{FL}(T)$ from Eq. 1, with the strong cut-off described below, plus the normal state background anisotropy $\chi_D^N(T)$ which arises from the $g$-factor anisotropy of the Pauli paramagnetism [@KokanovicEPL]. For UD crystals the $T$-dependence of $\chi_D^N(T)$ is caused by the pseudogap, see footnote , plus a smaller contribution from the electron pocket [@KokanovicEPL] observed in high field quantum oscillation studies [@TailleferReview]. We used the same pseudogap energies ($k_BT^*$) and other parameters defining $\chi_D^N(T)$ as in our recent work on larger single crystals [@KokanovicEPL], e.g. $T^*$ = 435 K for UD57. OD89 has no pseudogap and presumably no pockets, so we represent the weak variation of $\chi_D^{N}(T)$ with $T$ by the second order polynomial shown in Fig. 2a.
![Color online: (a) Main: $\chi_D(T)$ for the three crystals, solid lines show fits to $\chi_c^{FL}(T)+\chi_D^N(T)$ for OD89 and UD57, dashed lines show $\chi_D^N(T)$. Insert: Symbols show $M$ calculated for various values of $\epsilon$, using Eq. 2, when the anisotropy parameter $r\equiv(2\xi_c(0)/s)^2$ = 0. For $r$= 0.13 symbols show $M$ given by the 2D-3D form of Eq. 2, which contains $r$ and an extra integral [@Larkin]. The lines show formulae used [@insertnote] to represent these values of $M$ when fitting $\tau(\theta)$ data.\
(b) to (d) - plots of $1/|\chi_c^{FL}(T)|$ vs. $T$ for the three crystals. GF fits based on Eq. 1, are shown by short dashed lines, without a cut-off and by solid lines, with a strong cut-off [@cutoffnote]. Red triangles for UD57 show $\xi_{ab}(0)^2/\epsilon$ obtained by fitting $\tau(\theta)$ to the full 2D GF formula when $M(B)$ is non-linear, and converted to $1/|\chi_c^{FL}(T)|$ using Eq. 1. For UD22 the full GF formula was used for all the points shown in Fig. 2b.[]{data-label="chidata"}](Fig2amod2.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"} ![Color online: (a) Main: $\chi_D(T)$ for the three crystals, solid lines show fits to $\chi_c^{FL}(T)+\chi_D^N(T)$ for OD89 and UD57, dashed lines show $\chi_D^N(T)$. Insert: Symbols show $M$ calculated for various values of $\epsilon$, using Eq. 2, when the anisotropy parameter $r\equiv(2\xi_c(0)/s)^2$ = 0. For $r$= 0.13 symbols show $M$ given by the 2D-3D form of Eq. 2, which contains $r$ and an extra integral [@Larkin]. The lines show formulae used [@insertnote] to represent these values of $M$ when fitting $\tau(\theta)$ data.\
(b) to (d) - plots of $1/|\chi_c^{FL}(T)|$ vs. $T$ for the three crystals. GF fits based on Eq. 1, are shown by short dashed lines, without a cut-off and by solid lines, with a strong cut-off [@cutoffnote]. Red triangles for UD57 show $\xi_{ab}(0)^2/\epsilon$ obtained by fitting $\tau(\theta)$ to the full 2D GF formula when $M(B)$ is non-linear, and converted to $1/|\chi_c^{FL}(T)|$ using Eq. 1. For UD22 the full GF formula was used for all the points shown in Fig. 2b.[]{data-label="chidata"}](Fig2bdJuly.eps "fig:"){width="7.0cm"}
Figs. 2b to 2d show plots of $1/|\chi_c^{FL}(T)|$ vs. $T$ where $\chi_c^{FL}(T) \equiv \chi_D(T)- \chi_D^{N}(T)$. The short-dashed lines for UD22 and UD57 in Figs. 2b and 2c show the contribution from Eq. 1 in the 2D limit ($\gamma
\rightarrow\infty$) with the two adjustable parameters $T_c^{MF_1}$ and $\xi_{ab}(0)$ given in Table 1. The solid lines show the effect of the same type of cut-off used in previous studies of the the conductivity $\sigma_{ab}^{FL}(T,B)$, as summarized in footnote . For OD89 we use the full 2D-3D form of Eq. 1 with $\xi_{ab}(0)$ = 1.06 nm and $\gamma$ = 5, [@Babic] shown by the short-dashed line, with the solid line again including the cut-off [@cutoffnote]. The high quality of these fits could be somewhat fortuitous in view of our neglect of any charge density wave (CDW) [@CDWnote], but other subtraction procedures give similar values of $1/|\chi_c^{FL}(T)|$. Heat capacity studies give a very similar value $\xi_{ab}(0)$ = 1.12 nm for OD88 YBCO [@LoramPhilMag] while our values for UD57 and UD22 agree with previous work [@Alloul; @AndoHc2] for the same $T_c$ values. For UD57, setting $\gamma = 45$ [@Pereg], rather than the 2D limit of Eq. 1 ($
\gamma\rightarrow\infty$) has no significant effect.
As the critical region is approached from above $T_c$ the exponent of $\xi_{ab}(T)$ is expected to change from the MF value of -1/2 to the 3D-XY value of -2/3 [@Bulaevskii]. It is very likely that this will also apply to strongly 2D materials, including UD57, since heat capacity data above and below $T_c$ [@LoramLnt] do show the $\ln|\epsilon|$ terms associated with the 3D-XY model. We have addressed this by repeating our GF fits in Figs. 2b and 2c with $\epsilon\geq0.20$ (UD22) or $0.15$ (UD57) without altering the cut-off [@cutoffnote]. The only significant change is that $\xi_{ab}(0)$ becomes 15$\%$ larger for UD57. For OD89 fits with $T_c^{MF_1}$ = 90 K and $\epsilon\geq0.05$ do not alter $\xi_{ab}(0)$ within the quoted error. This is expected since the width of the critical region for OD89 is much smaller than for OP YBCO [@Kamal; @Meingast] because of the extra 3D coupling from the highly conducting CuO chains [@LoramPhilMag].
![ Color online: Magnetic field dependence of the magnetization obtained from the torque data for UD57 at $T$ = 58.1, 60.3, 61.5, 66.9 and 72.2 K. Solid lines show fits to the 2D GF formula for $M$ plus the same normal state contribution used in Figs. 1, 2a and 2c.[]{data-label="magdata"}](fig3){width="7.0cm"}
Fig. 3 shows plots of $\tau/B\cos\theta$ vs $B\sin\theta$ at fixed $T$ for UD57. We use this representation of the data and MKS units, A/m, for comparison with Ref. . If $\chi_D^{N}(T)$ is subtracted, which has not been done for Fig. 3, then since $M_{ab}^{FL}$ is small this would be the same as plotting $M_c^{FL}$ vs. $B\parallel c$. Near $T_c$ there is clear non-linearity which is remarkably consistent with GF in the 2D limit, for which the free energy density at all $B$ is [@Larkin]: $${F = \frac{k_BT}{2\pi\xi_{ab}^2s}\{b\ln[\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}+
\frac{\epsilon}{2b})/\sqrt{2\pi}]+ \frac{\epsilon}{2}\ln(b)\} } \label{2DFree}$$ using the standard $\Gamma$ function, with $b= B/\tilde{B}_{c2}(0)$, where $\tilde{B}_{c2}(0)=\Phi_0/2\pi\xi_{ab}(0)^2$, and as before $\epsilon=\ln(T/T_c^{MF_1}(B=0))$. The magnetization $M=-\partial F/\partial B$ obtained by numerical differentiation of Eq. 2 for three typical values of $\epsilon$ is shown in the insert to Fig. 2a. $M$ scales with $b/\epsilon$ to within a few $\%$ and for $0.01<\epsilon<1$ can be adequately represented by the simple formula $-bk_BT/[\Phi_0s(3b+6\epsilon)]$, that has a single unknown parameter $\xi_{ab}(0)^2/\epsilon$. We note that GF formulae will be approximately valid in the crossover region to 3D-XY behavior [@Bulaevskii], because to first order the main effect is the change in the exponent of $\xi_{ab}(T)$.
Figs. 1 and 3 show that this formula fits our data for UD57 very well and importantly, as shown by the red triangles in Fig. 2c, the corresponding values of $1/\chi_c^{FL}(T)$ obtained via Eq. 1 agree well with points from $\sin2\theta$ fits at lower $B$ or higher $T$. For OD89 strong deviations from $\sin2\theta$ behavior only occur within $\sim$ 1 K of $T_c$ and these [@OD89note] are not properly described by GF theory. For UD22 there were small jumps in $\tau(\theta)$ at $\theta =0$ between 35 and 26 K of size $M_c =
0.01-0.03k_BT/(3\Phi_0s)$ that were fitted by including an extra contribution from Eq. 2 in the $\epsilon\ll b$ limit. This is ascribed to small regions, 1 to 3$\%$ of the total volume, with higher $T_c$ [@Lascialfari] that are not detected in low-field measurements of $T_c$ because they are much smaller than the London penetration depth. Fig. 2b shows that the values of $\xi_{ab}(0)^2/\epsilon$ \[or equivalently $1/\chi_c^{FL}(T)$\] obtained from full GF fits to $\tau(\theta)$ data at 2, 5 and 10 T agree well, which supports this conclusion.
The good description of our data by this GF analysis suggests that the high critical fields proposed in Refs. for $0.01<\epsilon\lesssim 0.2$ are associated with vortex-like excitations. In the present picture 2D GF give $M_c^{FL} \simeq -0.33 k_BT/\Phi_0s = -0.112$ emu/cm$^3$ or -112 A/m at 60 K for $B\gtrsim \phi_0/[2\pi\xi_{ab}(T)^2]$. We expect this to be suppressed for $B\gtrsim B_{c2}(0)$ where the magnetic length becomes smaller than $\xi_{ab}(0)$ and the slow spatial variation approximation of GL theory breaks down. However it may also fall when $\epsilon\gtrsim0.1$ because of the GF cut-off discussed below. So in the first approximation the high fields are $\simeq
B_{c2}(0)$. Precise analysis of these effects at very high fields might need to allow for small changes in $\chi_D^N(T)$ with $B$ that depend on the ratio of the Zeeman energy to the pseudogap. We note that the present results are consistent with a recent study of $B_{c2}$ for YBCO [@Taillefer2] and that recent torque magnetometry data [@Barisic2012] for HgBa$_2$CuO$_{4+x}$ and other single layer cuprates, show similar exponential attenuation factors to those for YBCO [@Alloul; @cutoffnote].
An intriguing question about the present results and those of Ref. is the origin of the strong cut-off in the GF above $\sim1.1T_c$. If the weakly $T$-dependent $\chi^N_D(T)$ behavior for OD89 shown in Fig. 2a is correct then our $\chi^{FL}_D(T)$ data and $\sigma_{ab}^{FL}(T)$ [@Alloul] both decay as $\exp[-(T-1.08T_c)/T_0]$ above $T\sim1.08T_c$ with $T_0\sim9$ K. If instead $\chi^N_D(T)$ were constant below 200 K then our $\chi^{FL}_D(T)$ data would give $T_0\sim$25 K, a slower decay than Ref. . In either case the presence of this cut-off for OD YBCO rules out explanations connected with the mean distance between carriers. This is much less than $\xi_{ab}(0)$ for hole concentrations of $\simeq1.2$ per CuO$_2$ unit, the value found directly from quantum oscillation studies of OD Tl$_2$Ba$_2$CuO$_{6+x}$ crystals [@Rourke].
Assuming there are no unsuspected effects caused by $d$-wave pairing, one hypothesis is that the GF and possibly $T_c$ itself are suppressed by inelastic scattering processes. In a quasi-2D Fermi liquid the inelastic mean free path, $l_{in}$, can be found from the $T$-dependence of the electrical resistivity and the circumference of the Fermi surface. For OD YBCO the measured $a$-axis resistivity [@AndoHc2] gives $l_{in}$ = $2.5(100/T)$ nm, but values for UD samples are less certain because of the pseudogap. The BCS relation $\xi_{ab}(0)= \hbar v_F/\pi\Delta(0)$, where $\Delta(0)$ is the superconducting energy gap at $T=0$, implies that irrespective of the value of the Fermi velocity $v_F$, the usual pair-breaking condition for significant inelastic scattering, $\hbar/\tau_{in} \gtrsim \Delta(0)$ is equivalent to $l_{in}\lesssim\pi\xi_{ab}(0)$. Taking $\xi_{ab}(0)$ from Table I and the above value of $l_{in}$ shows that this is satisfied at 100 K for OD YBCO. So some suppression of GF and indeed $T_c$ by inelastic scattering is entirely plausible. If $T_c$ is suppressed then $\Delta(T)$ will fall more quickly than BCS theory as $T_c$ is approached from below, which would affect the analysis of Ref. .
Another possibility [@Alloul] which might account for the observations, is that the pairing strength itself falls sharply outside the GL region, for example when the in-plane coherence length becomes comparable to, or less than, the correlation length of spin fluctuations. From Figs. 2b to 2d we can read off the values of $T$ where the solid and dashed lines differ by (say) a factor of two. At these points $\xi_{ab}(T)\equiv\xi_{ab}(0)/\ln(T/T_c^{MF_1})$ = 15.6, 9.5 and 7.9 nm for UD22, UD57 and OD89 respectively. Neutron scattering studies [@Hayden; @Stock] typically give a full width half maximum of 0.17$\frac{2\pi}{a}$ for the scattering intensity from spin fluctuations. Although this does vary with composition and scattering energy it corresponds to a correlation length [@Kittel] of just over 6 lattice constants, $a$, or 2.5 nm, similar to $\xi_{ab}(0)$ but much smaller than the $\xi_{ab}(T)$ values for which $\chi_c^{FL}$ is reduced by a factor two. It remains to be seen whether theory could account for this.
In these two pictures the effective $T_c$ describing the strength of the GF would fall for $T>1.1T_c$ either because of inelastic scattering or because of a weakening of the pairing interaction. If it could be shown theoretically that $\tilde{B}_{c2}(0)$ falls in a similar way, this would account naturally for the fact [@Alloul] that the magnetic fields needed to destroy the GF fall to zero in the temperature range 120-140 K, where the fluctuations become very small. In summary, Gaussian superconducting fluctuations, plus a strong cut-off that seems to be linked to a reduction in the effective value of $T_c$, provide a good description of the diamagnetism of our superconducting cuprate crystals above $T_c$.
---------- ------------ -------------- --------------- --------------------------------- --------------------
$Sample$ $^\S T_c $ $T_c^{MF_1}$ $\xi_{ab}(0)$ $0.59\tilde{B}_{c2}(0)^{\ddag}$ $\Delta(0)^{\dag}$
$ $ $ (K)$ $ (K)$ $(nm)$ $ (T)$ $ (K)$
OD89 $89.4$ $89.7$ $1.06\pm0.1$ $173$ $448$
UD57 $56.5$ $59$ $2.02\pm0.1$ $48$ $234$
UD22 $21.6$ $24 $ $4.5\pm0.5$ $10$ $105$
---------- ------------ -------------- --------------- --------------------------------- --------------------
: Summary of results. $^\S T_c$ defined by sharp onsets of SQUID signal at 10G and torque data at $\pm$50G. $^{\ddag}$2D clean limit formula [@Larkin] for $B_{c2}(0)$. $^{\dag}$From the BCS relation $\xi_{ab}(0)=\frac{\hbar
v_F}{\pi\Delta(0)}$, which may not hold exactly for $d$-wave pairing, with $v_F$=2x10$^{7}$ cm/sec. []{data-label="summary"}
We are grateful to D. A. Bonn, A. Carrington, W. N. Hardy, G. G. Lonzarich, J. W. Loram and L. Taillefer for several helpful comments. This work was supported by EPSRC (UK), grant number EP/C511778/1 and the Croatian Research Council, MZOS project No.119-1191458-1008.
[99]{} L. N. Bulaevskii, V. L. Ginzburg and A. A. Sobyanin, Physica C **152**, 378 (1988). A. Larkin and A. Varlamov, *Theory of Fluctuations in Superconductors*, (Clarendon, Oxford, U.K., 2005).
L. Li, Y. Wang, S. Komiya, S. Ono, Y. Ando, G. D. Gu, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 054510 (2010).
Z. A. Xu, N. P. Ong, Y. Wang, T. Kakeshita, and S. Uchida, Nature (London) **406**, 486 (2000).
Y. Wang, L. Li and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 024510 (2006).
S. A. Kivelson and E. H. Fradkin, Physics **3**, 15 (2010).
J. L. Tallon, J. G. Storey, and J. W. Loram, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 092502 (2011).
We use the notation $T_c^{MF_1}$ because the standard proof (Ref. ) that the GL equations follow from the microscopic Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer (BCS) theory of superconductivity, uses a pairing interaction that is confined to energies within $k_B\Theta_D$ of the Fermi energy, where $\Theta_D$ is the Debye temperature. There is a corresponding spread in coordinate space of $\hbar v_F/(k_B\Theta_D)$, where $v_F$ is the electron velocity. In this case $T_c^{MF_1}$ in GL theory and the GF formulas is the same as $T_c$ from BCS theory (Ref. ). These conditions may not be satisfied in the cuprates and other unconventional superconductors and could cause $T_c^{MF_1}$ to be lower than the mean field $T_c$ obtained from a microscopic theory such as the $t-J$ model \[G. G. Lonzarich, (private communication)\]. Critical superconducting fluctuations will suppress the measured value of $T_c$ below $T_c^{MF_1}$ by an amount related to the Ginzburg parameter, $\tau_G$ (Ref. ). For our UD57 crystal, taking the electronic specific heat coefficient to be 2 mJ/gm.at/K$^2$, $\xi_{ab}(0)$ from Table 1 and using formulas in Refs. , and , we find $\tau_G=0.01$ in the 2D limit. Using the 2D formula $\delta T_c/T_c=-2 \tau_G
\ln(4/ \tau_G)$ (Ref. ) this gives $T_c^{MF_1}-T_c$ = 3.7 K, in reasonable agreeement with Table 1. This simple procedure ignores possible effects from the pseudogap and $d$-wave pairing.
F. Rullier-Albenque, H. Alloul and G. Rikken, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 014522 (2011).
M. R. Cimberle, C. Ferdeghini, E. Giannini, D. Marre, M. Putti, A. Siri, F. Federici and A. Varlamov, Phys. Rev. B **55**, R14745 (1997).
C. Carballeira, S. R. Curras, J. Vina, J. A. Veira, M. V. Ramallo, and F. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 63, 144515 (2001).
The crystal is glued to the end of a commercial piezolever with its CuO$_{2}$ planes parallel to the flat surface of the lever. A dummy lever compensates background magneto-resistance signals, using a 3-lead Wheatstone bridge circuit driven by a floating 77 Hz current source. The chip is mounted on a single-axis rotation stage inside a He$^4$ cryo-magnetic system providing stable temperatures from 1.4 K up to 400 K and fields up to 15 T. The bridge signal arising from the gravitational torque on the crystal when the sample stage is rotated in zero magnetic field gives the $T$-dependent sensitivity of the piezolever. Because the masses of the glue and the lever are much less than that of the crystal, the calibration constant relating the out-of balance bridge signal to the angular dependent torque density $\tau(\theta)$ in J/m$^3$ or $\chi_D(T)$ [@emumole], only depends on the distance between the center of mass of the crystal and the base of the lever at the silicon chip, measured to $\pm5\%$.
R. Liang, D. A. Bonn and W. N. Hardy, Physica C 336, 57-62 (2000).
A. Audouard, C. Jaudet, D. Vignolles, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, L. Taillefer and C.Proust, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 157003 (2009).
N. M. Kirby, A. Trang, A. van Riessen, C. E. Buckley, V. W. Wittorff, J. R. Cooper and C. Panagopoulos, Supercond. Sci. Technol. **18**, 648 (2005).
S. Kamal, D. A. Bonn, N. Goldenfeld, P. J. Hirschfeld, R. Liang and W. N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett., **73**, 1845, (1994).
V. Pasler, P. Schweiss, C. Meingast, B. Obst, H. Wühl, A .I. Rykov and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. Lett., **81**, 1094 (1998).
I. Kokanović, J. R. Cooper and K. Iida, Europhys. Lett. **98**, 57011 (2012).
A recent hard X-ray study of UD67 YBCO gives evidence [@Forgan] for CDW order developing gradually below 150 K that is almost certainly responsible for the pocket. However unpublished analysis (J. R. Cooper and J. W. Loram, 2012), of heat capacity data for UD67 YBCO shows that CDW order sets in when the pseudogap is already formed. It probably causes gradual changes $\sim\pm25\%$ of the pocket contribution to $\chi_D^N(T)$ [@KokanovicEPL], or $\pm0.035.10^{-4}$ emu/mole over a $T$ interval $\sim$ 30 K.
L. Taillefer, J. Phys. Cond. Mat. **21**, 164212 (2009).
D. Babić, J. R. Cooper, J. W. Hodby and Chen Changkang, Phys. Rev. B **60**, 698 (1999).
We fitted the normalized $\sigma_{ab}^{FL}(T)$ data in Fig. 25 of Ref. to an empirical formula $(\exp[(T- \alpha T_c)/\beta] +1)^{-0.1}$ which is $\approx
1$ for $\epsilon\lesssim0.1$ and $\approx\exp[-(T-\alpha T_c)/10\beta]$ at higher $T$. This formula was used to cut off $\chi_c^{FL}(T)$ with $\alpha$ = 1.078, 1.1 and 1.12 and $\beta$ = 0.869, 1.234 and 0.70 K for OD89, UD57 and UD22 respectively and $T_c=T_c^{MF_1}$ shown in Table 1. For OD89, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values correspond to OD92.5 in Ref. , for UD57 we used UD85 data in Ref. which are similar to UD57 but have less scatter.
The solid line for $r=0$ shows our empirical 2D formula $b/(3b+6\epsilon)$, where $b=2\pi\xi_{ab}(0)^2B/\Phi_0$. The dashed line shows the 2D limit of Eq. 1 with $\xi_{eff}(b)$ given by $\xi_{eff}(b)^{-4}=\xi_{ab}(T)^{-4}+l_B^{-4}$, where $l_B=(\hbar/eB)^{1/2}$, the formula used to analyze Nernst data for NbSi films [@Pourret]. For $r=0.13$, $b<r$ and $\epsilon<r$, our empirical 3D formula is $-M/\sqrt{\epsilon}=(k_BT/s\Phi_0)0.68b/\sqrt{\epsilon(b+1.94\epsilon)}$.
J. W. Loram, J. R. Cooper, J. M. Wheatley, K. A. Mirza and R. S. Liu, Phil. Mag. B **65**, 1405 (1992).
Y. Ando and K. Segawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 167005 (2002).
T. Pereg-Barnea, P. J. Turner, R. Harris, G. K. Mullins, J. S. Bobowski, M. Raudsepp, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, and W. N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 184513 (2004). J. W. Loram, J. L. Tallon and W. Y. Liang, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 060502(R), 2004.
Although the 2D-3D form of Eq. 2 [@Larkin] with $r=0.13$ describes the non-$\sin2\theta$ shape of $\tau(\theta)$ the calculated values of $M\parallel c$ are a factor of 3 too small, and $\epsilon$ is far too small compared with the low-field transition width arising from inhomogeneity or strain. This non-GF behavior is ascribed to $T$ being too close to $T_c$.
A. Lascialfari, A. Rigamonti, L. Romano�, P. Tedesco, A. Varlamov, and D. Embriaco, Phys. Rev. B **65** 144523 (2002).
J. Chang, N. Doiron-Leyraud, O. Cyr-Choinière, G. Grissonnanche, F. Laliberté, E. Hassinger, J-Ph. Reid, R. Daou, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi and L. Taillefer, Nature Physics, **8**, 751 (2012).
G. Yu, D.-D. Xia, N. Barišić, R.-H. He, N. Kaneko, T. Sasagawa, Y. Li, X. Zhao, A. Shekhter and M. Greven, Cond-mat arXiv:1210.6942.
P. M. C. Rourke, A. F. Bangura, T. M. Benseman, M. Matusiak, J. R. Cooper, A. Carrington and N. E. Hussey, New J. Phys. **12**, 105009 (2010).
S. M. Hayden, H. A. Mook, P. Dai, T. G. Perring, and F. Dogan, Nature **429**, 531 (2004).
C. Stock, W. J. L. Buyers, R. Liang, D. Peets, Z. Tun, D. Bonn, W. N. Hardy and R. J. Birgeneau, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 014502 (2004).
C. Kittel, *Introduction to Solid State Physics*, 8th ed. (Wiley, New York, 2005), Chap. 2.
L. P. Gorkov, Sov. Phys.-JETP **9**,1364 (1959).
Units: 1 J/m$^3$ = 10 ergs/cm$^3$ and using CGS units for $\tau(\theta)= \frac{1}{2}\chi_DB^2\sin2\theta$ with $B$ in gauss gives $\chi_D$ in emu/cm$^3$. Complete flux exclusion corresponds to $\chi$ = -1/4$\pi$ emu/cm$^3$, or $\chi$ = -1 in MKS units. For YBCO $\chi_D$ in emu/cm$^3$, is multiplied by the volume per mole, 666/6.38 cm$^3$ to convert to emu/mole.
E. Blackburn, J. Chang, M. Hucker, A. T. Holmes, N. B. Christensen, R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, W. N. Hardy, M. v. Zimmermann, E. M. Forgan, and S. M. Hayden, Nature Physics, **8**, 871 (2012).
A. Pourret, H. Aubin, J. Lesueur, C. A. Marrache-Kikuchi, L. Berge, L. Dumoulin and K. Behnia, Phys. Rev. B **76**, 214504, (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
It is well known that for two qubits the upper bounds of the relative entropy of entanglement (REE) for a given concurrence as well as the negativity for a given concurrence are reached by pure states. We show that, by contrast, there are two-qubit mixed states for which the REE for some range of a fixed negativity is higher than that for pure states. Moreover, we demonstrate that a mixture of a pure entangled state and pure separable state orthogonal to it is likely to give the maximal REE. By noting that the negativity is a measure of entanglement cost under operations preserving positivity of partial transpose, our results provide an explicit example of operations such that, even though the entanglement cost for an exact preparation is the same, the entanglement of distillation of a mixed state can exceed that of pure states. This means that the entanglement manipulation via a pure state can result in a larger entanglement loss than that via a mixed state.\
author:
- Adam Miranowicz
- Satoshi Ishizaka
- Bohdan Horst
- Andrzej Grudka
title: Comparison of the relative entropy of entanglement and negativity
---
Introduction
============
In quantifying quantum entanglement of two-qubit mixed states, various measures are commonly applied [@Horodecki-review]: the relative entropy of entanglement (REE) [@Vedral97a] – a measure of the “distance” (or distinguishability) of an entangled state from the set of disentangled states, the (logarithmic) negativity [@Peres; @Horodecki] – a measure of entanglement cost under operations preserving the positivity of partial transpose (PPT) [@Audenaert], and the concurrence [@Wootters] – a measure of the entanglement of formation [@Bennett1].
It can be shown analytically that the upper bounds of the REE for a given concurrence [@Vedral98] and of the negativity for a given concurrence [@Verstraete] are reached by pure states. So one could conjecture that pure states have also the highest REE for a given negativity. However, we will demonstrate that there are mixed states exhibiting the REE for a given negativity (in some range) higher than for pure states. Before going into details let us briefly describe the entanglement measures.
Entanglement measures
=====================
The relative entropy of entanglement in two-qubit systems according to Vedral [*et al.*]{} can be defined as [@Vedral97a; @Vedral98] $$E_R(\rho)={\rm min}_{\sigma' \in {\cal D}} S(\rho ||\sigma')
=S(\rho ||\sigma ), \label{N01}$$ where the minimum is taken over the set ${\cal D}$ of all separable states $\sigma$, and $S$ is the quantum relative entropy $$S(\rho ||\sigma )={\rm Tr}\,( \rho \log_2 \rho -\rho\log_2 \sigma
) \label{N02}$$ between states $\rho$ and $\sigma$. The REE measures a quasidistance, say $D(\rho ||\sigma )$, of the entangled state $\rho$ from the closest separable state (CSS) $\sigma$. Based on the quantum version of Sanov’s theorem, one can also interpret the REE as a measure of statistical distinguishability of $\rho$. The choice of $S(\rho ||\sigma )$ as a candidate for $D(\rho ||\sigma
)$ is by no means unique, although this is, to our knowledge, the only proposal that coincides for pure states with the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density operator. Also note that $S(\rho
||\sigma )$ is not symmetric and nor does it satisfy the triangle inequality; thus it is not a true metric.
The negativity $N({\rho })$ for a two-qubit state $\rho$ can be defined by [@Zyczkowski98; @Eisert; @Vidal]: $${N}({\rho })=\max \{0,-2\mu _{\min}\}, \label{N03}$$ where $\mu _{\min}=\min{\rm eig}(\rho^{\Gamma})$ is the minimal eigenvalue of the partial transpose, denoted by $\Gamma$, of $\rho$. The negativity is directly related to the Peres-Horodecki criterion [@Peres; @Horodecki]. The logarithmic negativity, given by $\log_2[{N} ({\rho})+1]$, is a measure of the entanglement cost $E_C({\rho})$ under PPT operations [@Audenaert; @Ishizaka04]. The negativity and logarithmic negativity are monotonically related, reaching unity for Bell states and vanishing for separable states. So for simplicity of our further analysis, we use the negativity instead of the logarithmic negativity.
Another measure of entanglement is the entanglement of formation $E_{F}({\rho})$ [@Bennett1] or, equivalently for two qubit states, the Wootters concurrence [@Wootters] defined as $C({\rho})=\max \{0,2\max_j\lambda_j-\sum_j\lambda_j\}$, where the $\lambda _{j}$’s stand for the square roots of the eigenvalues of ${\rho }({\sigma }_{y}\otimes {\sigma }_{y}){\rho}^{\ast }({ \rho
}_{y}\otimes {\sigma }_{y})$, and ${\sigma }_{y}$ is the Pauli spin matrix.
In the last section, we also analyze the entanglement of distillation, $E_D({\rho})$ [@Bennett1], a measure of the entanglement as the fraction of Bell states that can be distilled using the optimal purification protocol.
REE with fixed $N$ for pure and mixed states
============================================
=8.5cm
The REE and the entanglement of formation coincide for pure states, but for mixed states the inequality $E_{F}({\rho})\ge
E_R({\rho})$ holds [@Vedral98]. As the concurrence is monotonically related to the entanglement of formation for an arbitrary state, the upper bound of the REE for a given concurrence is reached for pure states. On the other hand, as shown by Verstraete [*et al.*]{} [@Verstraete], the negativity $N({\rho})$ of an arbitrary state can never exceed its concurrence $C({\rho})$. The upper bound of the negativity for a given concurrence, i.e., $C({\rho})=N({\rho})$, is reached for a class of states for which the eigenvector of the partially transposed $\rho$ corresponding to the negative eigenvalue is a Bell state [@Verstraete; @Miran1; @Miran2]. Pure states and also some mixed states (including Bell-diagonal states) belong to this class. Thus, we see that mixed states cannot give higher values of the REE and negativity for a given concurrence than those for pure states. In the following we will show that the mixed-state REE can exceed the pure-state REE for a given negativity.
An arbitrary two-qubit pure state can be changed by local rotations into a state of the form ($0\le P\le 1$) $$|\psi_{P} \rangle =\sqrt{P} |01\rangle + \sqrt{1-P} |10\rangle,
\label{N04}$$ as can be shown by applying the Schmidt decomposition [@Peres-book]. The negativity of $|\psi_{P} \rangle$ is simply described by $N(|\psi _{P}\rangle) =2\sqrt{P(1-P)}$, while the REE, being equal to the entanglement of formation, can be given as a function of $N\equiv N(|\psi _{P}\rangle)$ as $${{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N) \equiv E_R(|{\psi}_{P}\rangle) = H_2\left(
\frac{1}{2}[1+\sqrt{1-N^{2}}]\right), \label{N05}$$ where $H_2(x)=-x\log_2 x-(1-x)\log_2 (1-x)$ is the binary entropy. Equation (\[N05\]) corresponds to the well-known Wootters relation between the concurrence and the entanglement of formation [@Wootters], since $N(|{\psi}_{P}\rangle)=C(|{\psi}_{P}\rangle)$ and $E_R(|{\psi}_{P}\rangle)=E_{F}(|{\psi}_{P}\rangle)$.
In comparison with pure states, let us analyze a mixture of a maximally entangled state, say the “triplet” state $|\psi^{+}\rangle=(|01\rangle+|10\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, and a separable state orthogonal to it, say $|00\rangle$, i.e., [@Horodecki-book], $${{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}=p|\psi^{+}\rangle \langle \psi^{+}|+(1-p)|00\rangle
\langle 00|, \label{N06}$$ where the parameter $p\in\langle 0,1 \rangle$. For brevity, we shall refer to (\[N06\]) as the Horodecki state, although alternatively it could be named after others (see, e.g., [@Vedral98; @Verstraete]). The negativity of the Horodecki state reads as $$N({{\rho^{\rm (H)}}})=\sqrt{ (1-p)^{2}+p^{2}}-(1-p), \label{N07}$$ while the REE as a function of $N\equiv N({{\rho^{\rm (H)}}})$ can be given by Vedral-Plenio’s formula [@Vedral98] $$\begin{aligned}
{{E_{R}^{\rm (H)}}}(N) &\equiv& E_R({{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}) = 2H_2(1-p/2)-H_2(p)-p \quad \notag \\
&=& (p-2)\log_2 (1-p/2) +(1-p)\log_2 (1-p), \label{N08}\end{aligned}$$ where $p=\sqrt{2N(1+N)}-N$. By comparing the REEs for the Horodecki and pure states we observe that
$$\begin{aligned}
{{E_{R}^{\rm (H)}}}(N) > {{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N)& \quad &{\rm for}\; 0<N<N_Y,\label{N09a}
\\
{{E_{R}^{\rm (H)}}}(N) < {{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N)& \quad &{\rm for}\; N_Y<N<1, \label{N09b}\end{aligned}$$
where $N_Y=0.3770\ldots$ and ${{E_{R}^{\rm (H)}}}(N_Y) =
{{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N_Y)=0.2279\ldots$ as shown in the inset plot of Fig. 1. The inequality (\[N09a\]) can also be shown by expanding (\[N05\]) and (\[N08\]) in power series of $N$ close to zero, then one gets ${{E_{R}^{\rm (H)}}}(N)= N(1-\sqrt{N/2})/\ln 4+{\cal O}(N^2)>0$ and negligibly small ${{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N) \sim {\cal O}(N^2)$. To show inequality (\[N09b\]) more clearly, we can expand (\[N05\]) and (\[N08\]) around $N=1-\epsilon$ close to one, then we have ${{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N) = 1 - \epsilon/\ln 2+ {\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$, which is greater than ${{E_{R}^{\rm (H)}}}(N)= 1 - \epsilon (1 - \ln\epsilon)/\ln 4+
{\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$. Thus, a comparison of (\[N05\]) and (\[N08\]) demonstrates the main point of this paper: There are mixed states having the REE for a given negativity (in some range) higher than that of pure states.
So far, we have analyzed the Horodecki states, which correspond to the broken curve in Figs. 1 and 2. Now, we will give analytical examples of mixed states more entangled than pure states, which could correspond to any point in the dark region in Fig. 2(a). The desired mixed states can be generated from the Horodecki state ${{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}$ by mixing it with the separable state ${{\sigma^{(\rm H)}}}$ closest to ${{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}(p,N)= (1-x){{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}+x{{\sigma^{(\rm H)}}}, \label{N10}\end{aligned}$$ defined for $N\in\langle 0,1 \rangle$ and $p\in\langle\sqrt{2N(1+N)}-N,1\rangle$, where $$\begin{aligned}
x=\frac{(N+p)^2-2N(1+N)}{p^2(1+N)} \label{N11}\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding CSS is given by ($q=p/2$) $$\begin{aligned}
{{\sigma^{(\rm H)}}}(p) &=&
{q}(1-{q})\sum_{j,k=0}^1(-1)^{j-k}|j,1-j\rangle \langle k,1-k| \notag \\
&&+(1-{q})^{2}|00\rangle \langle 00|+{q}^{2}|11\rangle \langle 11|.
\label{N12}\end{aligned}$$ By virtue of the Vedral-Plenio theorem [@Vedral98], state (\[N12\]) is the CSS for ${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}$ for any $x\in\langle0,1\rangle$. Thus, we find that the REE for ${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}(p,N)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_R({{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}) \equiv {{E_{R}^{\rm (H')}}}(p,N) \hspace{4.2cm}
\label{N13} \\
= q^2 x\log_2 x+2qy_1\log_2 \left(\frac{y_1}{1-q}\right) +
y_2\log_2 \left(\frac{y_2}{(1-q)^2}\right) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $y_1=1-qx$, $y_2=1-2q+q^2x$. The choice of $x$, given by (\[N11\]), implies that $N$ is just the negativity of ${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}(p,N)$. For $p=p_0\equiv\sqrt{2N(1+N)}-N$, the state (\[N10\]) goes into the Horodecki state, given by (\[N06\]). States corresponding to all points in the blue region in Fig. 1 can be generated from ${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}(p,N)$ by changing $N$ from 0 to $N_Y$ and slightly increasing $p$ from the value of $p_0$. By choosing properly $N\in\langle 0,1 \rangle$ and $p\in\langle
p_0,1\rangle$, the state ${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}(p,N)$ corresponding to any point in the entire dark region in Fig. 2(a) can be generated. It is seen that pure and mixed states having the negativity higher than that ${{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}$, which correspond to the white region under the thick solid curve in Fig. 2(a), are not included in the family of states ${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}$. By contrast, dark region in Fig. 2(b) corresponds to states that can be obtained from pure states $|\psi_{P} \rangle$ by mixing them with the separable states ${{\sigma^{(\rm P)}}}= P|01\rangle\langle01|+ (1-P)|10\rangle\langle10|$ closest to ${{\rho^{\rm (P)}}}$. They can be given, in analogy to (\[N10\]), as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rho^{\rm (P')}}}(P,N)= (1-x)|\psi_{P} \rangle\langle \psi_{P} |
+x{{\sigma^{(\rm P)}}}, \label{N14}\end{aligned}$$ where $x=1-N/[2\sqrt{P(1-P)}]$ for $N\in\langle 0,1\rangle$ and $P\in\langle P_-,P_+\rangle$ with $P_{\pm}=\frac12(1\pm\sqrt{1-N^2})$. The bounds on $P$ are obtained from the requirement that ${{\rho^{\rm (P')}}}(P,N)$ should be a positive semidefinite operator. In special cases for $P=P_{\pm}$, the mixed state ${{\rho^{\rm (P')}}}(P_{\pm},N)$ becomes the pure state ${{\rho^{\rm (P)}}}(N)$. In analogy to the state (\[N10\]), the Vedral-Plenio theorem guarantees that the CSS for ${{\rho^{\rm (P')}}}(P,N)$ is the same as for the pure state $|\psi_{P} \rangle$. Thus, we can calculate the REE for (\[N14\]) arriving at $$\begin{aligned}
E_R({{\rho^{\rm (P')}}}) \equiv {{E_{R}^{\rm (P')}}}(P,N) \hspace{4.2cm} \label{N15}\\
= H_2(P) -\frac{z-Py_{-}}{2P-y_{+}}\log_2
\Big(\frac{y_{-}}{2}\Big)
-\frac{z-Py_{+}}{2P-y_{-}}\log_2\Big(\frac{y_{+}}{2}\Big), \notag\end{aligned}$$ where $y_{\pm}=1\pm\sqrt{1-2z}$ and $z=2P(1-P)x(2-x)=2P(1-P)-N^2/2$. The REE, given by (\[N15\]), for $P=P_{\pm}$ goes into (\[N05\]) as expected. The lower bound of the REEs for both ${{\rho^{\rm (P')}}}(P,N)$ and ${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}(p,N)$ is the same and given by $$\begin{aligned}
{{E_{R}^{\rm (BD)}}}(N)&\equiv& {{E_{R}^{\rm (P')}}}(1/2,N)={{E_{R}^{\rm (H')}}}(1,N) \nonumber\\ &=&
1-H_2\Big(\frac{1+N}{2}\Big). \label{N16}\end{aligned}$$ With the help of the Vedral [*et al.*]{} results [@Vedral97a], we can conclude that the REE, given by (\[N16\]), is the same as for a Bell-diagonal state defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rho^{\rm (BD)}}}=\sum_{i=0}^3 \lambda_i |\beta_{i} \rangle\langle
\beta_{i} |, \label{N17}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\beta_{i} \rangle$ are the Bell states, $\sum_j\lambda_j=1$, $\max_j\lambda_j=(1+N)/2>1/2$, and $N$ is the negativity $N({{\rho^{\rm (BD)}}})$. Specifically, the states (\[N10\]) for $p=1$ and (\[N14\]) for $p=1/2$ go into the following Bell-diagonal states $${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}(1,N)=\frac{1-N}{4}(|\beta_0\rangle
\langle\beta_0|+|\beta_2\rangle\langle\beta_2|)
+\frac{1+N}{2}|\beta_3\rangle \langle\beta_3|, \notag$$ $${{\rho^{\rm (P')}}}(1/2,N)= \frac{1+N}{2}|\beta_1\rangle\langle\beta_1|
+\frac{1-N}{2}|\beta_3\rangle\langle\beta_3|,
\label{N18}$$ respectively, where the Bell states are given in the following order $|\beta_{2j+k} \rangle=[|0,k\rangle+(-1)^j
|1,1-k\rangle]/\sqrt{2}$.
The Horodecki state is more entangled than the pure state at most at $N\equiv N'=0.1539\ldots$ for which $\max_N [{{E_{R}^{\rm (H)}}}(N) -
{{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N)]=0.0391\ldots$. The question arises about the highest possible difference for an arbitrary mixed state. This problem is strictly related to finding the upper bound of the REE vs negativity.
Numerical simulations
=====================
There has been a long-standing open problem of finding a closed analytical formula for the REE for two qubits, which corresponds to finding the $\sigma$ for a given entangled state $\rho$ [@Eisert2] and it is argued that the analytical solution does not exist [@Miran07]. Moreover, there has not yet been an efficient numerical method proposed to calculate the REE for an arbitrary entangled mixed state even in case of two qubits. Analytical formulas for the REE are known only for some special sets of states with high symmetry [@Vedral97a; @Vedral97b; @Vedral98; @Vollbrecht; @Audenaert01; @Audenaert02; @Miran07]. Thus, usually, numerical methods for calculating the REE have to be applied [@Vedral98; @Rehacek; @Doherty]. The complexity of the two-qubit problem can be explained by virtue of Caratheodory’s theorem, which implies that minimalization of the quantum relative entropy $S(\rho ||\sigma )$ should be performed over $79$ real parameters describing decomposed $\sigma$ [@Vedral98]. Usually [@Vedral98; @Rehacek], gradient-type algorithms are applied to perform the minimalization. Řeháček and Hradil [@Rehacek] proposed a method resembling a state reconstruction based on the maximum likelihood principle. Doherty [*et al.*]{} [@Doherty] designed a hierarchy of more and more complex operational separability criteria for which convex optimization methods (known as semidefinite programs) can be applied efficiently.
Nevertheless, there is a compact-form solution to the inverse problem, which characterizes an entangled state $\rho$ for a given full-rank $\sigma$ [@Ishizaka03; @Miran07]: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &=& \sigma - x G(\sigma),
\label{N50}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
G(\sigma) &=& \sum_{i,j} G_{ij}|i\rangle\langle i|
(|\phi\rangle\langle \phi|)^\Gamma |j\rangle\langle j|,
\label{N51}\end{aligned}$$ and $$G_{ij}\equiv\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\gamma_i &\hbox{~~for $\gamma_i\!=\!\gamma_j$} \cr
\frac{\gamma_i-\gamma_j}{\ln \gamma_i-\ln \gamma_j}
&\hbox{~~for $\gamma_i\!\ne\!\gamma_j$,}
\end{array}
\right. \label{N52}$$ and $|\phi\rangle$ is the kernel of $\sigma^\Gamma$, while $|i>$ and $\gamma_i$ are eigenstates and eigenvalues of $\sigma$, respectively. Thus, the REE is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_R(\rho) = S(\sigma) - S(\rho) + x {\rm tr}
\big[ (|\phi\rangle\langle \phi|)^\Gamma \sigma \log_2 \sigma
\big],
\label{N53}\end{aligned}$$ where $S(\cdot)$ is the von Neumann entropy. In the following $x_{\max}$ denotes the largest $x$ in (\[N50\]), for which $\rho$ is a positive operator. The solution can be applied also for lower-rank CSSs in a limiting sequence from a full-rank state by noting that the REE is a continuous function.
We have applied two approaches in our numerical simulations. In the standard approach, the states are chosen at random and their $E_R$ and $N$ are calculated numerically using a simplex search method without using numerical or analytic gradients. However, given the fact that no closed formula exists for $E_R$ [@Eisert2; @Miran07], it is more logical to choose random states (call them $\sigma$) on the boundary of the separability region and generate entangled states $\rho$ for which $\sigma$ is the CSS by applying Eqs. (\[N50\])–(\[N53\]). The latter method is faster by three orders of magnitude than the standard one. Figure 3 shows the results of our simulations for random rank-2 and rank-3 states. For brevity, we have omitted a similar figure for random rank-4 states. The simulations confirm our analytical predictions that the mixed-state REE can exceed the pure-state REE but also indicate lower and upper bounds of the REE vs negativity.
REE for the generalized Horodecki states
========================================
Our numerical simulations, partially shown in Fig. 3, indicate that the upper bound $E_R(N)$ can be given by the rank-2 generalized Horodecki state ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ defined as follows [@Miran07]: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}} &=& p |\psi_P\> \< \psi_P| + (1-p)|00\>\<00|,
\label{N19}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\psi_P\>$ is given by (\[N04\]) and $p,P\in \langle 0,1
\rangle$. In the special case of $P=1/2$, ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ reduces to the standard Horodecki state, while ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ for $p=1$ corresponds to a pure state $|\psi_P\>$. Note that the negativity $N \equiv N({{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}})$ is simply given by: $$\begin{aligned}
N =\sqrt{(1-p)^2+4p^2P(1-P)}-(1-p).
\label{N20}\end{aligned}$$ By the inversion of this equation, $$\begin{aligned}
P &=& \frac{1}{2p}\left[p\pm \sqrt{p^2-N^2-2N(1-p)}\right],
\label{N21}\end{aligned}$$ one can express the state ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}\equiv {{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}(p,N)$, given by (\[N19\]), as a function of negativity $N$ and parameter $p\ge
p_0(N)=\sqrt{2N(1+N)}-N$. The state ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ is a special case of a more general state [@Miran07] $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rho^{\rm (Z)}}}\equiv {{\rho^{\rm (Z)}}}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!_{x_{\max}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
r_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & r_2 & y & 0 \\
0 & y & r_3 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix},
\label{N22}\end{aligned}$$ for which the CSS is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\sigma^{(\rm Z)}}}=
\begin{pmatrix}
R_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & R_2 & Y & 0 \\
0 & Y & R_3 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & R_4
\end{pmatrix},
\label{N23}\end{aligned}$$ where $Y=\sqrt{R_1R_4}$. Clearly, by assuming $y=\sqrt{r_2r_3}$, the state ${{\rho^{\rm (Z)}}}$ is reduced into the generalized Horodecki state ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ with $r_1=1-p$, $r_2=Pp$ and $r_3=(1-P)p$. States ${{\rho^{\rm (Z)}}}$ and ${{\sigma^{(\rm Z)}}}$ are related by the following relations assuming for convenience that $R_1\ge R_4$ [@Miran07]: $$r_2=R_2+\frac{2R_4}{z^{2}}(R_2^2-R_2R_3+2Y^2)+\frac{2R_4}{Lz}(R_2-R_3)
\label{N24}$$ together with $r_1 = R_1-R_4$, $r_3=1-r_1-r_2$, and $y=-[(r_2-R_2)(R_2-R_3)-2(R_1+R_2)R_4]/(2Y)$ given in terms of the auxiliary functions $z=\sqrt{(R_2-R_3)^2+4Y^2}$ and $L=\ln(R_2+R_3-z)-\ln(R_2+R_3+z)$. Moreover, $x_{\max}=(R_1+R_4)/R_1$ if the condition $y=\sqrt{r_2r_3}$ is satisfied for a given choice of $\{R_i\}$.
These equations can easily be inverted for $P=1/2$, which leads to the solution given by (\[N12\]) for the standard Horodecki state ${{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}$. By contrast, due to presence of logarithmic functions of nonlinear combinations $\{R_i\}$ in the equations for $\{r_i\}$, it looks impossible to invert the equations in order to express all $\{R_i\}$ in terms of $\{r_i\}$ for the generalized Horodecki state if $P\neq {0,\frac12,1}$. Thus, we can only give a formula for the REE for ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ with $\{r_i\}$ as a function of $\{R_i\}$: $${{E_{R}^{\rm (GH)}}} = -H_2(r_1)-r_1 \log_2 R_1-f_-^2 \log_2 \lambda_- -f_+^2 \log_2 \lambda_+,
\label{N25}$$ where $f_{\pm}={\cal N}_{\pm} [(\lambda_{\pm}-R_3)
\sqrt{r_2}+Y\sqrt{r_3}]$, $\lambda_{\pm}=\frac12(R_2+R_3\pm z)$ and ${\cal N}_{\pm}=[(\lambda_{\pm}-R_3)^2+Y^2]^{-1/2}$.
In any case, a multivariable numerical procedure for finding the CSS ${{\sigma^{(\rm GH)}}}$ can be reduced to a single-variable problem; namely, we can express $R_i$ (for $i=2,3,4$) in terms of $r_1$ and $R_1$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{2} &=& \frac14 (1+3r_1+2r_2-4R_1 -\sqrt{\delta}),
\nonumber \\
R_{4} &=& R_1-r_1,
\nonumber \\
R_{3} &=& 1-\sum_{i\ne 3} R_i, \label{N28}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
r_{2,3} &=& \frac 12 \left[1-r_1\mp
\sqrt{(1-r_1)^2-N(N+2r_1)}\right],
\nonumber \\
\delta&=&(3r_1+1)^2-4r_2r_3-8R_1(r_1+1)
\nonumber \\
&&+16\sqrt{R_1(R_1-r_1)r_2 r_3}. \label{N29}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, to completely determine ${{\sigma^{(\rm GH)}}}$ for a given ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$, it is enough to find $R_1$ ($\ge r_1$) by numerically solving the single-variable equation (\[N24\]) with all the other variables defined above.
A related problem is to find the optimal generalized Horodecki state ${{\rho^{\rm (OGH)}}}$, defined as ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ for a given $N$ and such $p$, denoted by $p_{\rm opt}(N)$, for which the REE is maximized: $$\begin{aligned}
{{E_{R}^{\rm (OGH)}}}(N) &\equiv& E_{R}[{{\rho^{\rm (OGH)}}}(N)]
\nonumber \\
&\equiv& E_{R}[{{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}(p_{\rm opt}(N),N)]
\nonumber \\
&= & \max_{p\ge p_0(N)} E_{R}[{{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}(p(N),N)]. \label{N27}\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $p_{\rm opt}$ can be found numerically by the procedure described above. On the other hand, we have found a fairly good approximation of $p_{\rm opt}$ for $0\le N\le 0.527$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bar p_{\rm opt}(N)= \frac13+\frac85 N -\frac7{11}N^2 \label{N30}\end{aligned}$$ such that $E_{R}[{{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}(\bar p_{\rm opt}(N),N)]$ deviates by the order $10^{-5}$ from the precise value of ${{E_{R}^{\rm (OGH)}}}(N)$. We also find that $p_{\rm opt}$ becomes 1, so the optimum generalized Horodecki state becomes a pure state $|\psi_P\>$ for $N {_> \atop
^\sim} 0.53$. It is worth noting that the precision of our numerical calculations of the REE is $\sim 10^{-10}\div 10^{-8}$, and $\max({{E_{R}^{\rm (H)}}},{{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}})$ is smaller than ${{E_{R}^{\rm (GH)}}}$ up to 0.0148 (at $N=0.377$), so it can clearly be distinguished from the numerical noise.
The REE for the generalized Horodecki states ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ as a function of $N$ for arbitrary values of $p$ correspond to the dark region in Fig. 2(c). In analogy with the states ${{\rho^{\rm (H')}}}$, given by (\[N10\]), one can also define a class of more general states by mixing ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ with its CSS ${{\sigma^{(\rm GH)}}}$, given by (\[N12\]), as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rho^{\rm (GH')}}}= (1-x){{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}+x{{\sigma^{(\rm GH)}}}, \label{N26}\end{aligned}$$ where $x\in\<0,1\>$. As is seen in Fig. 2(d) in comparison to Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), the REE vs $N$ for ${{\rho^{\rm (GH')}}}$ covers to whole region of the values for randomly generated states.
We conjecture that for any two-qubit state $\rho$ described by the REE ${{E_{R}^{\rm (\rho)}}}(N)\equiv E_R(\rho)$ as a function of the negativity $N=N(\rho)$, the following inequalities are satisfied: $${{E_{R}^{\rm (OGH)}}}(N) \ge {{E_{R}^{\rm (\rho)}}}(N) \ge {{E_{R}^{\rm (BD)}}}(N), \label{N31}$$ which simplify to $${{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N) \ge {{E_{R}^{\rm (\rho)}}}(N) \ge {{E_{R}^{\rm (BD)}}}(N) \label{N32}$$ for $N {_> \atop ^\sim} 0.53$, where ${{E_{R}^{\rm (P)}}}(N)$ and ${{E_{R}^{\rm (BD)}}}(N)$ are given by (\[N05\]) and (\[N16\]), while ${{E_{R}^{\rm (GH)}}}(N)$ is found numerically by the described method using Eqs. (\[N25\])–(\[N29\]). As a partial analytical support of our conjectures, the extremal conditions for the REE with a fixed $N$ for ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ and ${{\rho^{\rm (BD)}}}$ are examined in the next section. We have also performed a numerical analysis, as discussed in Sec. VI, to provide another support of validity of the conjecture. We have generated altogether a few million random states $\rho$ of a fixed rank (2, 3, and 4) and calculated the negativity and REE for each of them.
Some extremal conditions for REE with fixed $N$
===============================================
In the following, we show analytically that the Bell-diagonal states and the generalized Horodecki states, thus also pure states and the standard Horodecki states, satisfy some extremal conditions for the REE with a fixed $N$ implied by a Lagrange-multiplier method. Since negativity for a given state $\rho$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
N(\rho)&=&-2 \min_{|\psi'\rangle} \big[
\langle\psi'|\rho^\Gamma|\psi'\rangle \big]
\label{N33} \\
&=&-2 \min_{|\psi'\rangle} \big[ \hbox{tr}\rho
(|\psi'\rangle\langle\psi'|)^\Gamma \big] \equiv -2 \big[
\hbox{tr}\rho (|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma \big],
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $|\psi\rangle$ is the optimal state, let us consider the following Lagrange function: $${\cal L}=\hbox{tr}\rho \log_2 \rho - \hbox{tr} \rho \log_2 \sigma
+ l \left(\hbox{tr} \rho
(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma+\frac{N}{2}\right), \label{N34}$$ where $l$ is a Lagrange multiplier. For a small deviation of $$\rho \rightarrow \rho+\Delta-(\hbox{tr}\Delta)\rho, \label{N35}$$ where $\Delta$ is an arbitrary (but small) operator on the support space of $\rho$ \[denoted by $\hbox{supp}(\rho)$ hereafter\], we have $${\cal L} \rightarrow {\cal L} + \hbox{tr}\Delta \big[
\log_2\rho-\log_2\sigma+l(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma
-E_R(\rho)+\frac{l}{2}N(\rho)\big]. \label{N36}$$ Since $\Delta$ is an arbitrary operator on $\hbox{supp}(\rho)$, the following extremal condition is obtained: $$P\big[\log_2\rho-\log_2\sigma+l(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma
-E_R(\rho)+\frac{l}{2}N(\rho)\big] P =0, \label{N37}$$ where $P$ is the projector to $\hbox{supp}(\rho)$. Moreover, the extremal condition for ${\cal L}$ with respect to $|\psi\rangle$ leads to the extremal condition for negativity, and thus $|\psi\rangle$ must be the eigenstate corresponding to a negative eigenvalue of $\rho^\Gamma$. Therefore, it is found that $\rho$, its closest separable state $\sigma$, and the eigenstate $|\psi\rangle$ corresponding to a negative eigenvalue of $\rho^\Gamma$ should satisfy Eq. (\[N37\]).
Now let us consider the case where $\rho$ is a mixed state of rank 2, i.e., $\rho=\lambda_1|e_1\rangle\langle e_1|+
\lambda_2|e_2\rangle\langle e_2|$, where $\{\lambda_i\}$ are nonzero eigenvalues of $\rho$, and $|e_i\rangle$ are corresponding eigenstates. The projector $P$ is then $P=|e_1\rangle\langle
e_1|+|e_2\rangle\langle e_2|$, and as a result the extremal condition of Eq. (\[N37\]) becomes $$\langle e_1|\log_2 \sigma|e_2\rangle = l \langle
e_1|(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma|e_2\rangle, \label{N38}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\log_2\lambda_1 -\langle e_1|\log_2 \sigma|e_1\rangle + l \langle
e_1|(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma|e_1\rangle
\nonumber \\
=E_R(\rho)-\frac{l}{2}N(\rho), \label{N39} \\
\log_2\lambda_2 -\langle e_2|\log_2 \sigma|e_2\rangle + l \langle
e_2|(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma|e_2\rangle
\nonumber \\
=E_R(\rho)-\frac{l}{2}N(\rho). \label{N40}\end{aligned}$$ However, Eqs. (\[N39\]) and (\[N40\]) are not independent of each other. Indeed, for $\lambda_1\ne0$ and $\lambda_2\ne0$, these equations are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_1\log_2\lambda_1 -\lambda_1\langle e_1|\log_2
\sigma|e_1\rangle + \lambda_1 l \langle
e_1|(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma|e_1\rangle
\nonumber \\
=\lambda_1 E_R(\rho)-\lambda_1\frac{l}{2}N(\rho), \label{N41} \\
\lambda_2\log_2\lambda_2 -\lambda_2\langle e_2|\log_2
\sigma|e_2\rangle + \lambda_2l \langle
e_2|(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma|e_2\rangle
\nonumber \\
=\lambda_2E_R(\rho)-\lambda_2\frac{l}{2}N(\rho), \label{N42}\end{aligned}$$ and it is found that the sum of these equations is automatically satisfied. Therefore, the extremal conditions for rank-2 states are Eqs. (\[N38\]) and (\[N39\]) \[or Eqs. (\[N38\]) and (\[N40\])\].
Bell-diagonal states
--------------------
For the rank-2 Bell-diagonal states, $$[{{\rho^{\rm (BD)}}},{{\sigma^{(\rm {BD})}}}]=[{{\rho^{\rm (BD)}}},(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma]=0,
\label{N43}$$ and hence $\langle e_1|\log_2\sigma|e_2\rangle= \langle
e_1|(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma|e_2\rangle=0$ holds again. Equation (\[N38\]) is then satisfied for any $l$, and the extremal conditions are satisfied.
Horodecki states
----------------
For the standard Horodecki state, defined by (\[N06\]), with its CSS given by (\[N12\]), we have: $$\begin{aligned}
({{\rho^{\rm (H)}}})^\Gamma&=&q \big(|\psi^+\rangle\langle\psi^+|
+|\psi^-\rangle\langle\psi^-| +|00\rangle\langle11|
\nonumber \\
&& ~~+|11\rangle\langle00|\big) + (1-p) |00\rangle\langle00|,
\label{N44}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi\rangle&=& \sqrt{s_-}|00\rangle -\sqrt{s_+}|11\rangle,
\nonumber \\
(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma&=& s_-|00\rangle\langle 00| +
s_+|11\rangle\langle 11| \cr
&&+\frac{tp}{2}(|\psi^-\rangle\langle\psi^-|-
|\psi^+\rangle\langle\psi^+|), \label{N45}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\psi^{\pm}\rangle=(|01\rangle\pm|10\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, $s_{\pm}=[1\pm t(1-p)]/2$ and $t=1/\sqrt{2p^2-2p+1}$.
Since $\langle e_1|\log_2\sigma|e_2\rangle= \langle
e_1|(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma|e_2\rangle=0$, Eq. (\[N38\]) is satisfied for any $l$. Since there is only one relation of Eq. (\[N39\]) for $l$, the extremal conditions are necessarily satisfied.
Generalized Horodecki states
----------------------------
Here, we show that the generalized Horodecki states are extremal. The point is that only two extremal conditions should be satisfied for the states: (i) given by (\[N38\]) and (ii) given by either of Eqs. (\[N39\])–(\[N42\]) or, e.g., the difference of Eqs. (\[N41\]) and (\[N42\]). Condition (ii) is a linear function of $l$, so it can easily be solved for $l$. The question is whether the found $l$ also satisfies condition (i) or whether left- and right-hand sides (LHS and RHS) of (i) are equal to zero. In the following we show that the latter case is satisfied for the generalized Horodecki states ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$, and thus also for the optimal states ${{\rho^{\rm (OGH)}}}$, the standard Horodecki states ${{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}$, and pure states ${{\rho^{\rm (P)}}}$.
For simplicity, we use the notation of Eqs. (\[N22\]) and (\[N23\]) with the condition $y^2=r_2r_3$, which guarantees that ${{\rho^{\rm (Z)}}}$ and ${{\sigma^{(\rm Z)}}}$ become ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ and ${{\sigma^{(\rm GH)}}}$, respectively. One finds that $$\begin{aligned}
|\psi\rangle &=& {\cal N} (-g |00\>+ 2y|11\>),
\nonumber \\
(|\psi\rangle\langle\psi|)^\Gamma &=& {\cal N}^2
\big[g^2 |00\>\<00|+4y^2|11\>\<11|
\nonumber \\
&&\quad -2gy (|01\>\<10|+|10\>\<01|)\big],
\label{N46}\end{aligned}$$ where $g=\sqrt{r_1^2+4y^2}-r_1$ and ${\cal N}=1/\sqrt{g^2+4y^2}$. On the other hand, $\log_2{{\sigma^{(\rm GH)}}}$ can be calculated through the eigenvalue decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
{{\sigma^{(\rm GH)}}} &=& R_1 |00\>\<00| + R_4 |11\>\<11|
\nonumber \\
&&+ \lambda_+ |\lambda_+\>\<\lambda_+|
+ \lambda_- |\lambda_-\>\<\lambda_-|,
\label{N47}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{\pm} &=& \frac12\left[R_2+R_3\pm
\sqrt{(R_2-R_3)^2+4Y^2}\right],
\nonumber \\
|\lambda_{\pm}\>&=&{\cal
N}_{\pm}[(\lambda_{\pm}-R_3)|01\>+Y|10\>], \label{N48}\end{aligned}$$ with ${\cal N}_{\pm}=[(\lambda_{\pm}-R_3)^2+Y^2]^{-1/2}$. Moreover, for the nonzero eigenvalues, the eigenvectors of ${{\rho^{\rm (GH)}}}$ are found to be $|e_1\>=|00\>$ and $|e_2\>=(1/\sqrt{y^2+r_3^2}) (y|01\>+r_3|10\>)$. Thus, it is seen that both LHS and RHS of condition (\[N38\]) are equal to zero. The second condition is satisfied by choosing $$\begin{aligned}
l &=& \frac{2f({{E_{R}^{\rm (GH)}}}-\log_2 r_1+\log_2 R_1)}{(f+1)(f-r_1)},
\label{N49}\end{aligned}$$ where $f=\sqrt{r_1^2+4y^2}$. In any case, even without knowing explicitly ${{E_{R}^{\rm (GH)}}}$ and $\{R_i\}$ in terms of $\{r_i\}$, we have showed that the generalized Horodecki states satisfy the extremal conditions.
Conclusions
===========
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that there are mixed states that have the REE in some range of a fixed negativity higher than the pure-state REE for the same negativity. This is somewhat surprising, since mixed states can neither exhibit the REE for a given concurrence nor negativity for a given concurrence higher than those for pure states. By applying Lagrange multipliers, we have also shown that the Bell-diagonal states, pure states, but also the so-called generalized Horodecki states, which are mixtures of a pure entangled state and pure separable state orthogonal to it, satisfy some extremal conditions for the REE with a fixed negativity.
Our findings implicitly show another fact. For a given negativity, the entanglement of distillation (ED) $E_D$ of the Horodecki state ${{\rho^{\rm (H)}}}$ can be larger than that of a pure state ${{\rho^{\rm (P)}}}$. For example, $N=0.1$ and $p=0.37$, one gets $E_D({{\rho^{\rm (P)}}})
=E_R({{\rho^{\rm (P)}}}) =0.025$ and $E_D({{\rho^{\rm (H)}}})>0.034$. Here, the lower bound of the ED is given by $p^2/4$ (via the direct method shown in [@Bennett1]). This lower bound can be slightly improved by a method discussed in Ref. [@Ishizaka-notes]. The point is that the logarithmic negativity is equal to a PPT entanglement cost for an exact preparation, the REE is equal to a PPT distillable entanglement for pure states, and the ED is a lower bound of a PPT distillable entanglement. So our findings provide an explicit example of PPT operations where, even though the entanglement cost for an exact preparation is the same, the ED of a mixed state can exceed that of pure states. In other words, the entanglement manipulation via a pure state can result in a larger entanglement loss than that via a mixed state.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}. We thank Ryszard Horodecki,Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, Zdeněk Hradil, Frank Verstraete, Shashank Virmani and Karol Życzkowski for their pertinent comments. We also appreciate useful suggestions of an anonymous referee. The research was conducted within the LFPPI network.
[99]{}
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki and K. Horodecki, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0702225 (to be published).
V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2275 (1997).
A. Peres, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**77**]{}, 1413 (1996).
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, [Phys. Lett. A]{} [**223**]{}, 1 (1996).
K. Audenaert, M. B. Plenio, and J. Eisert, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**90**]{}, 027901 (2003).
W. K. Wootters, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**80**]{}, 2245 (1998).
C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**54**]{}, 3824 (1996).
V. Vedral and M. B.Plenio, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 1619 (1998).
F. Verstraete, K. M. R. Audenaert, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, J. Phys. A [**34**]{}, 10327 (2001).
K. Życzkowski, P. Horodecki, A. Sanpera, and M. Lewenstein, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**58**]{}, 883 (1998).
J. Eisert and M. Plenio, J. Mod. Opt. [**46**]{}, 145 (1999).
G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**65**]{}, 032314 (2002).
S. Ishizaka, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 020301(R) (2004).
A. Miranowicz and A. Grudka, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 032326 (2004),
A. Miranowicz and A. Grudka, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. [**6**]{}, 542 (2004).
A. Peres, [*Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods*]{} (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Holland, 1993).
M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, in [*Quantum Information: An Introduction to Basic Theoretical Concepts and Experiments*]{}, edited by G. Alber [*et al.*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2001), p. 151.
A. Miranowicz and S. Ishizaka, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 032310 (2008).
J. Eisert, [*Problem 8: Qubit formula for relative entropy of entanglement*]{}, in: [*Some Open Problems in Quantum Information Theory*]{}, eds. O. Krueger, R.F. Werner, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0504166v1.
V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, K. Jacobs, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, 4452 (1997).
K. G. H. Vollbrecht and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 062307 (2001).
K. M. R. Audenaert, J. Eisert, E. Jané, M. B. Plenio, S. Virmani, and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 217902 (2001).
K. M. R. Audenaert, B. De Moor, K. G. H. Vollbrecht, and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 032310 (2002).
J. Řeháček and Z. Hradil, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 127904 (2003).
A. C. Doherty, P. A. Parrilo, and F. M. Spedalieri, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 187904 (2002).
S. Ishizaka, Phys. Rev. A [**67**]{}, 060301(R) (2003).
S. Ishizaka (unpublished).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Visual tracking problem demands to efficiently perform robust classification and accurate target state estimation over a given target at the same time. Former methods have proposed various ways of target state estimation, yet few of them took the particularity of the visual tracking problem itself into consideration. Based on a careful analysis, we propose a set of practical guidelines of target state estimation for high-performance generic object tracker design. Following these guidelines, we design our Fully Convolutional Siamese tracker++ (SiamFC++) by introducing both classification and target state estimation branch (**G1**), classification score without ambiguity (**G2**), tracking without prior knowledge (**G3**), and estimation quality score (**G4**). Extensive analysis and ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed guidelines. Without bells and whistles, our SiamFC++ tracker achieves state-of-the-art performance on five challenging benchmarks(OTB2015, VOT2018, LaSOT, GOT-10k, TrackingNet), which proves both the tracking and generalization ability of the tracker. Particularly, on the large-scale TrackingNet dataset, SiamFC++ achieves a previously unseen AUC score of 75.4 while running at over 90 FPS, which is far above the real-time requirement. Code and models are available at: <https://github.com/MegviiDetection/video_analyst>.'
author:
- |
Yinda Xu,^1^[^1][^2] Zeyu Wang,^2^Zuoxin Li,^2^ Ye Yuan,^2^ Gang Yu^2^[^3]\
^1^College of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University\
^2^Megvii Inc.\
yinda\[email protected], [email protected], {lizuoxin, yuanye, yugang}@megvii.com
bibliography:
- 'AAAI-XuY.bib'
title: |
SiamFC++: Towards Robust and Accurate Visual Tracking\
with Target Estimation Guidelines
---
Introduction
============
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/fish1_template){width="\TemplateVizWidth"}
[fish1]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/rpn_fish1_146_score){width="\CompVizWidth"}
[RPN++ score]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/rpn_fish1_146_box_2){width="\CompVizWidth"}
[RPN++ box]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/fcos_fish1_146_score){width="\CompVizWidth"}
[FC++ score]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/fcos_fish1_146_box_2){width="\CompVizWidth"}
[FC++ box]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/book_template){width="\TemplateVizWidth"}
[book]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/rpn_book_147_score){width="\CompVizWidth"}
[RPN++ score]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/rpn_book_147_box_2){width="\CompVizWidth"}
[RPN++ box]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/fcos_book_147_score){width="\CompVizWidth"}
[FC++ score]{}
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./img/experiment/analysis/fcos_book_147_box_2){width="\CompVizWidth"}
[FC++ box]{}
-- ------------------ -- --------------- -- --------
ground-truth box predicted box anchor
-- ------------------ -- --------------- -- --------
------- ----------- ------ -----------------
RPN++ SiamRPN++ FC++ SiamFC++ (ours)
------- ----------- ------ -----------------
![A comparison of our approach (following the guidelines) with state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker (which violates some of the guidelines). Score maps are visualized by red color (i.e. red parts represent regions with high scores and vice versa). In the case of a significant change of target appearance, SiamRPN++ fails due to anchor-object mismatch while our SiamFC++ successes by directly matching between objects. See Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for analysis in detail.[]{data-label="fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free"}](./5104-figure_demo.png){width=".95\columnwidth"}
Generic Visual Tracking aims at locating a moving object sequentially in a video, given very limited information, often only the annotation of the first frame. Being a fundamental build block in various areas of computer vision, the task comes with a variety of applications such as UAV-based monitoring [@mueller2016benchmark] and surveillance system [@kokkeby2015methods]. One unique characteristic of generic object tracking is that no prior knowledge (e.g., the object class) about the object, as well as its surrounding environment, is allowed [@huang2018got].
Tracking problem can be treated as the combination of a *classification* task and an *estimation* task [@danelljan2019atom]. The first task aims at providing a robust coarse location of the target via classification. The second task is then to estimate an accurate target state, often represented by a bounding box. While modern trackers have achieved significant progress, surprisingly their methods for the second task (i.e. target state estimation) largely differ. Based on this aspect, previous methods can be roughly divided into three categories. The first category, including Discriminative Correlation Filter (DCF) [@henriques2014high-speed; @bolme2010visual] and SiamFC [@bertinetto2016fully], employs brutal multi-scale test which is inaccurate [@danelljan2019atom] and inefficiency [@li2018high]. Also, the prior assumption that target scale/ratio changes in a fixed rate in adjacent frames often does not hold in reality. For the second category, ATOM [@danelljan2019atom] and DiMP [@bhat2019learning]iteratively refines multiple initial bounding boxes via gradient ascending to estimate the target bounding box [@jiang2018acquisition], which yields a significant improvement on accuracy. However, this target estimation method brings not only a heavy computation burden but also many additional hyper-parameters (e.g. the number of initial boxes, distribution of initial boxes) that requires careful tuning. The third category is SiamRPN tracker family [@li2018high; @zhu2018distractor; @li2019siamrpn++] that performs an accurate and efficient target state estimation by introducing the Region Proposal Network (RPN) [@ren2015faster]. However, the pre-defined anchor settings not only introduce ambiguous similarity scoring that severely hinders the robustness (see Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\]) but also need access to prior information of data distribution, which is clearly against the spirit of generic object tracking [@huang2018got].
Motivated by the aforementioned analysis, we propose a set of guidelines for high-performance generic object tracker design:
- **G1: decomposition of classification and state estimation** The tracker should perform two sub-tasks: classification and state estimation. Without a powerful classifier, the tracker cannot discriminate the target from background or distractors, which severely hinders its robustness [@zhu2018distractor] [@zhu2018distractor; @bhat2019learning]. Without an accurate estimation result, the accuracy of the tracker is fundamentally limited [@danelljan2019atom]. Those brutal multi-scale test approaches largely ignore the latter task, suffering from inefficiency and low accuracy.
- **G2: non-ambiguous scoring** The classification score should represent the confidence score of target existence directly, in the “field of view”, i.e. sub-window of the corresponding pixel, rather than the pre-defined settings like anchor boxes. As a negative example, matching between objects and anchors (e.g. the anchor-based RPN branch) is prone to deliver a false positive result, leading to tracking failure (see Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for more details).
- **G3: prior knowledge-free** Tracking approaches should be free of prior knowledge like scale/ratio distribution, as is proposed by the spirit of generic object tracking [@huang2018got]. Dependency on prior knowledge of data distribution exists widely in existing methods, which hinders the generalization ability.
- **G4: estimation quality assessment** As is shown in previous researches [@jiang2018acquisition; @tian2019fcos], using classification confidence for bounding box selection directly will result in degenerated performance. An estimation quality score independent of classification should be used, as in many previous pieces of research about both object detection and tracking [@jiang2018acquisition; @tian2019fcos; @danelljan2019atom] [@jiang2018acquisition; @tian2019fcos; @danelljan2019atom; @bhat2019learning]. The astonishing accuracy of the second branch (e.g. ATOM and DiMP) largely comes from this guideline. While the others still overlook it, leaving room for further estimation accuracy improvement.
Following the guidelines above, we design our SiamFC++ method based on fully-convolutional siamese trackers [@bertinetto2016fully], where each pixel of the feature map directly corresponds to each translated sub-window on the search image due to its fully convolutional nature. We add a regression head for accurate target estimation, in parallel with the classification head (**G1**). Since the pre-defined anchor settings is removed, the matching ambiguity (**G2**) and prior knowledge (**G3**) about target scale/ratio distribution is also removed. Finally, following **G4**, an estimation quality assessment branch is added to privilege bounding boxes with high quality.
Our contribution can be summarized in three-fold:
1. By identifying the unique characteristics of tracking, we devise a set of practical guidelines of target state estimation for modern tracker design.
2. We design a simple but powerful SiamFC++ tracker with the application of our proposed guidelines. Extensive experiments and comprehensive analyses demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed guidelines.
3. Our approach achieves state-of-the-art results on five challenging benchmarks: VOT2018 [@kristan2018sixth], OTB100 [@wu2013online], TrackingNet [@muller2018trackingnet], LaSOT [@fan2019lasot]and GOT10k [@huang2018got]. To the best of our knowledge, our SiamFC++ is the first tracker that achieves an AUC score of 75.4 on the large-scale TrackingNet dataset [@muller2018trackingnet] while running at over 90 FPS.
{width=".84\linewidth"}
-- ------------------- --------- ----------------------- ---------- ------------------------- ----------- ---------------------------------------
feature extractor classification branch regession branch quality assessment
operation $\star$ cross-correlation $\times$ element-wise production $\Lambda$ argmax (taking *left* w.r.t. *right*)
-- ------------------- --------- ----------------------- ---------- ------------------------- ----------- ---------------------------------------
Related Works
=============
Tracking Framework
------------------
Modern trackers can be roughly divided into three branches by their way of target state estimation.
Some of them, including DCF [@henriques2014high-speed; @bolme2010visual] and SiamFC [@bertinetto2016fully], use multi-scale test to estimate the target scale. Concretely, by rescaling the search patch into multiple scales and assembling a mini-batch of scaled images, the algorithm picks the scale corresponding to the highest classification score as the predicted target scale in the current frame. This strategy is fundamentally limited since bounding box estimation is inherently a challenging task, requiring a high-level understanding of the pose of objects [@danelljan2019atom].
Inspired by DCF and IoU-Net [@jiang2018acquisition], ATOM [@danelljan2019atom]and DiMP [@bhat2019learning] tracks target by sequential classification and estimation. The coarse initial location of the target obtained by classification is iteratively refined for accurate box estimation. The Multiple random initializations of bounding boxes in each frame and multiple back propagations in iterative refinement greatly slows down the speed of ATOM. This approach yields a significant improvement on accuracy but also brings a heavy computation burden. What’s more, ATOM introduces many additional hyper-parameters that require careful tuning.
Another branch, named SiamRPN and its succeeding works [@li2018high; @zhu2018distractor; @li2019siamrpn++] append a Region Proposal Network after a siamese network, achieving a previously unseen accuracy. RPN regresses the location shift and size difference between pre-defined anchor boxes and target location. However, the RPN structure is much more fit for object detection, in which a high recall rate is required, while in visual tracking one and only one object should be tracked. Also, the ambiguous matching between anchor box and object severely hinders the robustness of tracker (see Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\]). Finally, the anchor setting does not comply with the spirit of generic object tracking, requiring pre-defined hyper-parameters describing its shape.
Detection Framework
-------------------
With many unique characteristics, visual tracking task still has a lot in common with object detection, which makes each one task benefiting from each other possible. For example, the RPN structure first devised in Faster-RCNN [@ren2015faster] achieves astonishing accuracy in SiamRPN [@li2018high]. Inheriting from Faster-RCNN [@ren2015faster], most state-of-the-art modern detectors, named anchor-based detectors, have adopted the RPN structure and the anchor boxes setting [@ren2015faster; @liu2016ssd; @Li_2018_ECCV]. The anchor-based detectors classifies pre-defined proposals called anchor as positive or negative patches, with an extra offsets regression to refine the prediction of bounding box locations. The most popular branch of modern detectors, called anchor-based detectors, classify pre-defined proposals called anchor as positive or negative patches, with an extra offsets regression to refine the prediction of bounding box locations. The design of anchor has become the convention in most state-of-the-art detectors [@ren2015faster; @liu2016ssd].However, hyper-parameters introduced by anchor boxes (e.g. the scale/ratio of anchor boxes) have shown a great impact on the final accuracy, and require heuristic tuning [@cai2018cascade; @tian2019fcos]. Researchers have tried various ways to design anchor-free detectors, like predicting bounding boxes at points near the center of objects [@redmon2016you; @huang2015densebox], or detecting and grouping a pair of corners of a bounding box [@law2018cornernet]. In this paper, we show that a simple pipeline based on a carefully designed guidelines for target state estimation inspired by [@huang2015densebox; @yu2016unitbox; @tian2019fcos] can achieve state-of-the-art tracking performance.
SiamFC++: Fully Convolutional Siamese Tracker for Object Tracking {#sec:SiamFC++}
=================================================================
In this section, we describe our Fully Convolutional Siamese tracker++ framework in detail. Our SiamFC++ is based on SiamFC and progressively refined according to the proposed guidelines. As shown in Figure \[fig:SiamFC++ pipeline\], the SiamFC++ framework consists of a siamese subnetwork for feature extraction and a region proposal subnetwork for both classification and regression.
Siamese-based Feature Extraction and Matching {#Siamese-based feature extraction and matching}
---------------------------------------------
Object tracking task can be viewed as a *similarity learning* problem [@li2018high]. Concretely speaking, a siamese network is trained offline and evaluated online to locate a *template* image within a larger *search* image. A siamese network consists of two branches. The *template* branch takes target patch in the first frame as input (denoted as $z$), while the *search* branch takes the current frame as input (denoted as $x$). The siamese backbone, which shares parameters between two branches, performs the same transform on the input $z$ and $x$ to embed them into a common feature space for subsequent tasks. A cross-correlation between template patch and search patch is performed in the embedding space $\phi$: $$f_i(z,x) =
\psi_i\left(\phi\left(z\right)\right) \star
\psi_i\left(\phi\left(x\right)\right)
, i\in \left\{ \text{cls}, \text{reg} \right\}
\label{eq:siamese formula}$$ where $\star$ denotes the cross-correlation operation, $\phi(.)$ denotes the siamese backbone for common feature extraction, $\psi_i(.)$ denotes the task-specific layer and $i$ denotes the sub-task type (“cls” for classification and “reg” for regression). In our implementation, We use two convolution layers for both $\psi_{\text{cls}}$ and $\psi_{\text{reg}}$ after common feature extraction to adjust the common features into task-specific feature space. Note that the extracted features of $\psi_{\text{cls}}$ and $\psi_{\text{reg}}$ are of the same size.
Application of Design Guidelines in Head Network
------------------------------------------------
Based on SiamFC, we progressively refine each part of our trackers following our guidelines.
\[subsec:cls/reg heads\] Following **G1**, we design both classification head and regression head after the cross-correlation in the embedding space. For each pixel in feature maps, the classification head takes $\psi_{\text{cls}}$ as input and classifies the corresponding image patch as either one positive or negative patch, while the regression head takes $\psi_{\text{reg}}$ as input and outputs an extra offsets regression to refine the prediction of bounding box locations. The structure of heads is presented after the cross-correlation operation of Figure \[fig:SiamFC++ pipeline\]. Specifically, for classification, location $(x,y)$ on feature map $\psi_{\text{cls}}$ is considered as a positive sample if its corresponding location $\left(\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ x s,\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ y s\right)$ on the input image falls into the ground-truth bounding box. Otherwise, it is a negative sample. Here $s$ is the total stride of backbone ($s=8$ in this paper). For the regression target of each positive location $(x,y)$ on feature map $\psi_{\text{reg}}$, the final layer predicts the distances from the corresponding location $\left(\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ x s,\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ y s\right)$ to the four sides of the ground-truth bounding box, denoted as a 4D vector $\boldsymbol{t}^{*}=\left(l^{*}, t^{*}, r^{*}, b^{*}\right)$. Hence, the regression targets for location $(x,y)$ can be formulated as $$\begin{aligned} l^{*} &=(\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ x s)-x_{0}, \quad t^{*}=(\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ y s)-y_{0} \\ r^{*} &=x_{1}-(\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ x s), \quad b^{*}=y_{1}-(\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ y s) \end{aligned}$$ where $\left(x_{0}, y_{0}\right)$ and $\left(x_{1}, y_{1}\right)$ denote the left-top and right-bottom corners of the ground-truth bounding box $B^{*}$ associated with point $(x,y)$.
Each location $(x,y)$ on the feature map of both classification and regression head, corresponds to an image patch on the input image centered at location $\left(\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ x s,\left\lfloor\frac{s}{2}\right\rfloor+ y s\right)$. Following **G2**, we directly classify corresponding image patch and regress the target bounding box at the location, as in many previous tracker [@henriques2014high-speed; @bolme2010visual; @bertinetto2016fully]. In other words, our SiamFC++ directly views locations as training samples. While the anchor-based counterparts [@li2018high; @zhu2018distractor; @li2019siamrpn++], which consider the location on the input image as the center of multiple anchor boxes, output multiple classification score at the same location and regress the target bounding box with respect to these anchor boxes, leading to ambiguous matching between anchor and object. Although [@li2018high; @zhu2018distractor; @li2019siamrpn++] have shown superior performance on various benmarks than [@henriques2014high-speed; @bolme2010visual; @bertinetto2016fully], we empirically show that the ambiguous matching could result in serious issues (see Section \[subsec:anchor-based analysis\] for more details). In our per-pixel prediction fashion, only one prediction is made at each pixel on the final feature map. Hence it is clear that each classification score directly gives the confidence that the target is in the sub-window of the corresponding pixel and our design is free of ambiguity to this extent.
Since SiamFC++ does classification and regression w.r.t. the location, it is free of pre-defined anchor boxes, hence free of prior knowledge about target data distribution (e.g. scale/ratio), which comply with **G3**.
During the above sections, we do not take the target state estimation quality into consideration yet and directly use classification score to select the final box. That could cause the degradation of localization accuracy, as [@jiang2018acquisition] shows that classification confidence is not well correlated with the localization accuracy. According to the analysis in [@luo2016understanding], input pixels around the center of a sub-window will have larger importance on the corresponding output feature pixel than the rest. Thus we hypothesize that feature pixels around the center of objects will have a better estimation quality than others. Following **G4**, we add a simple yet effective quality assessment branch similar to [@tian2019fcos; @jiang2018acquisition] by appending a $1\times1$ convolution layer in parallel with the $1\times1$ convolution classification head, as shown in the right part of Figure \[fig:SiamFC++ pipeline\]. The output is supposed to estimate the Prior Spatial Score (PSS) which is defined as follows: $$\mathrm{PSS}^{*} = \sqrt{\frac{\min(l^{*},r^{*})}{\max(l^{*},r^{*})} \times \frac{\min(t^{*},b^{*})}{\max(t^{*},b^{*})}}$$ Note that PSS is not the only choice for quality assessment. As a variant, we can also predict the IoU score between predicted boxes and ground-truth boxes similar to [@jiang2018acquisition]: $$\mathrm{IoU}^{*} = \frac{\text{Intersection}(B,B^{*})}{\text{Union}(B,B^{*})}$$ where $B$ is the predicted bounding box and $B^{*}$ is its corresponding ground-truth bounding box.
During inference, the score used for final box selection is computed by multiplying the PSS with the corresponding predicted classification score. In this way, those bounding boxes far from the center of objects will be downweighted seriously. Thus the tracking accuracy is improved.
Training Objective
------------------
We optimize a training objective as follows: $$\begin{split}
L\left(\left\{{p}_{x, y}\right\}, {q}_{x, y}, \left\{\boldsymbol{t}_{x, y}\right\}\right) =\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{pos}}} \sum_{x, y} &L_{\mathrm{cls}}\left({p}_{x, y}, c_{x, y}^{*}\right)\\
+\frac{\lambda}{N_{\mathrm{pos}}} \sum_{x, y}
\mathbf{1}_{\left\{c_{x, y}^{*}>0\right\}}
&L_{\mathrm{quality}}\left({q}_{x, y}, {q}_{x, y}^{*}\right) \\
+\frac{\lambda}{N_{\mathrm{pos}}} \sum_{x, y} \mathbf{1}_{\left\{c_{x, y}^{*}>0\right\}} &L_{\mathrm{reg}}\left(\boldsymbol{t}_{x, y}, \boldsymbol{t}_{x, y}^{*}\right)
\end{split}$$ where $\mathbf{1}_{\{\cdot\}}$ is the indicator function that takes 1 if the condition in subscribe holds and takes 0 if not, $L_{\text{cls}}$ denote the focal loss [@lin2017focal] for classification result, $L_{\text{quality}}$ denote the binary cross entropy (BCE) loss for quality assessment and $L_{\text{reg}}$ denote the IoU loss [@yu2016unitbox] for bounding box result. We assign $1$ to $c_{x, y}^{*}$ if $(x,y)$ is considered as a positive sample, and $0$ if as a negative sample.
=4.5pt
Experiments {#sec:experiments}
===========
Implementation Details
----------------------
#### Model settings
In this work, we implement two versions of trackers with different backbone architectures: the one that adopts the modified version of AlexNet in the previous literature [@bertinetto2016fully], denoted as SiamFC++-AlexNet, and another one that uses GoogLeNet [@szegedy2015going](stage 1 to stage 4), denoted as SiamFC++-GoogLeNet. With lower computation cost, the later achieves the same or even better performance(see Section \[sec:Results on different benchmarks\]) on tracking benchmark than same previous methods using ResNet-50 [@he2016deep]. Both networks are pretrained on ImageNet [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], which has been proven practical for tracking task [@li2018high; @zhu2018distractor]. We will release the code to facilitate further researches.
#### Training data
We adopt ILSVRC-VID/DET [@russakovsky2015imagenet], COCO [@lin2014microsoft] , Youtube-BB [@real2017youtube], LaSOT [@fan2019lasot] and GOT-10k [@huang2018got] as our basic training set. Exceptions w.r.t. to specific benchmarks are detailed in the following subsections. For video datasets, we extract image pairs from VID, LaSOT, and GOT-10k by choosing frame pairs within an interval of less than 100 (5 for Youtube-BB). For image datasets (COCO/Imagenet-DET), we generate training samples by involving negative pairs [@zhu2018distractor] as part of training samples to enhance the capacity to distinguish distractors of our model. We perform random shifting and scaling following a uniform distribution on the search image as data augmentation techniques.
#### Training phase {#parag:training phase}
For the AlexNet version, we freeze the parameters from conv1 to conv3 and fine-tune conv4 and conv5. For those layers without pretraining, we adopt a zero-centered Gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of 0.01 for initialization. We first train our model with for 5 warm up epochs with learning rate linearly increased from $10^{-7}$ to $2\times10^{-3}$, then use a cosine annealing learning rate schedule for the rest of 45 epochs, with 600k image pairs for each epoch. We choose stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with a momentum of 0.9 as the optimizer.
For the version implemented with GoogLeNet, we freeze stage 1 and 2, fine-tune stage 3 and 4, augment the base learning rate to $2\times10^{-2}$, and multiply the learning rate of parameters in the backbone by 0.1 w.r.t the global learning rate. We also reduce the number of image pairs per epoch to 300k, reduce the total epoch to 20 (thus 5 for warming-up, and 15 for training) and unfreeze the parameters in backbone at the 10th epoch to avoid overfitting. For the experiment on LaSOT benchmark [@fan2019lasot] (protocol II), we freeze the parameters in the backbone and further reduce the number of image pairs per epoch to 150k so that the training with the relatively smaller amount of training data could be stabilized.
The proposed tracker with AlexNet backbone runs at 160 FPS on the VOT2018 short-term benchmark, while the one with GoogleNet backbone runs at about 90 FPS on the VOT2018 short-term benchmark, both evaluated on an NVIDIA RTX 2080Ti GPU.
#### Test phase {#parag:test phase}
The output of our model is a set of bounding boxes with their corresponding confidence scores $s$. Scores are penalized based on the scale/ratio change of corresponding boxes and distance away from the target position predicted in the last frame. Then the box with the highest penalized score is chosen and is used to update the target state.
From SiamFC towards SiamFC++ {#ablation study}
----------------------------
While both employing a per-pixel prediction fashion, there exists a significant performance gap between SiamFC and our SiamFC++. In this subsection we perform an ablation study on VOT2018 dataset, with SiamFC as the baseline, aiming at identifying the key component for the improvement of tracking performance.
Results are shown in Table \[tab:ablation study:from SiamFC towards SiamFC++\]. Concretely, in the SiamFC baseline, the tracker only performs classification tasks in its network and the target state estimation is done with multi-scale test. We gradually update SiamFC tracker by using extra training data (Line \[ablat-siamfc-2\]/\[ablat-siamfc-4\]), applying a better head structure (Line \[ablat-siamfc-3\]), and adding the regression branch for accurate estimation to yield our proposed SiamFC++ tracker (Line \[ablat-siamfc-6\]). We further replace the AlexNet backbone with GoogLeNet which is more powerful to extract visual feature (Line \[ablat-siamfc-7\]).
The key components for tracking performance can be listed in descending order as follows: the regression branch (0.094), data source diversity (0.063/0.010), stronger backbone (0.026), and better head structure (0.020), where the $\Delta$EAO brought by each part is noted in parentheses. Note that these are the extra components of SiamRPN++ over SiamFC. After adding all the extra components into SiamFC, Our SiamFC++ achieves superior performance with less computation budget. Also, there are two things worth to mention: 1). the robustness (**R**) of Line \[ablat-siamfc-2\] surpasses SiamRPN tracker ($0.46$ [@li2018high]); 2). the **R** of Line \[ablat-siamfc-3\] is at the same level of DaSiamRPN ($0.337$ [@zhu2018distractor]) while using less data (without COCO and DET) than the latter. These results indicate that, while the introduction of the RPN module and anchor boxes setting undoubtedly gives better accuracy, its robustness is not improved and even hindered. We owe this to its violation of our proposed guidelines.
#### Quality Assessment Choice
On GOT-10k *val* subset, we obtain an AO of 77.8 for the tracker predicting PSS and an AO of 78.0 for the tracker predicting IoU. Experiments have been conducted with SiamFC++-GoogLeNet. We finally choose PSS in this paper as an implementation of our approach for its stability empirically observed across datasets during our experiment.
Results on Several Benchmarks {#sec:Results on different benchmarks}
-----------------------------
We test our tracker on several benchmarks and results are gathered in Table \[tab:benchmark results\].
### Results on OTB2015 Benchmark
As one of the most classical benchmarks for the object tracking task, the OTB benchmark [@wu2013online] provides a fair test for all families of trackers. We conduct experiments on OTB2015 [@wu2013online] which contains 100 videos for tracker performance evaluation. With a success score of 0.682, our tracker reaches the state-of-the-art level w.r.t. other trackers in comparison.
### Results on VOT Benchmark
VOT2018 [@kristan2018sixth] contains 60 video sequences with several challenging topics including fast motion, occlusion, etc. We test our tracker on this benchmark and present the results in Table \[tab:benchmark results\]. Both versions of our trackers reaching comparable scores w.r.t. current state-of-the-art trackers, the tracker with AlexNet backbone outperforms other trackers with the same tracking speed and while the tracker with GoogLeNet backbone yields a comparable score. Besides, our tracker has a significant advantage in the robustness among the trackers in comparison. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first tracker that achieves an EAO of 0.400 on VOT2018 [@kristan2018sixth] benchmark while running at a speed over 100 FPS, which demonstrate its potential of being applied in real production cases.
### Results on LaSOT Benchmark
With a large number of video sequences (1400 sequences under Protocol I while 280 under Protocol II), LaSOT [@fan2019lasot] (Large-scale Single Object Tracking) benchmark makes it impossible for trackers to overfit the benchmark, which achieves the purpose of testing the real performance of object tracking. Following Protocol II under which trackers are trained on LaSOT *train* subset and evaluated on LaSOT *test* subset, the proposed SiamFC++ tracker achieves better performance, even w.r.t. those who have better performance than ours on the VOT2018 benchmark. This reveals the fact that the scale of the benchmark influences the rank of trackers.
### Results on GOT-10k Benchmark
For target class generalization testing, we train and test our SiamFC++ model on GOT-10k [@huang2018got] (Generic Object Tracking-10k) benchmark. Not only as a large-scale dataset (10,000 videos in train subset and 180 in both *val* and *test* subset), it also gives challenges in terms of the requirement of category-agnostic for generic object trackers as there is no class intersection between *train* and *test* subsets. We follow the protocol of GOT-10k and only trained our tracker on the *train* subset. Our tracker with AlexNet backbone reaches an AO of 53.5 surpassing SiamRPN++ by 1.7, while our tracker with GoogLeNet backbone yields 59.5 which is even superior to ATOM that uses online updating method. This result shows the ability of our tracker to generalize even the target classes are unseen during the training phase, which matches the demand of the generic tracking.
### Results on TrackingNet Benchmark
We evaluate our approach with 511 videos provided in the *test* split of TrackingNet [@muller2018trackingnet]. We exclude the Youtube-BB dataset from our training data in order to avoid data leak. As is described in [@muller2018trackingnet], the evaluation server calculates the following three indexes based on tracking results: success rate, precision, and normalized precision. Our SiamFC++-GoogLeNet outperforms the current state-of-the-art methods (including online-update methods like [@danelljan2019atom]) in both precision and success rate dimensions, while our lightweight version SiamFC++ strikes a balance between performance and the speed. This result is achieved even without Youtube-BB containing a large portion of training data, which shows that the potential of our approach to be independent of large offline training data.
=.8pt
Comparison with Trackers that Do not Apply Our Guidelines {#subsec:anchor-based analysis}
---------------------------------------------------------
The family of SiamRPN [@li2018high; @zhu2018distractor; @li2019siamrpn++] has achieved great success in visual tracking these years and drawn much attention from tracking community. Here we use state-of-the-art SiamRPN++ tracker as an example. Despite recent successes of the SiamRPN family, we have found that the SiamRPN tracker and its family do not follow our proposed guidelines entirely.
- **(G2)** the classification score of SiamRPN represents the similarity between anchor and object, rather than template object and objects in search image, which may cause matching ambiguity;
- **(G3)** the design of pre-set anchor boxes needs prior knowledge of the distribution of size and ratio of target;
- **(G4)** the choice of target state estimation does not take estimation quality into consideration.
Note that the SiamRPN family adopts proposal refinement by the regression branch instead of the multi-scale test, and thus achieves astonishing tracking accuracy, which complies with our guideline **G1**.
As a consequence of the violation of guideline **G2**, we empirically find that the SiamRPN family is prone to deliver a false-positive result. In other words, SiamRPN will produce an unreasonable high score for nearby objects or background under large appearance variation of target object. As shown in Figure \[fig:comparison anchor-based/anchor-free\], we can see that SiamRPN++ fails to track the target object by giving very high scores for nearby objects (i.e. a rock or a face) under challenging scenarios like out-of-plane rotation and deformation. We hypothesize that SiamRPN matches objects and anchors rather than the object itself, which may deliver drifts and thus hinders its robustness. On the contrary, our proposed SiamFC++, which matches between template objects and objects in search image directly, gives accurate score predictions and successfully tracks the target. To verify our hypothesis, we record the max score produced by SiamRPN++ and our proposed SiamFC++ on VOT2018 dataset. We then split them according to the tracking result, e.g., successful or failed. On VOT2018, a tracking result is considered failed if its overlap with the ground-truth box is zero. Otherwise, it is considered successful. The result is visualized in the first row in Figure \[fig:score/iou distribution\]. Comparing SiamRPN++ and SiamFC++ scores, we can see that most classification score of SiamRPN++ follows similar and highly overlapped distributions, successful or not, while the classification score of our SiamFC++ of failure state exhibit very different pattern with that of a successful state.
Another factor contributing to the ambiguity in SiamRPN++ is that the feature matching process is done with patches of fixed aspect ratio (multiple patches with different ratios will bring non-negligible computation cost), while each pixel of the feature after matching is assigned anchors whose aspect ratio varies.
As for the violation of **G3**, the performance of SiamRPN varies as the scales and ratios of anchors vary. As is shown in Table 3 from [@li2018high], three different ratio settings are tried and the performance of SiamRPN varies when using different anchor settings. Thus the best performance is achieved only by accessing prior knowledge of data distribution, which is against the spirit of generic object tracking [@huang2018got].
Besides, in the second row of Figure \[fig:score/iou distribution\], we also plot the histogram of SiamRPN++ statistics of IoU between output bounding box and ground truth and the histogram between anchor and ground truth, in both success and failure state. As is shown from the IoU distribution, the prior knowledge given by anchor settings (violation of **G3**) leads to a bias in target state estimation. Concretely, the predicted box of SiamRPN++ tends to overlap more with the anchor box than with the ground truth box which can lead to performance degradation.
As for the violation of **G4**, we can see that the SR~.5~ and SR~.75~ of SiamRPN++ on GOT-10k benchmark are 7.7 and 15.4 points lower than those of SiamFC++, respectively. In GOT-10k, the Success Rate (SR) measures the percentage of successfully tracked frames where the overlaps exceed a pre-defined threshold (i.e., 0.5 or 0.75). The higher the threshold, the more accurate the tracking result. Hence SR is a solid indicator for estimation quality. The SR~.75~ of SiamRPN++ is much lower than that of SiamFC++, indicating the lower estimation quality of SiamRPN++ caused by the violation of guideline **G4**.
![The first row: score distribution of SiamRPN++ and SiamFC++. The second row: IoU distribution of SiamRPN++ in both success/failure state. Better visualized when zoomed in.[]{data-label="fig:score/iou distribution"}](./img/experiment/analysis/siamrpn++_cls_score.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[SiamRPN++ score]{}
![The first row: score distribution of SiamRPN++ and SiamFC++. The second row: IoU distribution of SiamRPN++ in both success/failure state. Better visualized when zoomed in.[]{data-label="fig:score/iou distribution"}](./img/experiment/analysis/siamfc++_cls_score.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[SiamFC++ score]{}
![The first row: score distribution of SiamRPN++ and SiamFC++. The second row: IoU distribution of SiamRPN++ in both success/failure state. Better visualized when zoomed in.[]{data-label="fig:score/iou distribution"}](./img/experiment/analysis/siamrpn++_succ_iou.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[SiamRPN++ success IoU]{}
![The first row: score distribution of SiamRPN++ and SiamFC++. The second row: IoU distribution of SiamRPN++ in both success/failure state. Better visualized when zoomed in.[]{data-label="fig:score/iou distribution"}](./img/experiment/analysis/siamrpn++_fail_iou.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
[SiamRPN++ failure IoU]{}
![The first row: score distribution of SiamRPN++ and SiamFC++. The second row: IoU distribution of SiamRPN++ in both success/failure state. Better visualized when zoomed in.[]{data-label="fig:score/iou distribution"}](./5104-figure_histogram.png){width=".95\columnwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we propose a set of guidelines for target state estimation in tracker design, by analyzing the unique characteristics of visual tracking tasks and the flaws of former trackers. Following these guidelines, we propose our approach that provides effective methods for both classification and target state estimation (**G1**), giving classification score without ambiguity (**G2**), tracking without prior knowledge (**G3**), and being aware of estimation quality (**G4**). We verify the effectiveness of proposed guidelines by extensive ablation study. And we show that our tracker based on these guidelines reaches state-of-the-art performance on five challenging benchmarks, while still running at 90 FPS.
[^1]: These authors contributed equally to this work.
[^2]: This work has been done when these authors were doing an intership at Megvii Inc.
[^3]: Corresponding Author
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A class of integrable boundary terms for the eight-state supersymmtric $U$ model are presented by solving the graded reflection equations. The boundary model is solved by using the coordinate Bethe ansatz method and the Bethe ansatz equations are obtained.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics,University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia'
author:
- 'Xiang-Yu Ge [^1], Mark D. Gould, Yao-Zhong Zhang [^2] and Huan-Qiang Zhou [^3]'
title: ' **Integrable eight-state supersymmetric $U$ model with boundary terms and its Bethe ansatz solution**'
---
ł ø Ł
.3in Integrable systems with boundary interactions are one of the recent achievements which the authors think deserve careful investigations. Here we only concern with 1-dimensional open-boundary lattice integrable models of strongly correlated electrons. Such lattice models can be treated by Sklyanin’s boundary quantum inverse scattering method (QISM) [@Skl88] or its generalizations [@Mez91; @deV93; @Zho96; @Bra97]. More specifically, we present integrable boundary terms for the eight-state version of the supersymmetric $U$ model recently introduced in [@Gou97]. The bulk Hamiltonian describes a supersymmetric electron model with correlated single-particle and pair hoppings as well as uncorrelated triple-particle hopping. So the model on an open lattice, which we consider here, involves many physically interesting processes with boundary interactions. The boundary model is solved by means of the coordinate Bethe ansatz method and the Bethe ansatz equations are derived.
Let $c_{j,\a}^\dagger$ ($c_{j,\a}$) denote fermionic creation (annihilation) operator which creates (annihilates) an electron of species $\a ~(=+,0,-)$ at site $j$. They satisfy the anti-commutation relations given by $\{c_{i,\a}^\dagger, c_{j,\b}\}=\d_{ij}\d_{\a\b}$, where $i,j=1,2,\cdots,L$ and $\a,\b=+,\;0,\;-$. We consider the following Hamiltonian with boundary terms H=\_[j=1]{}\^[L-1]{} H\_[j,j+1]{}\^[bulk]{} + H\^[boundary]{}\_L +H\^[boundary]{}\_R,\[h\] where $H^{\rm bulk}_{j,j+1}$ is the Hamiltonian density of the eight-state supersymmetric $U$ model [@Gou97] H\^[bulk]{}\_[j,j+1]{}(g)&=&-\_(c\_[j,]{}\^c\_[j+1,]{}+[h.c.]{}) {- \_[()]{}(n\_[j,]{}+n\_[j+1,]{}) + \_[()]{}(n\_[j,]{}n\_[j,]{} +n\_[j+1,]{} n\_[j+1,]{})}\
& &-\_(c\_[j,]{}\^c\_[j,]{}\^ c\_[j+1,]{}c\_[j+1,]{}+[h.c.]{}) {- (n\_[j,]{}+n\_[j+1,]{})}\
& &-(c\_[j,+]{}\^c\_[j,0]{}\^ c\_[j,-]{}\^c\_[j+1,-]{} c\_[j+1,0]{} c\_[j+1,+]{}+[h.c.]{})\
& & +\_(n\_[j,]{}+n\_[j+1,]{})-\_ (n\_[j,]{}n\_[j,]{}+n\_[j+1,]{}n\_[j+1,]{})\
& &+(n\_[j,+]{}n\_[j,0]{}n\_[j,-]{}+n\_[j+1,+]{}n\_[j+1,0]{} n\_[j+1,-]{})\[hamiltonian\] with =-, =(g+1)- g(g+2), =-, and $H^{\rm boundary}_L,~H^{\rm boundary}_R$ are boundary terms H\^[boundary]{}\_L&=&-(n\_1- ( n\_[1+]{}n\_[10]{}+n\_[10]{}n\_[1-]{}+n\_[1+]{}n\_[1-]{}) +n\_[1+]{} n\_[10]{} n\_[1-]{} ),\
H\^[boundary]{}\_R&=& -(n\_L- ( n\_[L+]{}n\_[L0]{}+n\_[L0]{}n\_[L-]{}+n\_[L+]{}n\_[L-]{}) +n\_[L+]{} n\_[L0]{} n\_[L-]{} ) .\[bounadry-terms\] In the above equations, $n_{j\a}$ is the number density operator $n_{j\a}=c_{j\a}^{\dagger}c_{j\a}$, $n_j=n_{j+}+n_{j0}+n_{j-}$; $\xi_{\pm}$ are some parameters describing the boundary effects.
As was shown in [@Gou97], the supersymmetry algebra underlying the bulk model is $gl(3|1)$. The boundary terms may spoil this $gl(3|1)$ supersymmetry, leaving the boundary model with a smaller symmetry algebra. If one projects out any one species, then the projected Hamiltonian is nothing but that of the supersymmetric $U$ model with boundary terms [@Zha97] with the following identification of the parameters in the two models: $U=\pm\frac{2}{g+1}$.
We will establish the quantum integrability of the Hamiltonian for the boundary eight-state supersymmetric $U$ model (\[h\]) by showing that it can be derived from the (graded) boundary quantum inverse scattering method. Let us first of all recall that the Hamiltonian of the eight-state supersymmetric $U$ model with the periodic boundary conditions commutes with the bulk transfer matrix, which is the supertrace of the monodromy matrix $T(u)$, T(u) = R\_[0L]{}(u)R\_[01]{}(u). \[matrix-t\] where the subscript $0$ denotes the auxiliary superspace $V=C^{4,4}$. It should be noted that the supertrace is carried out for the auxiliary superspace $V$. The R-matrix $ R(u)\equiv P\check{R}(u)$, where $P$ is graded permutation operator, is given by (u)=\_1-\_2 +\_3 -\_4, \[rational-R\] where $\check{P}_k,~k=1,2,3,4$, are four projection operators whose explicit formulae can be found in [@Gou97]. The elements of the supermatrix $T(u)$ are the generators of an associative superalgebra ${\cal A}$ defined by the relations R\_[12]{}(u\_1-u\_2) (u\_1) (u\_2) = (u\_2) (u\_1)R\_[12]{}(u\_1-u\_2),\[rtt-ttr\] where $\stackrel {1}{X} \equiv X \otimes 1,~
\stackrel {2}{X} \equiv 1 \otimes X$ for any supermatrix $ X \in End(V) $. For later use, we list some useful properties enjoyed by the R-matrix: (i) Unitarity: $ R_{12}(u)R_{21}(-u) = 1$ and (ii) Crossing-unitarity: $ R^{st_2}_{12}(-u+4)R^{st_1}_{21}(u) =
\tilde {\rho }(u)$ with $\tilde \rho (u)$ being a scalar function.
In order to construct integrable electronic models with open boundary conditions, we introduce the following graded reflection equations (REs) that the so-called boundary K-(super)matrices $K_\pm(u)$ satisfy R\_[12]{}(u\_1-u\_2)\_-(u\_1) R\_[21]{}(u\_1+u\_2) \_-(u\_2) = \_-(u\_2) R\_[12]{}(u\_1+u\_2) \_-(u\_1) R\_[21]{}(u\_1-u\_2), \[reflection1\] &&R\_[21]{}\^[st\_1 ist\_2]{}(-u\_1+u\_2) (u\_1) R\_[12]{}(-u\_1-u\_2+4) (u\_2)\
&& =(u\_2) R\_[21]{}(-u\_1-u\_2+4) (u\_1) R\_[12]{}\^[st\_1 ist\_2]{}(-u\_1+u\_2) ,\[reflection2\] where the supertransposition $st_{\mu}~(\mu =1,2)$ is only carried out in the $\mu$-th factor superspace of $V \otimes V$, whereas $ist_{\mu}$ denotes the inverse operation of $st_{\mu}$. Following Sklyanin’s arguments [@Skl88], one may show that the quantity ${\cal T}_-(u)$ given by \_-(u) = T(u) [K]{}\_-(u) T\^[-1]{}(-u) satisfies the same relation as $K_-(u)$: R\_[12]{}(u\_1-u\_2)\_-(u\_1) R\_[21]{}(u\_1+u\_2) \_-(u\_2) = \_-(u\_2) R\_[12]{}(u\_1+u\_2) \_-(u\_1) R\_[21]{}(u\_1-u\_2). Thus if one defines the boundary transfer matrix $\tau(u)$ as (u) = str (K\_+(u)[T]{}\_-(u))=str(K\_+(u)T(u)K\_-(u)T\^[-1]{}(-u)), then it can be shown [@Bra97] that = 0.
We now solve (\[reflection1\]) and (\[reflection2\]) for $K_+(u)$ and $K_-(u)$. Let us restrict ourselves to the diagonal solutions. Then, one may check that the matrix $K_-(u)$ given by K\_-(u)= (
[cccccccc]{} A\_-(u)&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
0&B\_-(u)&0&0&0&0&0&0\
0&0&B\_-(u)&0&0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&B\_-(u)&0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&C\_-(u)&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&C\_-(u)&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0&C\_-(u)&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&D\_-(u)
),\[k-\] where A\_-(u)&=&(-\_-+u)(2-\_-+u)(-2-\_- +u),\
B\_-(u)&=&(-\_-+u)(2-\_–u)(-2-\_- +u),\
C\_-(u)&=&(-\_–u)(2-\_–u)(-2-\_-+u),\
D\_-(u)&=&(-\_–u)(2-\_–u)(-2-\_–u), satisfies (\[reflection1\]). The matrix $K_+(u)$ can be obtained from the isomorphism of the two REs. Indeed, given a solution $K_- (u)$ of (\[reflection1\]), then $K_+(u)$ defined by K\_+\^[st]{}(u) = K\_-(-u+2)\[t+t-\] is a solution of (\[reflection2\]). The proof follows from some algebraic computations upon substituting (\[t+t-\]) into (\[reflection2\]) and making use of the properties of the R-matrix . Therefore, one may choose the boundary matrix $K_+(u)$ as K\_+(u)= (
[cccccccc]{} A\_+(u)&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\
0&B\_+(u)&0&0&0&0&0&0\
0&0&B\_+(u)&0&0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&B\_+(u)&0&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&C\_+(u)&0&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&C\_+(u)&0&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0&C\_+(u)&0\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&D\_+(u)
),\[k+\] where A\_+(u)&=&(-2g +2 +\_+-u)(-2g +\_+-u)(-2g-2+\_+ -u),\
B\_+(u)&=&(-2g -2 +\_++u)(-2g +\_+-u)(-2g-2+\_+ -u),\
C\_+(u)&=&(-2g -2 +\_++u)(-2g -4 +\_++u)(-2g-2+\_+ -u),\
D\_+(u)&=&(-2g -2 +\_++u)(-2g -4+\_++u)(-2g-6+\_+ +u).
Now it can be shown that Hamiltonian (\[h\]) is related to the second derivative of the boundary transfer matrix $\tau (u)$ (up to an unimportant additive constant) H&=&2g H\^R,\
H\^R&=&= \_[j=1]{}\^[L-1]{} H\^R\_[j,j+1]{} + \_-(0) +,\[derived-h\] where V&=&str\_0 K’\_+(0), W=str\_0 (\_+(0) H\_[L0]{}\^R),\
H\^R\_[i,j]{}&=&P\_[i,j]{}R’\_[i,j]{}(0), G\_[i,j]{}=P\_[i,j]{}R”\_[i,j]{}(0). Here $P_{i,j}$ denotes the graded permutation operator acting on the $i$-th and $j$-th quantum spaces. (\[derived-h\]) implies that the boundary eight-state supersymmetric $U$ model admits an infinite number of conserved currents which are in involution with each other, thus assuring its integrability. It should be emphasized that Hamiltonian (\[h\]) appears as the second derivative of the boundary transfer matrix $\tau (u)$ with respect to the spectral parameter $u$ at $u=0$. This is due to the fact that the supertrace of $K_+(0)$ equals to zero. The reason for the zero supertrace of $K_+(0)$ is related to the fact that the quantum space is the 8-dimensional [*typical*]{} irreducible representation of $gl(3|1)$. A similar situation has already appeared in many spin chain models [@Zho96; @Zha97; @Bra97].
Having established the quantum integrability of the boundary model, we now solve it by using the coordinate space Bethe ansatz method. The whole procedure is similar to that for other models [@Asa96; @Zha97]. The Bethe ansatz equations are e\^[ik\_j2(L+1)]{}(k\_j;p\_1)(k\_j;p\_L) &=&\_[=1]{}\^[M\_1]{} ,\
\_[j=1]{}\^N &=& -\_[=1]{}\^[M\_1]{} \_[=1]{}\^[M\_2]{} ,\
& &=1,,M\_1,\
\_[=1]{}\^[M\_1]{} &=& \_[=1]{}\^[M\_2]{} ,\
& & =1,,M\_2,\[Bethe-ansatz\] where (k;p)= , p\_1=-1-, p\_L=-1-, and $c=e^\eta-1$; the charge rapidities $\t_j\equiv \t(k_j)$ are related to the single-particle quasi-momenta $k_j$ by $\theta (k)=\frac {1}{2} \tan (\frac {k}{2})$. The energy eigenvalue $E$ of the model is given by $E=-2\sum ^N_{j=1}\cos k_j$ (modular an unimportant additive constant coming from the chemical potential term).
In conclusion, we have studied integrable open-boundary conditions for the eight-state supersymmetric $U$ model. The quantum integrability of the system follows from the fact that the Hamiltonian may be embedded into a one-parameter family of commuting transfer matrices. Moreover, the Bethe ansatz equations are derived by use of the coordinate space Bethe ansatz approach. This provides us with a basis for computing the finite size corrections (see, e.g. [@Asa96; @Yun95]) to the low-lying energies in the system, which in turn allow us to use the boundary conformal field theory technique to study the critical properties of the boundary. The details will be treated in a separate publication.
.3in This work is supported by Australian Research Council, University of Queensland New Staff Research Grant and Enabling Research Grant. H.-Q.Z would like to thank Department of Mathematics of UQ for kind hospitality. He also thanks the supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and from Sichuan Young Investigators Science and Technology Fund.
[99]{} E.K. Sklyanin, J. Phys. [**A:**]{} Math.Gen. [**21**]{} (1988) 2375. L. Mezincescu, R. Nepomechie, J. Phys. [**A:**]{} Math. Gen. [**24**]{} (1991) L17. H.J. de Vega, A. González-Ruiz, J. Phys. [**A:**]{} Math. Gen. [**26**]{} (1993) L519;\
A. González-Ruiz, Nucl. Phys. [**B424**]{} (1994) 553. H.-Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. [**B54**]{} (1996) 41; ibid [**B53**]{} (1996) 5089. A.J. Bracken, X.Y. Ge, Y.-Z. Zhang, H.-Q. Zhou, “[*An open-boundary integrable model of three coupled $XY$ spin chains*]{}", and “[*Integrable open-boundary conditions for the $q$-deformed supersymmetric $U$ model of strongly correlated electrons*]{}", University of Queensland preprints. M.D. Gould, Y.-Z. Zhang, H.-Q. Zhou, preprint cond-mat/9709120. Y.-Z. Zhang, H.-Q. Zhou, preprint cond-mat/9707263. H. Asakawa, M. Suzuki, J. Phys. [**A:**]{} Math. Gen. [**29**]{} (1996) 225;\
M. Shiroishi, M. Wadati, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**66**]{} (1977) 1. C.M. Yung, M.T. Batchelor, Nucl. Phys. [**B435**]{} (1995) 430;\
F.H. Essler, J. Phys. [**A:**]{} Math. Gen. [**29**]{} (1996) 6183;\
G. Bedürftig, F.H. Essler, H. Frahm, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{} (1996) 5098.
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: Queen Elizabeth II Fellow. E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: On leave of absence from Dept of Physics, Chongqing University, Chongqing 630044, China. E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
CERN, Theory Division, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland\
E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
author:
- Robert Fleischer
title: 'New strategies to extract CKM phases from non-leptonic B decays'
---
CERN-TH/99-243\
hep-ph/9908341
**New Strategies to Extract CKM Phases from\
Non-Leptonic $B$ Decays**
Robert Fleischer\
[*Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland*]{}
[**Abstract**]{}\
[*Talk given at the\
International Europhysics Conference on High Energy Physics – EPS-HEP ’99,\
Tampere, Finland, 15–21 July 1999\
To appear in the Proceedings*]{}
CERN-TH/99-243\
August 1999
Introduction
============
Among the central targets of future $B$-physics experiments is the direct measurement of the three angles $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ of the unitarity triangle of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix. However, only the extraction of $\beta$ with the help of the “gold-plated” mode $B_d\to J/\psi K_{\rm S}$ is quite straightforward. In the test of the Standard-Model description of CP violation, the determination of the angle $\gamma$ is a crucial element. Since the $e^+e^-$ $B$-factories operating at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance will not be in a position to explore $B_s$ decays, a strong emphasis was given so far, in the literature, to decays of non-strange $B$-mesons. However, also the $B_s$ system provides interesting strategies to determine $\gamma$, which appear promising for dedicated $B$-physics experiments at hadron machines, such as LHCb (CERN) or BTeV (Fermilab). The new strategies, discussed here, are—in contrast to clean strategies using pure “tree” decays, such as $B_s\to D_s^\pm K^\mp$—very sensitive to new-physics contributions to the corresponding decay amplitudes and may play an important role to explore the physics beyond the Standard Model.
Extracting $\gamma$ from $B_{s(d)}\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$
=========================================================
The decays $B_s\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$ and $B_d\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$ are related to each other by interchanging all down and strange quarks, i.e. through the $U$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions. Whereas the CP-violating weak phase factor $e^{i\gamma}$ is strongly Cabibbo-suppressed in the decay amplitude of the “gold-plated” mode $B_d\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$, this is not the case in $B_s\to J/\psi\,
K_{\rm S}$. Consequently, there may be sizeable CP-violating effects in this channel, which are due to certain penguin topologies. If we make use of the $U$-spin flavour symmetry, the CKM angle $\gamma$ and interesting hadronic quantities can be extracted by combining the “direct” and “mixing-induced” CP asymmetries ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_s\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S})$ and ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_s\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S})$ with the CP-averaged $B_{d(s)}\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$ branching ratios [@BsPsiK]. Remarkably, the theoretical accuracy of this approach is only limited by $U$-spin-breaking corrections. In particular, there are no problems due to final-state-interaction (FSI) effects. An interesting by-product of this strategy is that it allows us to take into account the—presumably very small—penguin contributions in the determination of the $B^0_d$–$\overline{B^0_d}$ mixing phase $\phi_d=2\beta$ from $B_d\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$, which is an important issue in view of the impressive accuracy that can be achieved with second-generation $B$-physics experiments. Moreover, we have an interesting relation between the direct $B_{s(d)}\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$ CP asymmetries and the corresponding CP-averaged branching ratios: $$\frac{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to J/\psi\,
K_{\rm S})}{{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_s\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S})}\approx
-\,\frac{\mbox{BR}(B_s\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S})}{\mbox{BR}(B_d\to J/\psi\,
K_{\rm S})}\,.$$ The experimental feasibility of the extraction of $\gamma$ sketched above depends strongly on the size of the penguin effects in $B_s\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$, which are very hard to estimate. A similar strategy is provided by $B_{d (s)}\to D^{\,+}_{d(s)}\, D^{\,-}_{d(s)}$ decays. For a detailed discussion, the reader is referred to [@BsPsiK].
Extracting $\beta$ and $\gamma$ from the decays $B_d\to \pi^+\pi^-$ and $B_s\to K^+K^-$
=======================================================================================
In the literature, $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ usually appears as a tool to probe $\alpha=180^\circ-\beta-\gamma$. However, penguin contributions preclude a reliable determination of $\alpha$ from the CP-violating observables of the decay $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ that arise in the usual time-dependent CP asymmetry $$a_{\rm CP}(t)={\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}\cos(\Delta M_d t)+
{\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}\sin(\Delta M_d t).$$ Although several strategies were proposed to control these penguin uncertainties, they are usually very challenging from an experimental point of view.
In the following, a new way of using the CP-violating observables of $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ is discussed [@BsKK]: combining them with those of $B_s\to K^+K^-$—the $U$-spin counterpart of $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$—a simultaneous determination of $\phi_d=2\beta$ and $\gamma$ becomes possible. This approach is not affected by any penguin topologies—it rather makes use of them—and does not rely on certain “plausible” dynamical or model-dependent assumptions. Moreover, FSI effects, which attracted considerable attention in the recent literature in the context of the determination of $\gamma$ from $B\to\pi K$ decays, do not lead to any problems, and the theoretical accuracy is only limited by $U$-spin-breaking effects. This strategy, which is also very promising to search for indications of new physics [@FMat], is conceptually quite similar to the extraction of $\gamma$ from $B_{s(d)}\to J/\psi\, K_{\rm S}$ discussed in the previous subsection. However, it appears to be more favourable in view of the $U$-spin-breaking effects and the experimental feasibility.
If we make use of the unitarity of the CKM matrix and apply the Wolfenstein parametrization, generalized to include non-leading terms in $\lambda\equiv|V_{us}|=0.22$, the $B_d^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ decay amplitude can be expressed as follows [@BsKK]: $$\label{Bdpipi-ampl}
A(B_d^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)=e^{i\gamma}\left(1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right){\cal C}
\left[1-d\,e^{i\theta}e^{-i\gamma}\right],$$ where $$\label{C-def}
{\cal C}\equiv\lambda^3A\,R_b\left(A_{\rm cc}^{u}+A_{\rm pen}^{ut}\right),$$ with $A_{\rm pen}^{ut}\equiv A_{\rm pen}^{u}-A_{\rm pen}^{t}$, and $$\label{d-def}
d\,e^{i\theta}\equiv\frac{1}{(1-\lambda^2/2)R_b}
\left(\frac{A_{\rm pen}^{ct}}{A_{\rm cc}^{u}+A_{\rm pen}^{ut}}\right).$$ Here $A_{\rm cc}^{u}$ is due to current–current contributions, whereas the amplitudes $A_{\rm pen}^{j}$ describe penguin topologies with internal $j$ quarks ($j\in\{u,c,t\})$. The relevant CKM factors are given by $A\equiv|V_{cb}|/\lambda^2$ and $R_b\equiv|V_{ub}/(\lambda
V_{cb})|$. In analogy to (\[Bdpipi-ampl\]), the $B_s^0\to K^+K^-$ decay amplitude can be parametrized as $$\label{BsKK-ampl}
A(B_s^0\to K^+K^-)=e^{i\gamma}\lambda\,{\cal C}'\left[1+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
\,d'e^{i\theta'}e^{-i\gamma}\right],$$ where $${\cal C}'\equiv\lambda^3A\,R_b\left(A_{\rm cc}^{u'}+A_{\rm pen}^{ut'}\right)$$ and $$\label{dp-def}
d'e^{i\theta'}\equiv\frac{1}{(1-\lambda^2/2)R_b}
\left(\frac{A_{\rm pen}^{ct'}}{A_{\rm cc}^{u'}+A_{\rm pen}^{ut'}}\right)$$ correspond to (\[C-def\]) and (\[d-def\]), respectively, and $\varepsilon\equiv\lambda^2/(1-\lambda^2)$.
The decays $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B_s\to K^+K^-$ are related to each other by interchanging all down and strange quarks. Consequently, the $U$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions implies $$\label{U-spin-rel}
d'=d\quad\mbox{and}\quad\theta'=\theta.$$ If we assume that the $B^0_s$–$\overline{B^0_s}$ mixing phase $\phi_s$ is negligibly small, as expected in the Standard Model, or that it is fixed through $B_s\to J/\psi\,\phi$ (see, for example, [@ddf1]), the four CP-violating observables provided by $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B_s\to K^+K^-$ depend—in the strict $U$-spin limit—on the four “unknowns” $d$, $\theta$, $\phi_d=2\beta$ and $\gamma$. We therefore have sufficient observables at our disposal to extract these quantities simultaneously. In order to determine $\gamma$, it suffices to consider ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_s\to K^+K^-)$ and the direct CP asymmetries ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_s\to K^+K^-)$, ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)$. If we make use, in addition, of ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)$, $\phi_d$ can be determined as well. The formulae to implement this approach in a mathematical way are given in [@BsKK].
If we use the $B^0_d$–$\overline{B^0_d}$ mixing phase as an input, there is a different way of combining ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}
(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)$, ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-)$ with ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm dir}(B_s\to K^+K^-)$, ${\cal A}_{\rm CP}^{\rm mix}(B_s\to K^+K^-)$. The point is that these observables allow us to fix contours in the $\gamma$–$d$ and $\gamma$–$d'$ planes as functions of the $B^0_d$–$\overline{B^0_d}$ and $B^0_s$–$\overline{B^0_s}$ mixing phases in a [*theoretically clean*]{} way. In order to extract $\gamma$ and the hadronic parameters $d$, $\theta$, $\theta'$ with the help of these contours, the $U$-spin relation $d'=d$ is sufficient. An illustration of this approach for a specific example can be found in [@BsKK]. A first experimental feasibility study for LHCb, using the same set of observables, gave an uncertainty of $\left.\Delta\gamma\right|_{\rm exp}=2.3^\circ$ for five years of data taking and looks very promising [@wilkinson].
It should be emphasized that the theoretical accuracy of $\gamma$ and of the hadronic parameters $d$, $\theta$ and $\theta'$ is only limited by $U$-spin-breaking effects. In particular, it is not affected by any FSI or penguin effects. A first consistency check is provided by $\theta=\theta'$. Moreover, we may determine the normalization factors ${\cal C}$ and ${\cal C}'$ of the $B^0_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B^0_s\to K^+K^-$ decay amplitudes (see (\[Bdpipi-ampl\]) and (\[BsKK-ampl\])) with the help of the corresponding CP-averaged branching ratios. Comparing them with the “factorized” result $$\left|\frac{{\cal C}'}{{\cal C}}\right|_{\rm fact}=\,
\frac{f_K}{f_\pi}\frac{F_{B_sK}(M_K^2;0^+)}{F_{B_d\pi}(M_\pi^2;0^+)}
\left(\frac{M_{B_s}^2-M_K^2}{M_{B_d}^2-M_\pi^2}\right),$$ we have another interesting probe for $U$-spin-breaking effects. Interestingly, the relation $d'e^{i\theta'}=d\,e^{i\theta}$ is not affected by $U$-spin-breaking corrections within a modernized version of the “Bander–Silverman–Soni mechanism”, making use—among other things—of “factorization” to estimate the relevant hadronic matrix elements [@BsKK]. Although this approach appears to be rather simplified and may be affected by non-factorizable effects, it strengthens our confidence in the $U$-spin relations used for the extraction of $\beta$ and $\gamma$ from $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and $B_s\to K^+K^-$.
The strategy discussed in this section is very promising for second-generation $B$-physics experiments at hadron machines, where the physics potential of the $B_s$ system can be fully exploited. At the asymmetric $e^+e^-$ $B$-factories operating at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance, BaBar and BELLE, which have already seen the first events, this is unfortunately not possible. However, there is also a variant of the extraction of $\gamma$, where $B_d\to\pi^\mp K^\pm$ is used instead of $B_s\to K^+K^-$ [@BsKK]. This approach has the advantage that all required time-dependent measurements can in principle be performed at the asymmetric $e^+e^-$ machines. On the other hand, it relies—in addition to the $SU(3)$ flavour symmetry—on the smallness of certain “exchange” and “penguin annihilation” topologies, which may be enhanced by FSI effects. Consequently, its theoretical accuracy cannot compete with the “second-generation” $B_d\to\pi^+\pi^-$, $B_s\to K^+K^-$ approach, which is not affected by such problems.
CKM phases and hadronic parameters from angular distributions of $B_{d,s}$ decays
=================================================================================
An interesting laboratory to explore CP violation and the hadronization dynamics of non-leptonic $B$ decays is provided by certain quasi-two-body modes $B_q\to X_1\,X_2$ of neutral $B_{d,s}$-mesons, where both $X_1$ and $X_2$ carry spin and continue to decay through CP-conserving interactions. In a recent paper [@RF-ang], the general formalism to extract CKM phases and hadronic parameters from the corresponding observables, taking also into account penguin contributions, was presented. If we fix the mixing phase $\phi_q$ separately, it is possible to determine a CP-violating weak phase $\omega$, which is usually given by the angles of the unitarity triangle, and interesting hadronic quantities as a function of a [*single*]{} hadronic parameter. If we determine this parameter, for instance, by comparing $B_q\to X_1\,X_2$ with an $SU(3)$-related mode, all remaining parameters, including $\omega$, can be extracted. If we are willing to make more extensive use of flavour-symmetry arguments, it is possible to determine the $B^0_q$–$\overline{B^0_q}$ mixing phase $\phi_q$ as well.
A particularly interesting application of this approach is given by $B_d\to J/\psi\,\rho^0$, which can be combined with $B_s\to J/\psi\,\phi$ to extract the $B^0_d$–$\overline{B^0_d}$ mixing phase and—if penguin effects in the former mode should be sizeable—also the angle $\gamma$ of the unitarity triangle. As an interesting by-product, this strategy allows us to take into account the penguin effects in the extraction of the $B^0_s$–$\overline{B^0_s}$ mixing phase from $B_s\to J/\psi\,\phi$. Moreover, a discrete ambiguity in the extraction of the CKM angle $\beta$ can be resolved, and valuable insights into $SU(3)$-breaking effects can be obtained.
Other applications of the general formalism presented in [@RF-ang] involve $B_d\to\rho \rho$ and $B_{s,d}\to K^{\ast}\overline{K^\ast}$ decays. Since this approach is very general, it can be applied to many other decays. Detailed studies are required to explore which channels are most promising from an experimental point of view.
Conclusions
===========
The new strategies discussed above provide an exciting playground for second-generation $B$-decay experiments, such as LHCb or BTeV.
[9]{}
R. Fleischer, [*Eur. Phys. J.*]{} [**C**]{} (1999) DOI 10.1007/s100529900099 \[hep-ph/9903455\]. R. Fleischer, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B459**]{} (1999) 306. R. Fleischer and J. Matias, preprint CERN-TH/99-164 (1999) \[hep-ph/9906274\]. A.S. Dighe, I. Dunietz and R. Fleischer, [*Eur. Phys. J*]{} [**C6**]{} (1999) 647. G. Wilkinson, LHCb study for the Workshop [*Standard Model Physics (and more) at the LHC*]{}, CERN (1999). R. Fleischer, preprint CERN-TH/99-92 (1999) \[hep-ph/9903540v2\], to appear in [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D**]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Demand side management (DSM) is one of the main functionalities of the smart grid as it allows the consumer to adjust its energy consumption for an efficient energy management. Most of the existing DSM techniques aim at minimizing the energy cost while not considering the comfort of consumers. Therefore, maintaining a trade-off between these two conflicting objectives is still a challenging task. This paper proposes a novel DSM approach for residential consumers based on a non-cooperative game theoretic approach, where each player is encouraged to reshape its electricity consumption pattern through the dynamic pricing policy applied by the smart grid operator. The players are guided to select the best strategy that consists of scheduling their electric appliances in order to minimize the daily energy cost and their discomfort level. The Nash Equilibrium of the energy management game is achieved using Non-Sorting Genetic Algorithm NSGA-II. Simulation results show the effectiveness of the distributed non cooperative game approach for the residential energy management problem where an appreciable energy cost reduction is reached while maintaining the discomfort in an acceptable level.'
author:
- |
Ilyes Naidji\
Faculty of Mathematical, Physical and Natural Sciences,\
University of Tunis-El Manar, Tunisia.\
Email: [email protected]
- |
Moncef Ben Smida\
LSA Lab, Tunisia Polytechnic School,\
University of Carthage, Tunisia.\
Email: [email protected]
- |
Mohamed Khalgui\
National Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology,\
University of Carthage, Tunisia.\
Email: [email protected]
- |
Abdelmalik Bachir\
LESIA Lab, Computer Science Department,\
Biskra University, Algeria.\
Email: [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Along with the current transition of the power system from a centralized to a distributed architecture [@mosbahi2016new], a great attention is being paid to the power grid’s capacity to maintain the balance between demand and supply [@meskina2017multiagent; @abidi2017multi]. Indeed, the increasing penetration of distributed renewable energy sources (RES) which have an intermittent nature induces new challenges for the smart grid in terms of energy management, congestion, voltage and frequency variations, etc. In order to overcome these challenges, the demand side management (DSM) is increasingly exploited by smart grid operators to maintain the demand-supply equilibrium taking advantage of the demand flexibility. DSM brings many solutions for consumers such as energy saving through the reduction of the electricity consumption and best use of electric appliances. Recent advances in information and communication technologies offer the opportunity for advanced DSM solutions, e.g., demand response, time of use, spinning reserve, etc. In this study, we investigate the demand response (DR) solutions to reduce the energy cost for consumers while ensuring their comfort. The DR solutions consist of the short-term changes in the power consumption that could be made in response to the energy price variation. The dynamic pricing is designed to incite consumers to participate in the DSM by decreasing or increasing their power consumption. In addition, DR solutions do not only consist in reducing the power consumption but can modify the consumption pattern. DR is enabled through communication infrastructures [@fadel2015survey], allowing to decrease energy consumption during peak periods. It has been shown that DR can solve some existing problems in traditional power systems and enhance the reliability [@safamehr2015cost; @ma2013demand].
In conventional power systems, electricity prices do not change to solve reliability problems, thus consumers are not motivated to adjust their electricity consumption. Smart grid technologies enable another pricing methods in restructured form. The prices are variable with respect to the demand and operating conditions, which involve the consumers participation in the power system operation.
Various methodologies have been proposed for the energy management of the smart grid using demand response. In [@al2017advanced], advanced demand response is proposed considering modular and deferrable loads with the objective of reducing the cost of consumed energy and peak consumed power. In [@vivekananthan2014demand; @kaddah2014advanced], direct load control (DLC) programs have been proposed. DLC allows the energy provider to directly control (switch on/off) the electric appliances of the consumers with respect to their agreements (e.g., maximum number of interruptions, appropriate rewards, etc). Simply shifting the power consumption of consumers at a peak time to off-peak times may cause consumer’s discomfort. To model the discomfort of consumers, the difference between the desired load and the scheduled load is considered in [@deng2014residential].When shifting the power consumption pattern, the difference between the desired and scheduled time of loads can be considered to evaluate consumer’s discomfort. In [@eksin2015demand], a game theoretic approach was used to solve the demand response using the Bayesian Nash equilibrium with the objective of minimizing the peak-to-average ratio. However the comfort level of consumers was not addressed. In [@ning2017bi], a coordinated optimization is proposed where the concept of demand response potential (DRP) was introduced. However, the approach did not verify the consumer’s comfort with concrete result.
Most of the aforementioned studies focus on the reduction of the energy cost and peak load to solve the energy management problem and do not sufficiently consider consumer behavior. In particular, the comfort level of consumers was not considered simultaneously with the energy cost in the demand side studies. Even when jointly considered with the energy cost like in [@yang2013game; @kim2013bidirectional], they are subsequently referred as a total cost. Such consideration may affects the result of the energy management system and may give a biased solution sometimes for the energy cost and sometimes for consumers comfort.
In this respect, we propose a multiobjective demand response game for the optimal scheduling of the electric appliances in smart homes. Non cooperative energy management game is designed to model the behavior of consumers. The proposed energy management game incorporates the demand side in the supply management using the dynamic pricing policy to minimize daily energy cost while reducing the discomfort level of consumers with a multiobjective approach.
The contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows:
- [We propose a non cooperative energy management game which guarantees the fairness among non-cooperative consumers and apply the NSGA-II algorithm to find the Nash equilibrium of the game in accordance to the two conflicting objectives that are energy cost and consumer’s comfort.]{}
- [We model the rational behavior of the consumers that reduce their energy cost while seeking their comfort.]{}
- [We address the concept of discomfort level of consumers which is based on the difference between the desired and scheduled time of the electric appliances.]{}
This paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec:system\_model\] gives the smart grid model used in this paper. Section \[sec:game\_formulation\] explains the concept of game theory for the energy management problem. Section \[sec:problem-form\] gives the formulation of the proposed energy management game. Section \[sec:num\_results\] gives the numerical results. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes this paper.
{#sec:system_model}
This section describes the smart grid system used in this study and gives the energy management system (EMS) architecture. Consider a smart distribution grid with one electricity provider that supplies energy to a set of $n$ consumers, i.e., smart homes which are controlled by a Multi-Agent System (MAS). Each smart home is equipped with a smart meter that is connected to the electric appliances via wire connection e.g., PLC (Power Line Communication) or wireless connection, e.g., ZigBee, etc. Furthermore, the smart meter integrates an agent that has computational intelligence capabilities. Each agent collects the planned tasks for the current day and power consumption profiles of the electric appliances from the smart meter. Consumers communicate with the smart meter through wireless communication, e.g., smart phones or tablets, to indicate the preferred conditions of their electric appliances related to their comfort, e.g., the preferred temperature in the rooms, desired time to charge the electric vehicle, etc. Fig. \[arch\] shows the architecture of the proposed EMS.
![Distributed EMS Architecture.[]{data-label="arch"}](arch.pdf){width="43.00000%"}
In the proposed EMS, each consumer is characterized by its planned daily tasks $TS_j$. Let $TS = \{TS_1, TS_2, ..., TS_k\}$ be the set of daily tasks to be executed, each task can be characterized by two vectors [@salinas2013multi]: $$X_j = \bigg[x_j^1, x_j^2, ..., x_j^t\bigg]$$ $$Y_j= \bigg[ P_j \quad D_j \quad ST_j \quad FT_j \quad STP_j \quad FTP_j \bigg]$$ where
- [${X}_{j}$ is the power consumption profile of the electric appliance that executes the task $j$ where ${x}_j^t$ is the power consumption of task $j$ at time $t$]{}.
- [${Y}_{j}$ is the vector which characterizes the task $j$.]{}
- [$P_j= \underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{\sum}} x_j^t$ is the energy demand of the task $j$ where the time horizon $T=24$.]{}
- [$D_j$ is the duration of the task $j$.]{}
- [$[ST_j$, $FT_j]$ are the earliest start time and finishing time to run the task $j$ that define its admitted interval of execution.]{}
- [$[STP_j, FTP_j]$ is the time preferred window of the consumer to run the task $j$.]{}
Pricing method
--------------
Let $P_{ij}^{t}$ is it the energy consumption of consumer $i$ for task $j$ at time $t$. The total energy consumption of all consumers $(i=1,..., n)$ at time slot $t$ is defined as follows: $$l^t= \overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{\sum}}\overset{k}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}P_{ij}^t$$ Consider $C_u^t(l^t)$ the cost function of utility grid at time slot $t$. The quadratic cost function is usually used in literature [@deng2014residential], i.e, $$C_u^t(l^t)= a^t.(l^t)^2+ b^t.l^t +c^t$$ where the quadratic costs coefficients $(a^t, b^t, c^t)$ are time varying. Real-time pricing is used in this study where the price value is time varying. The price value depends on time of use (TOU) and total energy consumption. Based on this pricing model, the energy cost of consumers at time slot $t$ is defined as in [@deng2014residential] by: $$C_c^t= c_r^t(l^t). \overset{k}{\underset{j=1}{\sum}}P_j^t$$ where $c_r^t(l^t)$ is the real-time price of energy. We assume that the smart grid operator adopts adequate pricing method that takes into consideration the energy consumption in time and level. In this study, we consider also consumers within distributed energy resources (DERs) facility, i.e., prosumers that can generate energy. The revenue of the prosumer $R_p^t$ is calculated as follows: $$R_p^t= \overset{T}{\underset{t=1}{\sum}}r.P_p^t$$ where $P_p^t$ is the power generated from the prosumer at time $t$ and $r$ is the revenue coefficient.
Consumer discomfort level
-------------------------
To measure the discomfort of consumers caused by shifting their consumption pattern, we introduce a discomfort cost as a quadratic function of the gap between the desired and the scheduled time of the electric appliances.
We define a time shift parameter $\Delta_j$ that models the gap between the scheduled and preferred time of the task $j$. Let $t_j$ denotes the start time of the task $j$. The time shift parameter $\Delta_j$ is calculated as follows: $$\label{timeshift}
\Delta_j =
\begin{cases}
0, & \text{if } {\resizebox{4cm}{!}{$t_j \ge STP_j \land t_j + D_j \le FTP_j,$}}
\\ {\resizebox{1.4cm}{!}{$STP_j - t_j$}} , & \text{else if } {\resizebox{4cm}{!}{$t_j \le STP_j \land t_j + D_j \le FTP_j,$}}
\\ {\resizebox{2cm}{!}{$(t_j + D_j) - FTP_j$}} , & \text{else if } {\resizebox{4cm}{!}{$t_j \ge STP_j \land t_j + D_j \ge FTP_j,$}}
\end{cases}$$ Here, for each task $j$, the concept of time shift can be valid only in the admitted interval of execution $[ST_j, FT_j]$ of the task $j$. The discomfort cost can be modeled with a quadratic cost function [@samadi2012advanced] as follows: $$C_{ \Delta_j} = \overset{k}{\underset{j =1}{\sum}} \alpha ( \Delta_j)^2 + \beta \Delta_j + \delta$$ where $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\delta$ are the quadratic cost coefficients. Here, as more as the time shift parameter increases, i.e., the electric appliance is scheduled out of its preferred time, the discomfort cost increases.
{#sec:game_formulation}
This section gives the mathematical game theory formulation of the energy management problem involving the MAS.
In the energy management problem, the consumers do not collaborate, for example, when a smart meter shows the real-time electricity price in the smart grid, the consumer reduces or increases its electricity consumption without asking neighbors whether they reduce their consumption or not at a certain time. Game theory is able to model the competitive behavior of the consumers. In the proposed energy management architecture, each consumer, i.e., agent is a player of the non-cooperative game. The energy management game can be defined by the following 3-tuple: $$G= \{ N, S, J\}$$ where $N$ is the set of players with $|N| = n$. $S$ is the strategy space of players where $$S = S_1 \times S_2 \times ... \times S_n$$ $J = S \rightarrow \mathbb{R} $ is the vector of cost functions of players $i=1, 2, ..., n$ which is defined as $$J(s) = [J_1(s), J_2(s), ..., J_n(s)] \quad s\in S$$ where the vector of strategies $s= (s_1, s_2, ..., s_n) \in S$ is called a strategy profile. Let $\{a_i\}$ be the set of actions of the player $i$. Each action $a_i$ represents the total energy consumption of player $i$ over the time slot $t$. For player $i$, the set of the selected actions consists of the energy consumption pattern for the time horizon $T=24$, i.e., one day. The strategy $s_i$ of the player $i$ can be regarded as a rule for choosing its actions. The cost function of the player $i$ is given by $$J_i(s)= J_i \{s_i^{*}, \overline{s_{i}^{*}}\}$$ where the cost function $J_i$ depends on the strategy $s_i^{*} \in S_i$ selected by the player $i$ and on the strategy profile $\overline{s_{i}^{*}}$ of the other players. Solving the energy management game consists of finding the Nash Equilibrium for each player in the non cooperative game. The vector $s^{*} = (s_1^{*}, s_2^{*}, ... , s_n^{*})$ is a Nash equilibrium for the energy management game $G= \{ N, S, J\}$ if the following constraint is valid: $$\forall i \in N, \forall s_i \in S_i, \quad J_i(s_i^{*},\overline{s_{i}^{*}}) \le J_i(s_i,\overline{s_i^{*}})$$
{#sec:problem-form}
This section describes the energy management game and the considered game players.
Energy management game players
------------------------------
The proposed energy management game consists of two types of players that are: consumer denoted by (c-player) and prosumer denoted by (p-player). C-player represents the flexible consumers that can adjust their consumption pattern. P-player represents the consumers within DERs facility. Each player has its own objective functions, as illustrated in the following.
### C-player
The c-player can adjust its consumption pattern through managing its smart electric appliances. The first objective of the c-player is to reduce the energy cost as follows: $$\min \quad J_1 = \overset{T}{\underset{t=1}{\sum}} C_c^t$$ The second objective of the c-player is to minimize its discomfort level by $$\min \quad J_2 = \overset{k}{\underset{j =1}{\sum}} \alpha (\Delta_j)^2 + \beta \Delta_j + \delta$$ Hence, the cost function of the c-player is given by $$J_{c}(s) = (J_1, J_2)$$
### P-player
The p-player can adjust its consumption pattern and manage its DERs. The first objective of the p-player is to minimize its energy cost and maximize its revenue as follows: $$\min \quad J_3 = \overset{T}{\underset{t=1}{\sum}} C^t_{p} - R^t_{p}$$ where $ C^t_{p}$, $R^t_{p}$ are the energy cost and revenue of p-player at time slot $t$, respectively.
The second objective of the p-player is to minimize its discomfort level by $$\min \quad J_4 = \overset{k}{\underset{j =1}{\sum}} \alpha (\Delta_j)^2 + \beta \Delta_j + \delta$$ Thus, the cost function of the p-player is given by $$J_{p}(s) = (J_3, J_4)$$
Constraints
-----------
The proposed energy management game is subject to the following constraints.
### Time constraints
Each task $j$ of duration $D_j$ must be executed exactly once between its earliest start time $ST_j$ and finishing time $FT_j$. The start time $t_j$ of task $j$ satisfies the following constraint: $$ST_j \le t_j \le FT_j - D_j$$
### Energy balance
The energy generated by the utility grid and p-player must be equal to the total energy consumed by c-player and p-player satisfying: $$E^t_{u} + E^{t}_{p} - E^{t}_{d} = 0$$ where $E^t_{u}$ is the energy produced by the utility grid, $E^{t}_{p}$ is the energy produced by the p-player and $E^{t}_{d}$ is the total energy demand of all consumers, i.e., c-players and p-players.
### Nash equilibrium
The existence of the Nash equilibrium is proved by the following theorem [@nash1951non]:
Every game with a finite number of players that can choose from finitely number of strategies has at least one Nash equilibrium.
In the proposed non cooperative game, each player is assumed to be rational, i.e., the player aims to minimize its cost function by considering the best strategy. Therefore, each player chooses the load profile that represents its best strategy.
The combination of best strategies and their corresponding cost functions constitutes the dominant strategy which is the Nash equilibrium for the energy management game [@fudenberg1991game].
NSGA-II scheduling
------------------
NSGA-II algorithm is used to find the Nash equilibrium of the energy management game. A detailed description of the algorithm can be found in [@deb2002fast]. Each player, i.e., agent gets the information about time-differentiated electricity price from the smart grid operator to adjust the scheduling of its daily tasks. After that, the agent applies the NSGA-II algorithm to solve the multiobjective optimization problem with the objective to minimize the daily energy cost and consumer’s discomfort. Hence, the NSGA-II algorithm specifies the best strategy of each player in accordance to the minimization of two fitness functions. For the c-player, the strategy is chosen by $$s_i^{*c-best} = \arg \min \big[J_{c}(s)\big]$$ For the p-player, the strategy chosen by $$s_i^{*p-best} = \arg \min \big[J_{p}(s)\big]$$ The NSGA-II scheduling solution gives the dominant strategy for each player which is the best strategy. The combination of these best strategies constitutes the dominant strategy which is the Nash Equilibrium of the energy management game [@fudenberg1991game].
{#sec:num_results}
This section illustrates the system under study and gives the numerical results of the proposed multiobjective energy management game.
For testing the proposed method, the EMS is developed in MATLAB software. The system under study consists of a smart grid with $|N|=30$ consumers. The system includes several c-players and p-players. Each player performs its daily tasks, at least 8 tasks selected randomly from Table \[tab1\].
To obtain the Nash equilibrium of the energy management game, our proposed multiobjective formulation was submitted to NSGA-II algorithm.
In order to incentivize the consumer to run some of its electrical appliance at particular time-slots of the day, the smart grid operator uses time-variable tariff rates. Fig. \[tasks\] summarizes the set of considered electricity appliances and highlights the starting and finishing time of these appliances that can be scheduled in the admitted time window. The first subfigure shows the appliances of a typical c-player and the second subfigure shows the appliances of a typical p-player.
[0.475]{} ![Tasks scheduling.[]{data-label="tasks"}](tasks3.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.475]{} ![Tasks scheduling.[]{data-label="tasks"}](tasks1.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed scheduling solution, three scenarios are investigated. The first is the reference scenario (Ref-sce), where each task will be executed at its preferred time interval and will not be executed in early or later time. In the litterature, such scenario is called the welfare maximization as in [@li2011optimal]. The second is the cost effective scenario (Cost-sce) as in [@al2017advanced], where the tasks are executed with the objective to minimize the daily energy cost without taking into account the discomfort of consumers. The third scenario (Cost-discomfort-sce) refers to the proposed multiobjective scheduling solution which consists of the minimization of the daily energy cost and discomfort level of consumers.
Fig. \[consumption\] shows the total power consumption for a typical c-player and a typical p-player for the considered scenarios, while Figs. \[daily-cost\] and \[payoff\] show the results of the considered scenarios for all the consumers in terms of energy cost and discomfort level.
[0.475]{} ![Power consumption.[]{data-label="consumption"}](player4.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
[0.475]{} ![Power consumption.[]{data-label="consumption"}](player2.pdf "fig:"){width="\textwidth"}
It can be seen that p-player has more comfort than c-player taking the advantage of its power generation, which reduces its energy cost, such that, the prosumer schedules its electric appliances during its preferred time. On the other hand, c-player has less comfort due to the absence of the power generation, such that, the consumer schedules its electric appliances out of its preferred time.
![Daily energy cost.[]{data-label="daily-cost"}](daily-cost.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
As expected, Ref-sce has the highest power consumption. It is observed during peak hours from 18:00 to 20:00. Ref-sce has also the highest daily energy cost of electricity and with discomfort level equal to zero. A significant decrease in the power consumption is observed in the Cost-sce from 18:00 to 20:00.
![Discomfort level.[]{data-label="payoff"}](discost.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
It also achieves the lowest daily energy cost with a reduction of about 40% compared with the Ref-sce. However, discomfort level increased by at most 30%. The Cost-discomfort-sce has a low power consumption where the reduction in the daily energy cost is about 37% compared with the Ref-sce. However, the daily energy cost increased by at most 3% compared with the Cost-sce. The discomfort level is maintained in an acceptable level, which is increased by 20% compared with the Ref-sce and decreased about 10% compared with the Cost-sce.
In summary, the proposed task scheduling strategy achieved its main objective which is a tradeoff between shifting the power consumption to time-slots where the daily energy cost is cheaper and maintaining the discomfort of consumers in an acceptable level, thanks to the proposed multiobjective game formulation which optimizes these two conflicting objectives. In contrast with the existing approaches which focus only on the energy cost and impose a direct control on consumers appliances ignoring their comfort, the proposed energy management game achieves a significant results in term of cost as well as consumer’s discomfort.
{#sec:conclusion}
In this paper, a non cooperative game theoretic approach has been proposed to implement a DR energy management strategy for competitive residential consumers to obtain a minimum daily energy cost and minimum discomfort level. The method presented has been solved using NSGA-II algorithm. In the proposed game theoretic approach, the consumers play a key role in the energy management game through exploiting DERs and scheduling their electric appliances locally, in contrast to centralized energy management systems that use DLC approaches that directly control the loads and impose load shedding to the consumers. The developed energy management game can be used as a useful tool for evaluating the electricity market and also for analyzing the strategic behavior of consumers in competitive electricity markets. As a perspective, we will consider additional choices of game theoretic approaches for DSM and more comprehensive decision-making models for consumers based on behavioral sciences.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The vacuum expectation value of the surface energy-momentum tensor is evaluated for a massless scalar field obeying mixed boundary condition on an infinite plate moving by uniform proper acceleration through the Fulling-Rindler vacuum. The generalized zeta function technique is used, in combination with the contour integral representation. The surface energies for separate regions on the left and on the right of the plate contain pole and finite contributions. Analytic expressions for both these contributions are derived. For a minimally coupled scalar the surface energy-momentum tensor induced by vacuum quantum effects corresponds to a source of the cosmological constant type located on the plate and with the cosmological constant determined by the proper acceleration of the plate.'
author:
- |
A. A. Saharian$^{1}$[^1] and M. R. Setare$^{2}$[^2]\
[*$^1$ Department of Physics, Yerevan State University, Yerevan, Armenia* ]{}\
[*$^2$ Institute for Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, Tehran, Iran*]{}
title: '[**Surface vacuum energy and stresses on a plate uniformly accelerated through the Fulling-Rindler vacuum**]{}'
---
= 16truecm = 24truecm = -1.3truecm = -2truecm = 1.20cm = 1.60cm
PACS number(s): 03.70.+k, 11.10.Kk
Introduction {#sec:Int}
============
The use of general coordinate transformations in quantum field theory leads to an infinite number of unitary inequivalent representations of the commutation relations. Different inequivalent representations will in general give rise to different pictures with different physical implications, in particular to different vacuum states. For instance, the vacuum state for a uniformly accelerated observer, the Fulling–Rindler vacuum [@Full73; @Unru76; @Boul75; @Gerl89], turns out to be inequivalent to that for an inertial observer, the familiar Minkowski vacuum. Quantum field theory in accelerated systems contains many special features produced by a gravitational field. This fact allows one to avoid some of the difficulties entailed by renormalization in a curved spacetime. In particular, the near horizon geometry of most black holes is well approximated by the Rindler metric and a better understanding of physical effects in this background could serve as a handle to deal with more complicated geometries like Schwarzschild. The Rindler geometry shares most of the qualitative features of black holes and is simple enough to allow detailed analysis. Another motivation for the investigation of quantum effects in the Rindler space is related to the fact that this space is conformally related to the de Sitter (dS) space and to the Robertson–Walker space with negative spatial curvature. As a result the expectation values of the energy–momentum tensor for a conformally invariant field and for corresponding conformally transformed boundaries on dS and Robertson–Walker backgrounds can be derived from the corresponding Rindler counterpart by the standard transformation (see, for instance, [@Birrell]).
The problem of vacuum polarization by an infinite plane boundary moving with uniform acceleration through the Fulling-Rindler vacuum was investigated by Candelas and Deutsch [@Candelas] for the conformally coupled $4D$ Dirichlet and Neumann massless scalar and electromagnetic fields. In this paper only the region of the right Rindler wedge to the right of the barrier is considered. In Ref. [@Saha02] we have investigated the Wightman function and the vacuum expectation values of the energy momentum-tensor for the massive scalar field with general curvature coupling parameter, satisfying the Robin boundary conditions on the infinite plane in an arbitrary number of spacetime dimensions and for the electromagnetic field. Unlike Ref. [@Candelas] we have considered both regions, including the one between the barrier and Rindler horizon. The vacuum expectation values of the energy-momentum tensors for Dirichlet or Neumann scalar and electromagnetic fields for the geometry of two parallel plates moving by uniform acceleration are investigated in Ref. [@Avag02]. In particular, the vacuum forces acting on the boundaries are evaluated. They are presented as a sum of the interaction and self-action parts. The interaction forces between the plates are always attractive for both scalar and electromagnetic cases. In Refs. [@Saha02; @Avag02] the mode summation method is used in combination with the generalized Abel-Plana summation formula [@Sahrev]. This allowed us to present the vacuum expectation values in terms of the purely Rindler and boundary-induced parts. Due to the well-known non-integrable surface divergences in the boundary parts, the total Casimir energy cannot be obtained by direct integration of the vacuum energy density and needs an additional regularization. In Ref. [@Saha04a] the Casimir energy is evaluated for massless scalar fields under Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions, and for the electromagnetic field with perfect conductor boundary conditions on one and two infinite parallel plates moving by uniform proper acceleration through the Fulling–Rindler vacuum in an arbitrary number of spacetime dimension. In Ref. [@Saha04c] the conformal relation between dS and Rindler spacetimes and the results from Ref. [@Saha02] are used to generate the vacuum expectation values of the energy-momentum tensor for a conformally coupled scalar field in dS spacetime in presence of a curved brane on which the field obeys the Robin boundary condition with coordinate dependent coefficients.
For scalar fields with general curvature coupling in Ref. [@Rome02] it has been shown that in the discussion of the relation between the mode sum energy, evaluated as the sum of the zero-point energies for each normal mode of frequency, and the volume integral of the renormalized energy density for the Robin parallel plates geometry it is necessary to include in the energy a surface term concentrated on the boundary (see also the discussion in Ref. [@Full03]). Similar issues for the spherical and cylindrical boundary geometries are discussed in Refs. [@Saha01; @Rome01]. An expression of the surface energy-momentum tensor for a scalar field with general curvature coupling parameter in the general case of bulk and boundary geometries is derived in Ref. [@Saha04b]. In the present paper, by using this expression and the zeta function technique, we evaluate the vacuum expectation value of the surface energy-momentum tensor for a plate moving by uniform proper acceleration through the Fulling-Rindler vacuum.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:RRreg\] the surface energy density and vacuum stresses are evaluated for the region on the right of the plate (RR region). We construct an integral representation for the related zeta function and analytically continue it to the physical region. Similar problem for the region on the left of the plate (RL region) is investigated in Section \[sec:RLreg\]. Section \[sec:Conc\] concludes the main results of the paper.
Surface energy-momentum tensor in the RR region {#sec:RRreg}
===============================================
Consider a real massless scalar field $\varphi (x)$ with curvature coupling parameter $\zeta $ satisfying the field equation $$\nabla _{l}\nabla ^{l}\varphi +\zeta R\varphi =0, \label{fieldeq}$$with $R$ being the scalar curvature for a $(D+1)$-dimensional background spacetime, $\nabla _{l}$ is the covariant derivative operator associated with the corresponding metric tensor $g_{ik}$. For minimally and conformally coupled scalars one has $\zeta =0$ and $\zeta =(D-1)/4D$, respectively. Our main interest in this paper will be the surface Casimir energy and stresses induced on a single plate moving with uniform proper acceleration when the quantum field is prepared in the Fulling-Rindler vacuum. We will assume that the field satisfies the mixed boundary condition $$(A_{s}+n^{l}\nabla _{l})\varphi (x)=0 \label{boundcond}$$on the plate, where $A_{s}$ is a constant, $n^{l}$ is the unit inward normal to the plate. For this boundary condition the vacuum expectation values of the bulk energy-momentum tensor in the both RR and RL regions are evaluated in Ref. [@Saha02]. In Ref. [@Saha04b] it was argued that the energy-momentum tensor for a scalar field on manifolds with boundaries in addition to the bulk part contains a contribution located on the boundary. For the boundary $\partial M_{s}$ the surface part of the energy-momentum tensor is presented in the form [@Saha04b] $$T_{ik}^{{\rm (surf)}}=\delta (x;\partial M_{s})\tau _{ik} \label{Ttausurf}$$with $$\tau _{ik}=\zeta \varphi ^{2}K_{ik}-(2\zeta -1/2)h_{ik}\varphi n^{l}\nabla
_{l}\varphi , \label{tausurf}$$and the “one-sided” delta-function $\delta (x;\partial M_{s})$ locates this tensor on $\partial M_{s}$. In Eq. (\[tausurf\]), $K_{ik}$ is the extrinsic curvature tensor of the boundary $\partial M_{s}$ and $h_{ik}$ is the corresponding induced metric. Let $\{\varphi _{\alpha }(x),\varphi
_{\alpha }^{\ast }(x)\}$ be a complete set of positive and negative frequency solutions to the field equation (\[fieldeq\]), obeying boundary condition (\[boundcond\]). Here $\alpha $ denotes a set of quantum numbers specifying the solution. By expanding the field operator over the eigenfunctions $\varphi _{\alpha }(x)$, using the standard commutation rules and the definition of the vacuum state, for the vacuum expectation value of the surface energy-momentum tensor one finds $$\langle 0|T_{ik}^{{\rm (surf)}}|0\rangle =\delta (x;\partial M_{s})\langle
0|\tau _{ik}|0\rangle ,\quad \langle 0|\tau _{ik}|0\rangle =\sum_{\alpha
}\tau _{ik}\{\varphi _{\alpha }(x),\varphi _{\alpha }^{\ast }(x)\},
\label{modesumform}$$where $|0\rangle $ is the amplitude for the corresponding vacuum state, and the bilinear form $\tau _{ik}\{\varphi ,\psi \}$ on the right of the second formula is determined by the classical energy-momentum tensor (\[tausurf\]).
In the accelerated frame it is convenient to introduce Rindler coordinates $%
(\tau ,\xi ,{\bf x})$ which are related to the Minkowski ones, $(t,x^{1},%
{\bf x})$ by transformations $$t=\xi \sinh \tau ,\quad x^{1}=\xi \cosh \tau , \label{RindMin}$$where ${\bf x}=(x^{2},\ldots ,x^{D})$ denotes the set of coordinates parallel to the plate. In these coordinates one has $g_{00}=\xi ^{2}$, $%
g_{ik}=-\delta _{ik}$, $i\neq 0$, and a wordline defined by $\xi ,{\bf x}=%
{\rm const}$ describes an observer with constant proper acceleration $\xi
^{-1}$. Rindler time coordinate $\tau $ is proportional to the proper time along a family of uniformly accelerated trajectories which fill the Rindler wedge, with the proportionality constant equal to the acceleration. For the geometry under consideration the metric and boundary conditions are static and translational invariant in the hyperplane parallel to the plate. It follows from here that the corresponding part of the eigenfunctions can be taken in the standard plane wave form: $$\varphi _{\alpha }=C_{D}\phi (\xi )\exp \left[ i\left( {\bf kx}-\omega \tau
\right) \right] ,\quad \alpha =({\bf k},\omega ),\quad {\bf k}=(k_{2},\ldots
,k_{D}). \label{wavesracture}$$The equation for $\phi (\xi )$ is obtained from field equation (\[fieldeq\]). The corresponding linearly independent solutions are the Bessel modified functions $I_{i\omega }(k\xi )$ and $K_{i\omega }(k\xi )$ of the imaginary order, where $k=|{\bf k}|$. The eigenfrequencies are determined from the boundary condition imposed on the field on the bounding surface. As such a surface we take a plane boundary with coordinate $\xi =a>0$ corresponding to a plate uniformly accelerated normal to itself with the proper acceleration $%
a^{-1}$. The plate divides the right Rindler wedge into two regions with $%
\xi >a$ (RR region) and $0<\xi <a$ (RL region). The vacuum properties in these regions are different and we consider them separately.
For the RR region the unit normal to the boundary and nonzero components of the extrinsic curvature tensor have the form $$n^{l}=\delta _{1}^{l},\quad K_{00}=\xi , \label{normvec}$$and $\phi (\xi )=K_{i\omega }(k\xi )$. For a given $ka$, the corresponding eigenfrequencies $\omega =\omega _{n}=\omega _{n}(ka)$, $n=1,2,\ldots $, are determined from boundary condition (\[boundcond\]) and are solutions to the equation $$AK_{i\omega }(x)+xK_{i\omega }^{\prime }(x)=0,\quad x=ka,\quad A=A_{s}a,
\label{modeq}$$where the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to the argument of the function. For $A_{s}>0$ this equation has purely imaginary solutions with respect to $\omega $. To avoid the vacuum instability, below we will assume that $A_{s}\leq 0$. Under this condition all solutions to (\[modeq\]) are real. The coefficient $C_{D}$ in Eq. (\[wavesracture\]) is determined by the normalization condition and is equal to [@Saha02] $$C_{D}^{2}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{D-1}}\frac{\bar{I}_{i\omega _{n}}(ka)}{\frac{%
\partial }{\partial \omega }\bar{K}_{i\omega }(ka)|_{\omega =\omega _{n}}},
\label{normcoef}$$where for a given function $F(x)$ we use the notation $$\bar{F}(x)=AF(x)+xF^{\prime }(x). \label{barnot}$$
Substituting the eigenfunctions into the mode-sum formula (\[modesumform\]) and using the relation $$K_{i\omega _{n}}(ka)\bar{I}_{i\omega _{n}}(ka)=1, \label{rel1}$$the vacuum expectation value of the surface energy-momentum tensor can be presented in the form $$\langle 0|\tau _{l}^{k}|0\rangle =\frac{B_{D}I_{{\rm R}}(A)}{a^{D}}\left[
2\zeta \delta _{l}^{0}\delta _{0}^{k}+(4\zeta -1)A\delta _{l}^{k}\right]
,\quad l,k=0,2,\ldots ,D, \label{Tsurf}$$with $$I_{{\rm R}}(A)=\int_{0}^{\infty }dx\,x^{D-2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{%
K_{i\omega _{n}}(x)}{\frac{\partial }{\partial \omega }\bar{K}_{i\omega
}(x)|_{\omega =\omega _{n}}}, \label{IA1}$$and $\langle 0|\tau _{1}^{1}|0\rangle =0$. Here and below the quantities for the RR and RL regions are denoted by the indices R and L, respectively, and we use the notation $$B_{D}=\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{\frac{D-1}{2}}\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1}{2}\right) }.
\label{BD}$$The surface energy-momentum tensor (\[Tsurf\]) has a diagonal structure: $$\langle 0|\tau _{l}^{k}|0\rangle ={\rm diag}\left( \varepsilon ,0,-p,\ldots
,-p\right) , \label{taudiag}$$with the surface energy density $\varepsilon $ and stress $p$, and the equation of state$$\varepsilon =-\left[ 1+\frac{2\zeta }{A(4\zeta -1)}\right] p.
\label{eqstate}$$For a minimally coupled scalar field, this corresponds to a cosmological constant induced on the plate. In accordance with (\[Tsurf\]) for the vacuum stress one has$$p=\frac{B_{D}}{a^{D}}A(1-4\zeta )I_{R}(A). \label{surfstress}$$
The quantity (\[IA1\]) and, hence, the surface energy-momentum tensor diverges and needs some regularization. Many regularization techniques are available nowadays and, depending on the specific physical problem under consideration, one of them may be more suitable than the others. In particular, the generalized zeta function method [@Dowk76; @Eliz94; @More97] is in general very powerful to give physical meaning to the divergent quantities. There are several examples of the application of this method to the evaluation of the Casimir effect (see, for instance, [Eliz94,Blau88,Eliz93,Lese94,Bord96,Lese96,Bord96b,Bord97, Lamb99,Cogn01]{}). Here we will use the method which is an analog of the generalized zeta function approach. We define the function $$F_{{\rm R}}(s)=\int_{0}^{\infty }dx\,x^{D-2}\zeta _{{\rm R}}(s,x),
\label{IAs}$$where $$\zeta _{{\rm R}}(s,x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty }\frac{\omega _{n}^{-s}K_{i\omega
_{n}}(x)}{\frac{\partial }{\partial \omega }\bar{K}_{i\omega }(x)|_{\omega
=\omega _{n}}}. \label{zetsx}$$The computation of vacuum expectation value for the surface energy-momentum tensor requires an analytical continuation of the function $F_{{\rm R}}(s)$ to the value $s=0$, $$I_{{\rm R}}(A)=F_{{\rm R}}(s)|_{s=0}. \label{IFs0}$$
The starting point of our consideration is the representation of the function (\[zetsx\]) in terms of contour integral $$\zeta _{{\rm R}}(s,x)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{C}dz\,z^{-s}\frac{K_{iz}(x)}{%
\bar{K}_{iz}(x)}, \label{intzetsx1}$$where $C$ is a closed counterclockwise contour in the complex $z$ plane enclosing all zeros $\omega _{n}(x)$. The location of these zeros enables one to deform the contour $C$ into a segment of the imaginary axis $(-iR,iR)$ and a semicircle of radius $R$ in the right half-plane. We will also assume that the origin is avoided by the semicircle $C_{\rho }$ with small radius $%
\rho $. For sufficiently large $s$ the integral over the large semicircle in (\[intzetsx1\]) tends to zero in the limit $R\rightarrow \infty $, and the expression on the right can be transformed to $$\zeta _{{\rm R}}(s,x)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{C_{\rho }}dz\,z^{-s}\frac{%
K_{iz}(x)}{\bar{K}_{iz}(x)}-\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}\int_{\rho
}^{\infty }dz\,z^{-s}\frac{K_{z}(x)}{\bar{K}_{z}(x)}. \label{intzetsx2}$$Below we will consider the limit $\rho \rightarrow 0$. In this limit the first integral vanishes in the case $s=0$, and in the following we will concentrate on the contribution of the second integral. For the analytic continuation of this integral we employ the uniform asymptotic expansion of the MacDonald function for large values of the order [@Abramowitz]. We will rewrite this expansion in the form $$K_{z}(x)\sim \sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\frac{e^{-z\eta (x/z)}}{(x^{2}+z^{2})^{1/4}%
}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty }\frac{(-1)^{l}\widetilde{u}_{l}(t)}{(x^{2}+z^{2})^{l/2}}%
, \label{Kzxasymp}$$where $$t=\frac{z}{\sqrt{x^{2}+z^{2}}},\quad \eta (x)=\sqrt{1+x^{2}}+\ln \frac{x}{1+%
\sqrt{1+x^{2}}},\quad \tilde{u}_{l}(t)=\frac{u_{l}(t)}{t^{l}},
\label{tetaul}$$and the expressions for the functions $u_{l}(t)$ are given in [Abramowitz]{}. From these expressions it follows that the coefficients $%
\tilde{u}_{l}(t)$ have the structure $$\tilde{u}_{l}(t)=\sum_{m=0}^{l}u_{lm}t^{2m}, \label{ult}$$with numerical coefficients $u_{lm}$. From Eq. (\[Kzxasymp\]) and the corresponding expansion for the derivative of the MacDonald function we obtain the asymptotic expansion $$\bar{K}_{z}(x)\sim -\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}(x^{2}+z^{2})^{1/4}e^{-z\eta
(x/z)}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty }\frac{(-1)^{l}\tilde{v}_{l}(t)}{(x^{2}+z^{2})^{l/2}%
}\,, \label{Kzxbaras}$$where $$\tilde{v}_{l}(t)=\frac{v_{l}(t)}{t^{l}}+A\tilde{u}_{l-1}\,, \label{vltbar}$$and the expressions for $v_{l}(t)=t^{l}\sum_{m=0}^{l}v_{lm}t^{2m}$ are presented in [@Abramowitz]. The recurrence formulae for the numerical coefficients $u_{lm}$ and $v_{lm}$ can be found in Ref. [@Saha04a]. Note that the functions (\[vltbar\]) have the structure $$\tilde{v}_{l}(t)=\sum_{m=0}^{l}\tilde{v}_{lm}t^{2m},\quad \tilde{v}%
_{lm}=v_{lm}+Au_{l-1,m}\,. \label{vltbar1}$$From Eqs. (\[Kzxasymp\]) and (\[Kzxbaras\]) we can find the asymptotic expansion for the ratio in the second integral on the right of formula ([intzetsx2]{}). For the further convenience we will write this expansion in the form $$\frac{K_{z}(x)}{\bar{K}_{z}(x)}\sim -\frac{1}{(x^{2}+z^{2})^{1/2}}%
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty }\frac{(-1)^{l}U_{l}(t)}{(1+x^{2}+z^{2})^{l/2}}\,,
\label{Kzratio}$$where the coefficients $U_{l}(t)$ are defined by the relation $$\sum_{l=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{l}\frac{\tilde{u}_{l}(t)}{r^{l}}\left[
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty }(-1)^{l}\frac{\tilde{v}_{l}(t)}{r^{l}}\right]
^{-1}=\sum_{l=0}^{\infty }\frac{(-1)^{l}U_{l}(t)}{(1+r^{2})^{l/2}}\,,
\label{defUl}$$and similar to (\[ult\]), (\[vltbar1\]), are polynomials in $t$:$$U_{l}(t)=\sum_{m=0}^{l}U_{lm}t^{2m}. \label{Ulmdef}$$The first three coefficients are given by expressions $$\begin{aligned}
U_{1}(t) &=&\frac{1}{2}-A-\frac{t^{2}}{2}\,, \nonumber \label{Ufunc} \\
U_{2}(t) &=&\frac{3}{8}-A+A^{2}+\left( -\frac{5}{4}+A\right) t^{2}+\frac{%
7t^{4}}{8}\,, \\
U_{3}(t) &=&\frac{5}{8}-\frac{3A}{2}+\frac{3A^{2}}{2}-A^{3}+\left( -\frac{25%
}{8}+3A-\frac{3A^{2}}{2}\right) t^{2}+\left( \frac{41}{8}-2A\right) t^{4}-%
\frac{21t^{6}}{8}\,. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Now let us consider the function $$F_{{\rm R}}(s)=-\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty
}dx\,x^{D-2}\int_{\rho }^{\infty }dz\,z^{-s}\frac{K_{z}(x)}{\bar{K}_{z}(x)}.
\label{Fs}$$We subtract and add to the integrand in this equation the corresponding asymptotic expression. This allows us to split (\[Fs\]) into the following pieces $$F_{{\rm R}}(s)=F_{{\rm R}}^{(as)}(s)+F_{{\rm R}}^{(1)}(s)\,, \label{FasF1}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\rm R}}^{(as)}(s) &=&\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty
}dx\,x^{D-2}\int_{\rho }^{\infty }dz\,z^{-s}\frac{1}{r}\sum_{l=0}^{N}\frac{%
(-1)^{l}U_{l}(\cos \theta )}{(1+r^{2})^{l/2}}, \label{Fas} \\
F_{{\rm R}}^{(1)}(s) &=&-\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty
}dx\,x^{D-2}\int_{\rho }^{\infty }dz\,z^{-s}\left[ \frac{K_{z}(x)}{\bar{K}%
_{z}(x)}+\frac{1}{r}\sum_{l=0}^{N}\frac{(-1)^{l}U_{l}(\cos \theta )}{%
(1+r^{2})^{l/2}}\right] , \label{F1}\end{aligned}$$and $$r=(x^{2}+z^{2})^{1/2},\quad \cos \theta =z/r. \label{rtet}$$For $N\geq D-1$ the expression for $F_{{\rm R}}^{(1)}(s)$ is finite at $s=0$ and, hence, for our aim it is sufficient to subtract $N=D-1$ asymptotic terms. At $s=0$ the function $F_{{\rm R}}^{(1)}(s)$ is finite for $\rho =0$ and we can directly put this value. The integral over $z$ in the expression for $F_{{\rm R}}^{(as)}(s)$ is finite in the limit $\rho \rightarrow 0$ for $%
0<{\rm Re\,}s<1$. For these values we can put $\rho =0$ in Eq. (\[Fas\]). After the integration over $z$, the contribution of the $l=0$ term in this formula can be presented in the form$$\frac{1}{2\pi }B\left( \frac{1-s}{2},\frac{s}{2}\right) \cos \frac{\pi s}{2}%
\int_{0}^{\infty }dx\,x^{D-2-s}, \label{l0asterm}$$with the beta function $B(x,y)$. Now using the standard dimensional regularization result that the renormalized value of the integrals of the type $\int_{0}^{\infty }dx\,x^{\beta }$ is equal to zero (see, e.g., [Coll84]{}), we conclude that the contribution of the term with $l=0$ into Eq. (\[Fas\]) vanishes. This can be seen by another way, considering the case of a scalar field with nonzero mass $m$ and taking the limit $m\rightarrow 0$ after the evaluation of the corresponding integrals (for this trick in the calculations of the Casimir energy see, for instance, Refs. [Bord02,Nest03]{}). For the massive case, in Eq. (\[wavesracture\]) one has $%
\phi (\xi )=K_{i\omega }(\xi \sqrt{k^{2}+m^{2}})$ and the corresponding formulae are obtained from those given above in this section by replacement $%
x\rightarrow \sqrt{x^{2}+m^{2}a^{2}}$. With this replacement the integral corresponding to the contribution of $l=0$ term into Eq. (\[Fas\]) can be easily evaluated in terms of the gamma function and vanishes in the limit $m\rightarrow 0$ for ${\rm Re}\,s<D-1$. After performing to the polar coordinates $(r,\theta )$ and using relation (\[Ulmdef\]), from (\[Fas\]) one finds $$F_{{\rm R}}^{(as)}(s)=\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}%
\sum_{l=1}^{N}(-1)^{l}\sum_{m=0}^{l}U_{lm}\int_{0}^{\infty }dr\frac{r^{D-s-2}%
}{(1+r^{2})^{l/2}}\int_{0}^{\pi /2}d\theta \sin ^{D-2}\theta \cos
^{2m-s}\theta . \label{Fas1}$$Evaluating the integrals by using the standard formulae, we find the expression $$F_{{\rm R}}^{(as)}(s)=\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}%
\sum_{l=1}^{N}(-1)^{l}B\left( \frac{D-s-1}{2},\frac{l+s-D+1}{2}\right)
\sum_{m=0}^{l}U_{lm}B\left( m-\frac{s-1}{2},\frac{D-1}{2}\right) ,
\label{Fas2}$$where the pole contribution is given explicitly in terms of the beta function. In the sum over $l$, the terms with odd $D-l\geq 1$ have simple poles at $s=0$ coming from the first beta function. Introducing a new summation variable $j=(D-l-1)/2$, the corresponding residue can be easily found by using the standard formula for the gamma function: $$F_{{\rm R},-1}^{(as)}=-\frac{2}{\pi }(-1)^{D}\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1}{2}%
\right) \sum_{j=0}^{j_{D}}\frac{(-1)^{j}}{\Gamma (j+1)\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1%
}{2}-j\right) }\sum_{m=0}^{D-2j-1}U_{D-2j-1,m}B\left( m+\frac{1}{2},\frac{D-1%
}{2}\right) , \label{Fas-1}$$where $$j_{D}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{D-2}{2}, & {\rm for\,even}\quad D \\
\frac{D-3}{2}, & {\rm for\,odd}\quad D\
\end{array}%
\right. . \label{pD}$$Laurent-expanding near $s=0$ we can write $$F_{{\rm R}}^{(as)}(s)=\frac{F_{{\rm R},-1}^{(as)}}{s}+F_{{\rm R},0}^{(as)}+%
{\cal {O}}(s), \label{Fas3}$$with $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\rm R},0}^{(as)} &=&-\frac{(-1)^{D}}{\pi }\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1}{2}%
\right) \sum_{j=0}^{j_{D}}\frac{(-1)^{j}}{\Gamma (j+1)\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1%
}{2}-j\right) }\sum_{m=0}^{D-2j-1}U_{D-2j-1,m}B\left( m+\frac{1}{2},\frac{D-1%
}{2}\right) \nonumber \\
&\times &\left[ \psi \left( m+\frac{D}{2}\right) +\psi \left( j+1\right)
-\psi \left( m+\frac{1}{2}\right) -\psi \left( \frac{D-1}{2}\right) \right]
\label{Fas0} \\
&+&\frac{1}{\pi }\left( \sum_{l=1,D-l={\rm even}}^{D-1}+\sum_{l=D}^{N}%
\right) (-1)^{l}B\left( \frac{l-D+1}{2},\frac{D-1}{2}\right)
\sum_{m=0}^{l}U_{lm}B\left( m+\frac{1}{2},\frac{D-1}{2}\right) , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$where $\psi (x)=d\ln \Gamma (x)/dx$ is the diagamma function and the second sum in the braces of the third line is present only for $N\geq D$. The first term on the right of Eq. (\[Fas0\]) with diagamma functions comes from the finite part of the Laurent expansion of the summands with odd $D-l$ in Eq. (\[Fas2\]). Gathering all contributions together, near $s=0$ we find $$F_{{\rm R}}(s)=\frac{F_{{\rm R},-1}^{(as)}}{s}+F_{{\rm R},0}^{(as)}+F_{{\rm R%
}}^{(1)}(0)+{\cal {O}}(s). \label{Fas4}$$Using this result, for the vacuum stress induced on the surface of a single plate one obtains$$p=p_{p}^{{\rm (R)}}+p_{f}^{{\rm (R)}}, \label{ppf}$$where for the pole and finite contributions one has$$\begin{aligned}
p_{p}^{{\rm (R)}} &=&\frac{B_{D}}{sa^{D}}A(1-4\zeta )F_{{\rm R}%
,-1}^{(as)},\quad A=aA_{s}, \label{ppf1} \\
p_{f}^{{\rm (R)}} &=&\frac{B_{D}}{a^{D}}A(1-4\zeta )\left[ F_{{\rm R}%
,0}^{(as)}+F_{{\rm R}}^{(1)}(0)\right] ,\end{aligned}$$and the coefficients are defined by expressions (\[F1\]), (\[Fas-1\]), (\[Fas0\]). The corresponding formulae for the pole and finite parts of the surface energy density are obtained by using the equation of state ([eqstate]{}). In particular, in the case of the Neumann boundary condition ($%
A=0$) for the finite parts one has$$\varepsilon _{{\rm N}f}^{{\rm (R)}}=\frac{2\zeta B_{D}}{a^{D}}\left[ F_{{\rm %
R},0}^{(as)}+F_{{\rm R}}^{(1)}(0)\right] _{A=0},\quad p_{{\rm N}f}^{{\rm (R)}%
}=0. \label{RRNeu}$$
In Fig. \[figsurfen\] we have plotted the dependence of the finite part of the quantity $a^{D}p_{f}^{{\rm (R)}}/[A(1-4\zeta )]$ on the parameter $%
-aA_{s}$ in the spatial dimension $D=3$. This quantity does not depend on the curvature coupling parameter and is positive for the RR region. For a minimally coupled scalar and $A>0$ this corresponds to the generation of the negative cosmological constant on the plate. The corresponding numerical value is determined by the proper acceleration of the plate. The surface energy per unit surface of the plate can be found integrating the energy density from Eq. (\[modesumform\]),$$E^{{\rm (R,surf)}}=\int d^{D}x\sqrt{|\det g_{ik}|}\langle 0|T_{0}^{{\rm %
(surf)}0}|0\rangle =a\langle 0|\tau _{0}^{0}|0\rangle =a\varepsilon .
\label{ERsurf}$$In the case of the Neumann boundary condition, for the finite part of the surface energy in $D=3$ one obtains$$E_{{\rm N}f}^{{\rm (R,surf)}}=\frac{0.111\zeta }{a^{2}}. \label{ERsurfN}$$The finite part of the corresponding total vacuum energy per unit surface is evaluated in Ref. [@Saha04a] and is equal to $E_{{\rm N}f}^{{\rm (R)}%
}=0.00213/a^{2}$. This quantity is the sum of the volume and surface energies.
Surface energy density and stresses in the RL region {#sec:RLreg}
====================================================
Consider the scalar vacuum in the region between the plate and the Rindler horizon corresponding to $\xi =0$ (RL region). As in the previous section we will assume that the field obeys boundary condition (\[boundcond\]) on the surface $\xi =a$. Note that for the RL region one has $n^{l}=-\delta _{1}^{l}
$, $K_{00}=-\xi $. To deal with discrete spectrum, we can introduce the second plate located at $\xi =b<a$, on whose surface we impose boundary conditions as well. After the construction of the corresponding partial zeta function we take the limit $b\rightarrow 0$. As a result we can see that the surface energy-momentum tensor in the RL region has a structure given by (\[taudiag\]) and with the equation of state (\[eqstate\]). For the surface vacuum stress one obtains the expression $$p=\frac{B_{D}}{a^{D}}A(1-4\zeta )I_{{\rm L}}(A),\quad A=-aA_{s},
\label{surfstressL}$$where now $$I_{{\rm L}}(A)=F_{{\rm L}}(s)|_{s=0},\quad F_{{\rm L}}(s)=\int_{0}^{\infty
}dx\,x^{D-2}\zeta _{{\rm L}}(s,x), \label{IRL}$$with $$\zeta _{{\rm L}}(s,x)=-\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}\int_{\rho
}^{\infty }dz\,z^{-s}\frac{I_{z}(x)}{\bar{I}_{z}(x)}, \label{zetaRL}$$and the barred notation is in accordance with Eq. (\[barnot\]). For a given $A$ this expression differs from the corresponding expression for the RR region by the replacement $K_{z}(x)\rightarrow I_{z}(x)$. Note that as in the previous section, to avoid the vacuum instability, here we have assumed $%
A_{s}\leq 0$. Under this condition, for a given $x$ the function $\bar{I}%
_{z}(x)$ has no real positive zeros with respect to $z$. By using the uniform asymptotic expansions for the Bessel modified function $I_{z}(x)$ and its derivative with respect to the argument, for the ratio in the subintegrand of expression (\[zetaRL\]) one receives $$\frac{I_{z}(x)}{\bar{I}_{z}(x)}\sim \frac{1}{(x^{2}+z^{2})^{1/2}}%
\sum_{l=0}^{\infty }\frac{U_{l}(t)}{(1+x^{2}+z^{2})^{l/2}}, \label{Izratio}$$with the same coefficients $U_{l}(t)$ as in Eq. (\[Kzratio\]). Now the expression for $F_{{\rm L}}(s)$ can be written as $$F_{{\rm L}}(s)=F_{{\rm L}}^{(as)}(s)+F_{{\rm L}}^{(1)}(s), \label{FasF1L}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\rm L}}^{(as)}(s) &=&-\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty
}dx\,x^{D-2}\int_{\rho }^{\infty }dz\,z^{-s}\frac{1}{r}\sum_{l=0}^{N}\frac{%
U_{l}(\cos \theta )}{(1+r^{2})^{l/2}}, \label{FasL} \\
F_{{\rm L}}^{(1)}(s) &=&-\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty
}dx\,x^{D-2}\int_{\rho }^{\infty }dz\,z^{-s}\left[ \frac{I_{z}(x)}{\overline{%
I}_{z}(x)}-\frac{1}{r}\sum_{l=0}^{N}\frac{U_{l}(\cos \theta )}{%
(1+r^{2})^{l/2}}\right] . \label{F1L}\end{aligned}$$By the way similar to the case of the RR region, the asymptotic part can be presented in the form $$F_{{\rm L}}^{(as)}(s)=-\frac{1}{\pi }\cos \frac{\pi s}{2}\sum_{l=1}^{N}B%
\left( \frac{D-s-1}{2},\frac{l+s-D+1}{2}\right) \sum_{m=0}^{l}U_{lm}B\left(
m-\frac{s-1}{2},\frac{D-1}{2}\right) . \label{Fas2L}$$The corresponding residue is easily found by using the formula for the gamma function: $$F_{{\rm L},-1}^{(as)}=-\frac{2}{\pi }\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1}{2}\right)
\sum_{j=0}^{j_{D}}\frac{(-1)^{j}}{\Gamma (j+1)\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1}{2}%
-j\right) }\sum_{m=0}^{D-2j-1}U_{D-2j-1,m}B\left( m+\frac{1}{2},\frac{D-1}{2}%
\right) , \label{Fas-1L}$$with $j_{D}$ defined by expression (\[pD\]). Expanding near the simple pole $s=0$ we can write $$F_{{\rm L}}^{(as)}(s)=\frac{F_{{\rm L},-1}^{(as)}}{s}+F_{{\rm L},0}^{(as)}+%
{\cal {O}}(s), \label{Fas3L}$$with $$\begin{aligned}
F_{{\rm L},0}^{(as)} &=&-\frac{1}{\pi }\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1}{2}\right)
\sum_{j=0}^{j_{D}}\frac{(-1)^{j}}{\Gamma (j+1)\Gamma \left( \frac{D-1}{2}%
-j\right) }\sum_{m=0}^{D-2j-1}U_{D-2j-1,m}B\left( m+\frac{1}{2},\frac{D-1}{2}%
\right) \nonumber \\
&\times &\left[ \psi \left( m+\frac{D}{2}\right) +\psi \left( j+1\right)
-\psi \left( m+\frac{1}{2}\right) -\psi \left( \frac{D-1}{2}\right) \right]
\label{Fas0L} \\
&-&\frac{1}{\pi }\left( \sum_{l=1,D-l={\rm even}}^{D-1}+\sum_{l=D}^{N}%
\right) B\left( \frac{l-D+1}{2},\frac{D-1}{2}\right)
\sum_{m=0}^{l}U_{lm}B\left( m+\frac{1}{2},\frac{D-1}{2}\right) , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$where the second sum in the braces of the third line is present only for $%
N\geq D$. Taking all contributions together, near $s=0$ we find $$F_{{\rm L}}(s)=\frac{F_{{\rm L},-1}^{(as)}}{s}+F_{{\rm L},0}^{(as)}+F_{{\rm L%
}}^{(1)}(0)+{\cal {O}}(s), \label{Fas4L}$$with different terms defined by formulae (\[F1L\]), (\[Fas-1L\]), ([Fas0L]{}). Note that for a given $A$ the pole parts of the surface densities for the RR and RL regions differ by the factor $(-1)^{D}$. Relation ([Fas4L]{}) allows us to present the vacuum stress as a sum of pole and finite parts: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{p}^{{\rm (L)}} &=&\frac{B_{D}}{sa^{D}}A(1-4\zeta )F_{{\rm L}%
,-1}^{(as)},\quad A=-aA_{s} \label{ppfL} \\
p_{f}^{{\rm (L)}} &=&\frac{B_{D}}{a^{D}}A(1-4\zeta )\left[ F_{{\rm L}%
,0}^{(as)}+F_{{\rm L}}^{(1)}(0)\right] .\end{aligned}$$The corresponding decomposition of the surface energy density is obtained from here with the help of the equation of state (\[eqstate\]). In Fig. \[figsurfen\], the finite part of $D=3$ surface vacuum stress $a^{D}p_{f}^{%
{\rm (L)}}/[A(1-4\zeta )]$ is presented for the RL region as a function of the parameter $-aA_{s}$. In the case of a minimally coupled scalar the corresponding surface energy-momentum tensor is a cosmological constant type located on the plate. As follows from Fig. \[figsurfen\], in $D=3$ the induced cosmological constant is negative for $0.378<A<1.941$ and is positive otherwise. For the Neumann boundary condition one has a relation similar to (\[RRNeu\]) with the replacement ${\rm R}\rightarrow {\rm L}$. In this case the finite part of the surface energy per unit area of the plate for $D=3$ is given by formula$$E_{{\rm N}f}^{{\rm (L,surf)}}=-\frac{0.142\zeta }{a^{2}}. \label{ELsurfN}$$In accordance with Ref. [@Saha04a] the corresponding part in the total vacuum energy is equal to $E_{{\rm N}f}^{{\rm
(L)}}=0.000792/a^{2}$. For an infinitely thin plate taking the RR and RL regions together, the pole parts of the both surface and total vacuum energies cancel in $D=3$ and the corresponding Casimir energies are finite:$$E_{{\rm N}}^{{\rm (surf)}}=-\frac{0.0309\zeta }{a^{2}},\quad E_{{\rm N}}=%
\frac{0.00292}{a^{2}}. \label{EsurfNRL}$$The relation of these quantities to the energies measured by a uniformly accelerated observer is discussed in Ref. [@Saha04a].
Conclusion {#sec:Conc}
==========
In this paper we have investigated the surface Casimir densities generated by a single plate moving by uniform proper acceleration, assuming that the field is prepared in the Fulling-Rindler vacuum state. The corresponding volume vacuum expectation values of the energy–momentum tensor were investigated in Refs. [@Candelas; @Saha02] for the geometry of a single plate and in Ref. [@Avag02] in the case of two plates. Here we consider a scalar field with mixed boundary conditions and as a regularization method the zeta function technique is employed. In the case of a single plate geometry the right Rindler wedge is divided into two regions, referred as RR and RL regions. By using the Cauchy’s theorem on residues, we have constructed an integral representations for the corresponding zeta functions in both these regions, which are well suited for the analytic continuation. Subtracting and adding to the integrands the leading terms of the corresponding uniform asymptotic expansions, we present the corresponding functions as a sum of two parts. The first one is convergent at the physical point and can be evaluated numerically. In the second, asymptotic part the pole contributions are given explicitly in terms of the beta function. As a consequence, the vacuum expectation values of the surface energy-momentum tensor for separate RR and RL regions contain pole and finite contributions. The remained pole term is a characteristic feature for the zeta function regularization method and has been found for many other cases of boundary geometries. For a minimally coupled scalar field, the surface energy-momentum tensor induced by quantum vacuum effects corresponds to a source of a cosmological constant type located on the plate and with the cosmological constant determined by the proper acceleration of the plate. In the case of the Neumann boundary condition the finite parts of the surface vacuum stresses vanish for the both RR and RL regions. In $D=3$ spatial dimensions the corresponding surface energies are given by relations ([ERsurfN]{}) and (\[ELsurfN\]). In this case for an infinitely thin plate taking the RR and RL regions together the pole parts of the surface vacuum energies cancel and the total surface energy is finite. The corresponding total vacuum energy, including the surface and volume parts, is evaluated in Ref. [@Saha04a]. By using the conformal relation between the Rindler and dS spacetimes and the results from [@Saha02], in Ref. [@Saha04c] the vacuum expectation value of the bulk energy-momentum tensor is evaluated for a conformally coupled scalar field which satisfies the Robin boundary condition on a curved brane in dS spacetime. By making use the same technique and the conformal properties of the surface energy-momentum tensor, from the results of the present paper we can obtain the surface vacuum energy-momentum tensor induced on the brane in dS spacetime, which is a conformal image of a uniformly accelerated plate in the Minkowski spacetime.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The work of A.A.S. was supported in part by the Armenian Ministry of Education and Science (Grant No. 0887).
[99]{} S. A. Fulling, Phys. Rev D [**7**]{}, 2850 (1973); J. Phys. A [**10**]{}, 917 (1977).
W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{}, 870 (1976).
D. G. Boulware, Phys. Rev. D [**11**]{}, 1404 (1975).
U. H. Gerlach, Phys. Rev. D [**40**]{}, 1037 (1989); Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 105004 (2001); Found. Phys. [**33**]{}, 179 (2003).
N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, [*Quantum Fields in Curved Space*]{} (Chambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1982).
P. Candelas and D. Deutsch, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A [**354**]{}, 79 (1977).
A. A. Saharian, Class. Quantum Grav. [**19**]{}, 5039 (2002).
R. M. Avagyan, A. A. Saharian, A. H. Yeranyan, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 085023 (2002).
A. A. Saharian, Izv. Akad. Nauk Arm. SSR. Mat. [**22**]{}, 166 (1987) \[Sov. J. Contemp. Math. Anal. [**22**]{}, 70 (1987)\]; A. A. Saharian, ”The generalized Abel–Plana formula. Applications to Bessel functions and Casimir effect”, Report No. IC/2000/14; hep-th/0002239.
A. A. Saharian, R. S. Davtyan, and A. H. Yeranyan, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, (2004, in press), hep-th/0307163.
A. A. Saharian and M. R. Setare, Phys. Lett. [**B584**]{}, 306 (2004).
A. Romeo and A. A. Saharian, J. Phys. A [**35**]{}, 1297 (2002).
S. A. Fulling, J. Phys. A [**36**]{}, 6857 (2003).
A. A. Saharian, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 125007 (2001).
A. Romeo and A. A. Saharian, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 105019 (2001).
A. A. Saharian, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, (2004, in press), hep-th/0308108.
J. S. Dowker and R. Critchley, Phys. Rev. D [**13**]{}, 3224 (1976); S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**55**]{}, 133 (1977); G. W. Gibbons, Phys. Lett. B [**60**]{}, 385 (1977).
E. Elizalde, S. D. Odintsov, A. Romeo, A. A. Bytsenko, and S. Zerbini, [*Zeta Regularization Techniques with Applications*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).
V. Moretti, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 7797 (1997); J. Math. Phys. [**40**]{}, 3843 (1999).
S. K. Blau, M. Visser, and A. Wipf, Nucl. Phys. [**B310**]{}, 1631 (1988).
E. Elizalde, S. Leseduarte, and A. Romeo, J. Phys. A [**26**]{}, 2409 (1993).
S. Leseduarte and A. Romeo, J. Phys. A [**27**]{}, 2483 (1994).
M. Bordag, E. Elizalde, and K. Kirsten, J. Math. Phys. [**37**]{}, 895 (1996).
S. Leseduarte and A. Romeo, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**250**]{}, 448 (1996).
M. Bordag, K. Kirsten, and J. S. Dowker, Commun. Math. Phys. [**182**]{}, 371 (1996).
M. Bordag, E. Elizalde, K. Kirsten, and S. Leseduarte, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{}, 4896 (1997).
G. Lambiase, V. V. Nesterenko, and M. Bordag, J. Math. Phys. [**40**]{}, 6254 (1999).
G. Cognola, E. Elizalde, and K. Kirsten, J. Phys. A [**34**]{}, 7311 (2001).
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, [*Handbook of Mathematical functions*]{} (National Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C., 1964).
J. C. Collins, [*Renormalization: An Introduction to Renormalization, the Renormalization Group, and the Operator Product Expansion*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984).
M. Bordag, V. V. Nesterenko, and I. G. Pirozhenko, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 045011 (2002).
V. V. Nesterenko, I. G. Pirozhenko, and I. Dittrich, Class. Quantum Grav. [**20**]{}, 431 (2003).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper is devoted to the study of a coupled system consisting in a wave and heat equations coupled through transmission condition along a steady interface. This system is a linearized model for fluid-structure interaction introduced by Rauch, Zhang and Zuazua for a simple transmission condition and by Zhang and Zuazua for a natural transmission condition.
Using an abstract Theorem of Burq and a new Carleman estimate shown near the interface, we complete the results obtained by Zhang and Zuazua and by Duyckaerts. We show, without any geometric restriction, a logarithmic decay result.\
\
[**[Keywords]{}**]{} : Fluid-structure interaction; Wave-heat model; Stability; Logarithmic decay.\
\
[**[2000 Mathematics Subject Classification]{}**]{} : 37L15; 35B37; 74F10; 93D20
author:
- '[**Ines Kamoun Fathallah**]{}[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: '**Logarithmic decay of the energy for an hyperbolic-parabolic coupled system**'
---
Introduction and results
========================
In this work, we are interested with a linearized model for fluid-structure interaction introduced by Zhang and Zuazua in [@ZZ] and Duyckaerts in [@TD]. This model consists of a wave and heat equations coupled through an interface with suitable transmission conditions. Our purpose is to analyze the stability of this system and so to determine the decay rate of energy of solution as $t\rightarrow\infty$.
Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ be a bounded domain with a smooth boundary $\Gamma=\partial \Omega$. Let $\Omega_{1}$ and $\Omega_{2}$ be two bounded open sets with smooth boundary such that $\Omega_{1}\subset\Omega$ and $\Omega_{2}=\Omega\backslash \overline {\Omega}_{1}$. We denote by $\gamma= \partial \Omega_{1}\cap
\partial\Omega_{2}$ the interface, $ \gamma\subset\subset \Omega$, $\Gamma_{j}=\partial
\Omega_{j}\backslash\gamma$, $j=1,2$, $\partial_{n}$ and $\partial_{n'}$ the unit outward normal vectors of $\Omega_{1}$ and $\Omega_{2}$ respectively ($\partial_{n'}=-\partial_{n}$ on $\gamma$). $$\left \{\begin{array}{ll}\label{s1}
\partial_{t}u-\triangle u=0&\mbox{in}\,(0,\infty)\times \Omega_{1},\\
\partial_{t}^{2}v-\triangle v=0&\mbox{in}\,(0,\infty)\times \Omega_{2},\\
u=0&\mbox{on}\,(0,\infty)\times\Gamma_{1},\\
v=0&\mbox{on}\,(0,\infty)\times\Gamma_{2},\\
u=\partial_{t}v,\quad
\partial_{n}u=-\partial_{n'}v&\mbox{on}\,(0,\infty)\times \gamma,\\
u|_{t=0}=u_{0}\in L^{2}(\Omega_{1})&\mbox{in}\,\Omega_{1},\\
v|_{t=0}=v_{0}\in H^{1}(\Omega_{2}), \quad
\partial_{t}v|_{t=0}=v_{1}\in L^{2}(\Omega_{2})&\mbox{in}\,\Omega_{2}.
\end{array} \right.$$ In this system, $u$ may be viewed as the velocity of fluid; while $v$ and $\partial_{t}v$ represent respectively the displacement and velocity of the structure. That’s why the transmission condition $u=\partial_{t}v$ is considered as the natural condition. For the modelisation subject, we refer to [@RZZ] and [@ZZ].
System (\[s1\]) is introduced by Zhang and Zuazua [@ZZ]. The same system was considered by Rauch, Zhang and Zuazua in [@RZZ] but for simplified transmission condition $u=v$ on the interface instead of $u=\partial_{t}v$. They prove, under a suitable Geometric Control Condition (GCC) (see [@BLR]), a polynomial decay result. Zhang and Zuazua in [@ZZ] prove, without GCC, a logarithmic decay result. Duyckaerts in [@TD] improves these results.
For system (\[s1\]), Zhang and Zuazua in [@ZZ], show the lack of uniform decay and they prove, under GCC, a polynomial decay result. Without geometric conditions, they analyze the difficulty to prove the logarithmic decay result. This difficulty is mainly due to the lack of gain regularity of wave component $v$ near the interface $\gamma$ (see [@ZZ], Remark 19) which means that the embedding of the domain $D(\mathcal{A})$ of dissipative operator in the energy space is not compact (see [@ZZ], Theorem 1). In [@TD], Duyckaerts improves the polynomial decay result under GCC and confirms the same obstacle to show the logarithmic decay for solution of (\[s1\]) without GCC. In this paper we are interested with this problem.
There is an extensive literature on the stabilization of PDEs and on the Logarithmic decay of the energy ([@MB2], [@MB] [@MB1], [@L], [@LR2], [@LR1] and the references cited therein) and this paper use a part of the idea developed in [@MB].
Here we recall the mathematical frame work for this problem (see [@ZZ]).
Define the energy space $H$ and the operator $\mathcal{A}$ on $H$, of domain $D(\mathcal{A})$ by $$H=\left\{
U_{0}=(u_{0},v_{0},v_{1})\in L^{2}(\Omega_{1})\times
H^{1}_{\Gamma_{2}}(\Omega_{2})\times L^{2}(\Omega_{2})\right\}$$ when $H^{1}_{\Gamma_{2}}(\Omega_{2}) $ is defined as the space $$H^{1}_{\Gamma_{2}}(\Omega_{2})= \left\{ v_{0}\in H^{1}(\Omega_{2}), v_{0}|_{\Gamma_{2}}=0\right\},$$ $$\mathcal{A}U_{0}=( \triangle u_{0},v_{1}, \triangle v_{0})$$ $$\begin{aligned}
D(\mathcal{A})=\{ U_{0}\in H,\, u_{0}\in
H^{1}(\Omega_{1}),\, \triangle u_{0}\in L^{2}(\Omega_{1}),\,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\\\
v_{1}\in H^{1}_{\Gamma_{2}}(\Omega_{2}),\, \triangle v_{0}\in
L^{2}(\Omega_{2}),\,
u_{0}|_{\gamma}=v_{1}|_{\gamma},\,\partial_{n}u_{0}|_{\gamma}=-\partial
_{n}v_{0}|_{\gamma}\}.\end{aligned}$$ System (\[s1\]) may thus be rewritten in the abstract form $$\partial_{t}U= \mathcal{A}U,\quad\quad U(t)=(u(t),v(t),\partial_{t}v(t)).$$ For any solution $(u,v,\partial_{t}v)$ of system (\[s1\]), we have a natural energy $$E(t)=E(u,v,\partial_{t}v)(t)=\frac{1}{2}\left( \int_{\Omega_{1}}{\left\vertu(t)\right\vert}^{2}dx+
\int_{\Omega_{2}}{\left\vert\partial_{t}v(t)\right\vert}^{2}dx+
\int_{\Omega_{2}}{\left\vert\nabla v(t)\right\vert}^{2}dx \right).$$ By means of the classical energy method, we have $$\frac{d}{dt} E(t)=-\int_{\Omega_{1}}{\left\vert\nabla u\right\vert}^{2}dx.$$ Therefore the energy of (\[s1\]) is decreasing with respect to $t$, the dissipation coming from the heat component $u$. Our main goal is to prove a logarithmic decay without any geometric restrictions.
As Duyckaerts [@TD] did for the simplified model, the idea is, first, to use a known result of Burq (see [@NB]) which links, for dissipative operators, logarithmic decay to resolvent estimates with exponential loss; secondly to prove, following the work of Bellassoued in [@MB], a new Carleman inequality near the interface $\gamma$.
The main results are given by Theorem \[TR\] for resolvent and Theorem \[DE\] for decay.
\[TR\] There exists $C>0$, such that for every $\mu \in {\mathbb{R}}$ with ${\left\vert\mu\right\vert}$ large,\
we have $$\label{R}
{\left\Vert(\mathcal{A}-i\mu)^{-1}\right\Vert}_{\mathcal{L}(H)}\leq Ce^{C{\left\vert\mu\right\vert}}.$$
\[DE\] There exists $C>0$, such that the energy of a smooth solution of (\[s1\]) decays at logarithmic speed $$\label{d}
\sqrt{E(t)}\leq \frac{C}{\log(t+2)}{\left\VertU\right\Vert}_{D(\mathcal{A})}.$$
Burq in ([@NB], Theorem 3) and Duyckaerts in ([@TD], Section 7) show that to prove Theorem \[DE\] it suffices to show Theorem \[TR\].
The strategy of the proof of Theorem \[TR\] is the following. A new Carleman estimate shown near the interface $\gamma$ implies an interpolation inequality given by Theorem \[II\]. Theorem \[II\] implies Theorem \[TI\] which gives an estimate of the wave component by the heat one and which is the key point of the proof of Theorem \[TR\].
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we show, from Theorem \[TI\], Theorem \[TR\] and we explain how Theorem \[II\] implies Theorem \[TI\]. In section 3, we begin by stating the new Carleman estimate and explain how this estimate implies Theorem \[II\]. We give then the proof of this Carleman estimate. Section 4 is devoted to the proof of important estimates stated in Theorem \[t2\] in the proof of Carleman estimate. Appendices A and B are devoted to prove some technical results that will be used along the paper.\
\
[**[Acknowledgment]{}**]{}\
\
Sincere thanks to professor Luc Robbiano for inspiring question, his greatly contribution to this work and for his careful reading of the manuscript. I want to thank also professor Mourad Bellassoued for his proposition to work in this domain.
Proof of Theorem \[TR\]
=======================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[TR\]. We start by stating Theorem \[TI\]. Then we will explain how this Theorem implies Theorem \[TR\]. Finally, we give the proof of Theorem \[TI\].
Let $\mu$ be a real number such that ${\left\vert\mu\right\vert}$ is large, and assume $$\label{s2}
F=(\mathcal{A}-i\mu)U, \quad U=(u_{0}, v_{0}, v_{1})\in
D(\mathcal{A}),\quad\quad F=(f_{0},g_{0}, g_{1})\in H$$ The equation (\[s2\]) yields $$\left
\{\begin{array}{rclc}\label{s12}
(\triangle-i\mu) u_{0}&=&f_{0}& \mbox{in}\, \Omega_{1},\\
(\triangle+\mu^{2}) v_{0}&=&g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}& \mbox{in}\, \Omega_{2},\\
v_{1}&=&g_{0}+i\mu v_{0}&\mbox{in}\, \Omega_{2},
\end{array} \right.$$ with the following boundary conditions $$\label{bis}
\left \{\begin{array}{lcl}
u_{0}|_{\Gamma_{1}}=0,\,\, v_{0}|_{\Gamma_{2}}=0 &&\\
op(b_{1})u=u_{0}-i\mu v_{0}&=&g_{0}|_{\gamma},\\
op(b_{2})u=\partial_{n}u_{0}-\partial_{n}v_{0}&=&0|_{\gamma}.
\end{array} \right.$$ To proof Theorem \[TR\], we begin by stating this result
\[TI\] Let $U=(u_{0}, v_{0}, v_{1})\in D(\mathcal{A})$ satisfying equation (\[s12\]) and (\[bis\]). Then there exists constants $C>0$, $c_{1}>0$ and $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$ we have the following estimate $$\label{s11}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}\leq
Ce^{c_{1}\mu}\left({\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+
{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})} \right).$$
Moreover, from the first equation of system (\[s12\]), we have $$\int_{\Omega_{1}}(-\triangle +i\mu)u_{0}\overline{u_{0}}dx={\left\Vert\nabla u_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+i\mu
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}-\int_{\gamma}\partial_{n}u_{0}\overline{u_{0}}d\sigma
.$$Since $u_{0}|_{\gamma}=g_{0}+i\mu v_{0}$ and $\partial_{n}u_{0}=-\partial_{n'}v_{0}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s13}
\int_{\Omega_{1}}(-\triangle
+i\mu)u_{0}\overline{u}_{0}dx={\left\Vert\nabla
u_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+i\mu
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}-i\mu\int_{\gamma}\partial_{n'}v_{0}\overline{v}_{0}d\sigma
+\int_{\gamma}\partial_{n'}v_{0}\overline{g}_{0}d\sigma.\end{aligned}$$ From the second equation of system (\[s12\]) and multiplying by $(-i\mu)$, we obtain $$\label{s14}
i\mu\int_{\Omega_{2}}(\triangle+\mu^{2})v_{0}\overline{v}_{0}dx=-i\mu{\left\Vert\nabla
v_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+i\mu^{3}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+i\mu\int_{\gamma}\partial_{n'}v_{0}\overline{v}_{0}d\sigma.$$ Adding (\[s13\]) and (\[s14\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega_{1}}(-\triangle
+i\mu)u_{0}\overline{u}_{0}dx+i\mu\int_{\Omega_{2}}(\triangle+\mu^{2})v_{0}\overline{v}_{0}dx=
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\
i\mu {\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+{\left\Vert\nabla
u_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}-i\mu{\left\Vert\nabla
v_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+i\mu^{3}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+\int_{\gamma}\partial_{n'}v_{0}\overline{g}_{0}d\sigma.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the real part of this expression, we get $$\label{s15}
{\left\Vert\nabla u_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}\leq {\left\Vert (\triangle
-i\mu)u_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+
{\left\Vert(\triangle+\mu^{2})v_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+
{\left\vert\int_{\gamma}\partial_{n'}v_{0} \overline{g}_{0}d\sigma\right\vert}.$$ Recalling that $ \triangle v_{0}=g_{0}+i\mu g_{0}-\mu^{2}v_{0}$ and using the trace lemma (Lemma 3.4 in [@TD]), we obtain $${\left\Vert\partial_{n}v_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{-\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma)}\leq C\left( \mu^{2}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}
+ {\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}\right).$$ Combining with (\[s15\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert\nabla u_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}\leq {\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+
{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\nonumber\\+ \left(
\mu^{2}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+ {\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}\right){\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert\nabla u_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}\leq
\frac{C}{\epsilon} {\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+
\epsilon{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+
\frac{C}{\epsilon} {\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+
\epsilon {\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}~~~~~~~~
\nonumber\\+
\left(\mu^{2}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+ {\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}\right){\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma)}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we need to use this result shown in Appendix A.
\[le1\] Let $\mathcal{O}$ be a bounded open set of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. Then there exists $C>0$ such that for $u$ and $f$ satisfying $
(\triangle-i\mu)u=f$ in $ \mathcal{O}$, $\mu\geq 1$, we have the following estimate $$\label{le11}{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\mathcal{O})}\leq
C\left({\left\Vert\nabla u\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\mathcal{O})}+
{\left\Vertf\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\mathcal{O})}\right).$$
Using this Lemma, we obtain, for $\epsilon$ small enough $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}\leq C {\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+
C_{\epsilon} {\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+
\epsilon {\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}
~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\\+ \left(\mu^{2} {\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+ {\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}\right){\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma)}.\end{aligned}$$ Then there exists $c_{3}>>c_{1}$ such that $$\label{s16}
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}\leq
C\left({\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+
\epsilon e^{-c_{3}\mu}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+C_{\epsilon}
e^{-c_{3}\mu}{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+e^{c_{3}\mu}{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}
\right).$$ Inserting in (\[s11\]), we obtain, for $\epsilon$ small enough $$\label{s17}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}\leq
Ce^{c\mu}\left({\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+
{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}\right).$$ Combining (\[s16\]) and (\[s17\]), we obtain $$\label{s18}
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}\leq
Ce^{c\mu}\left({\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+
{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}\right).$$ Recalling that $ v_{1}=g_{0}+i\mu v_{0}$ and using (\[s17\]), we obtain $$\label{s19}
{\left\Vertv_{1}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}\leq
Ce^{c\mu}\left({\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+
{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}\right).$$ Combining (\[s17\]), (\[s18\]) and (\[s19\]), we obtain Theorem \[TR\].\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$ [**Proof of Theorem \[TI\]**]{}\
\
Estimate (\[s11\]) is consequence of two important results. The first is a known result shown by Lebeau and Robbiano in [@LR] and the second one is given by Theorem \[II\] and proved in section 3.\
Let $0<\epsilon_{1}<\epsilon_{2}$ and $V_{\epsilon_{j}}$, $j=1,2$, such that $V_{\epsilon_{j}}=\{x\in\Omega_{2},\,\,
d(x,\gamma)<\epsilon_{j}\}$.\
Recalling that $(\triangle+\mu^{2})v_{0}=g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}$, then for all $D>0$, there exists $C>0$ and $ \nu\in ]0,1[$ such that we have the following estimate (see [@LR]) $$\label{a1}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2}\backslash V_{\epsilon_{1}})}\leq
Ce^{D\mu}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{1-\nu}\left({\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(V_{\epsilon_{2}})}\right)^{\nu}$$ Moreover we have the following result shown in section 3.
\[II\] There exists $C>0$, $c_{1}>0$, $c_{2}>0$, $\epsilon_{2}>0$ and $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$, we have the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{II1}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(V_{\epsilon_{2}})}&\leq& C
e^{c_{1}\mu}\left[{\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+
{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}\right]\nonumber\\\nonumber\\&+&C
e^{-c_{2}\mu}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Combining (\[a1\]) and (\[II1\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a3}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2}\backslash
V_{\epsilon_{2}})}^{2}\leq C
\epsilon e^{D\mu}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+
\frac{C}{\epsilon}{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+
\frac{C}{\epsilon}e^{-c_{2}\mu}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}~~~~\nonumber\\
+\frac{C}{\epsilon}e^{c_{1}\mu}\left[{\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}
+ {\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Adding (\[II1\]) and (\[a3\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}\leq
C\epsilon e^{D\mu} {\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+C_{\epsilon}{\left\Vert
g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+C_{\epsilon}e^{-c_{2}\mu}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\+C_{\epsilon}e^{c_{1}\mu}\left[{\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+
{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}\right].\end{aligned}$$ We fixe $ \epsilon$ small enough and $D<c_{2}$, then there exists $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu\geq \mu_{0}$, we obtain (\[s11\]).\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
Carleman estimate and Consequence
=================================
In this part, we show the new Carleman estimate and we prove Theorem \[II\] which is consequence of this estimate.
State of Carleman estimate
--------------------------
In this subsection we state the Carleman estimate which is the starting point of the proof of the main result. Let $u=(u_{0}, v_{0})$ satisfies the equation $$\left \{\begin{array}{lc}\label{e1}
-(\triangle+\mu)u_{0}=f_{1}&\mbox{in}\, \Omega_{1},\\
-(\triangle+\mu^{2})v_{0}=f_{2}&\mbox{in}\, \Omega_{2},\\
op(B_{1})u=u_{0}-i\mu v_{0}=e_{1}&\mbox{on}\,\gamma,\\
op(B_{2})u=\partial_{n}u_{0}-\partial_{n}v_{0}=e_{2}&\mbox{on}\gamma,
\end{array}
\right.$$ We will proceed like Bellassoued in [@MB], we will reduce the problem of transmission as a particular case of a diagonal system define only on one side of the interface with boundary conditions.
We define the Sobolev spaces with a parameter $\mu$, $H_{\mu}^{s}$ by $$u(x,\mu)\in H_{\mu}^{s}\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad\langle \xi,\mu\rangle^{s} \widehat{u}(\xi,\mu)\in L^{2},\quad
\langle \xi,\mu\rangle^{2}={\left\vert\xi\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{2},$$ $ \widehat{u}$ denoted the partial Fourier transform with respect to $x$.\
For a differential operator $$P(x,D,\mu)=\sum_{{\left\vert\alpha\right\vert}+k\leq m} a_{\alpha,k}(x)\mu^{k}D^{\alpha},$$ we note the associated symbol by $$p(x,\xi,\mu)=\sum_{{\left\vert\alpha\right\vert}+k\leq m} a_{\alpha,k}(x)\mu^{k}\xi^{\alpha}.$$ The class of symbols of order $m$ is defined by $$S_{\mu}^{m}=\left\{ p(x,\xi,\mu)\in C^{\infty}, {\left\vertD_{x}^{\alpha}D_{\xi}^{\beta}p(x,\xi,\mu)\right\vert}\leq C_{\alpha,\beta} \langle \xi,\mu\rangle^{m-{\left\vert\beta\right\vert}}\right\}$$ and the class of tangential symbols of order $m$ by $$\mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{m}=\left\{ p(x,\xi',\mu)\in C^{\infty}, {\left\vertD_{x}^{\alpha}D_{\xi'}^{\beta}p(x,\xi',\mu)\right\vert}\leq C_{\alpha,\beta} \langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{m-{\left\vert\beta\right\vert}}\right\}.$$ We denote by $ \mathcal{O}^{m}$ (resp. $ \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{m}$) the set of differentials operators $ P=op (p)$, $ p\in S_{\mu}^{m}$ (resp. $\mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{m}$).\
We shall frequently use the symbol $\Lambda=\langle \xi',\mu\rangle=({\left\vert\xi'\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}$.\
We shall need to use the following G[å]{}rding estimate: if $p \in
\mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{2} $ satisfies for $C_{0}>0$, $p(x,\xi',\mu)+\overline{p}(x,\xi',\mu)\geq C_{0}\Lambda^{2}$, then $$\label{e3}
\exists\, C_{1}>0,\,\, \exists\, \mu_{0}>0,\,\, \forall \mu
>\mu_{0}, \forall u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(K),\,\, Re(P(x,D',\mu)u,u)\geq
C_{1} {\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}.$$
Let $x=(x',x_{n})\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}\times{\mathbb{R}}$. In the normal geodesic system given locally by $$\Omega_{2}=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}, x_{n}>0\},\quad\quad x_{n}=dist(x, \partial \Omega_{1})=dist(x,x'),$$ the Laplacian is written in the form$$\triangle=- A_{2}(x,D)=-
\left(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+ R(+x_{n},x',D_{x'})\right).$$ The Laplacian on $\Omega_{1}$ can be identified locally to an operator in $\Omega_{2}$ gives by $$\triangle= -A_{1}(x,D)=-\left(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+
R(-x_{n},x',D_{x'})\right).$$ We denote the operator, with $C^{\infty}$ coefficients defined in $\Omega_{2}=\{x_{n}>0\}$, by $$A(x,D)= \mbox{diag} \Big( A_{1}(x,D_{x}),A_{2}(x,D_{x})\Big)$$ and the tangential operator by $$R(x,D_{x'})=\mbox{diag}\Big(R(-x_{n},x',D_{x'}), R(+x_{n},x',D_{x'})\Big)=\mbox{diag}\Big(R_{1}(x,D_{x'}), R_{2}(x,D_{x'})\Big).$$ The principal symbol of the differential operator $A(x,D)$ satisfies\
$a(x,\xi)=\xi_{n}^{2}+r(x,\xi')$, where $
r(x,\xi')=\mbox{diag}\Big(r_{1}(x,\xi'),r_{2}(x,\xi') \Big)$ is the principal symbol of $R(x,D_{x'})$ and the quadratic form $r_{j}(x,\xi')$, $j=1,2$, satisfies $$\exists\, C>0,\quad \forall (x,\xi'),\quad r_{j}(x,\xi')\geq
C {\left\vert\xi'\right\vert}^{2},\quad j=1,2.$$ We denote $P(x,D)$ the matrix operator with $C^{\infty}$ coefficients defined in\
$\Omega_{2}=\{x_{n}>0\}$, by $$P(x,D)=\mbox{diag}(P_{1}(x,D),P_{2}(x,D))= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
A_{1}(x,D)-\mu&0\\
0&A_{2}(x,D)-\mu^{2}\\
\end{array}
\right).$$
Let $\varphi(x)=\mbox{diag}(\varphi_{1}(x),\varphi_{2}(x))$, with $ \varphi_{j}$, $j=1,2$, are $C^{\infty}$ functions in $ \Omega_{j}$. For $\mu$ large enough, we define the operator $$A(x,D,\mu)= e^{\mu
\varphi}A(x,D)e^{-\mu \varphi}:= op(a)$$ where $a\in S_{\mu}^{2}$ is the principal symbol given by $$a(x,\xi,\mu)=\Big(\xi_{n}+i\mu\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial x_{n}}\Big)^{2}+r\Big(x,\xi'+i\mu\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial x'}\Big).$$ Let $$op(\tilde{q}_{2,j})=\frac{1}{2}(A_{j}+A_{j}^{\ast}),\quad\quad
op(\tilde{q}_{1,j})=\frac{1}{2i}(A_{j}-A_{j}^{\ast}),\quad\quad
j=1,2$$ its real and imaginary part. Then we have $$\left \{\begin{array}{l}\label{e4}
A_{j}=op(\tilde{q}_{2,j})+i op(\tilde{q}_{1,j}),\\\\
\tilde{q}_{2,j}=\xi_{n}^{2}+q_{2,j}(x,\xi',\mu),\quad
\tilde{q}_{1,j}=2\mu\frac{\partial \varphi_{j}}{\partial
x_{n}}\xi_{n}+2\mu q_{1,j}(x,\xi',\mu),\quad j=1,2,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $q_{1,j}\in \mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{1}$ and $ q_{2,j}\in
\mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{2}$ are two tangential symbols given by $$\left \{\begin{array}{l}\label{e5}
q_{2,j}(x,\xi',\mu)=r_{j}(x,\xi')-(\mu \frac{\partial \varphi_{j}}{\partial x_{n}})^{2}-\mu^{2}r_{j}(x,\frac{\partial \varphi_{j}}{\partial x'}),\\\\
q_{1,j}(x,\xi',\mu)=\tilde{r}_{j}(x,\xi',\frac{\partial
\varphi_{j}}{\partial x'}),\quad j=1,2,
\end{array}
\right.$$ with $\tilde {r}(x,\xi',\eta')$ is the bilinear form associated to the quadratic form $r(x,\xi')$.
In the next, $P(x,D,\mu)$ is the matrix operator with $C^{\infty}$ coefficients defined in $\Omega_{2}=\{x_{n}>0\}$ by $$\label{e6} P(x,D,\mu)=\mbox{diag}(P_{1}(x,D,\mu),P_{2}(x,D,\mu))= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
A_{1}(x,D,\mu)-\mu&0\\
0&A_{2}(x,D,\mu)-\mu^{2}\\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $ u=(u_{0},v_{0})$ satisfies the equation $$\left \{\begin{array}{lc}\label{e16}
Pu=f&\mbox{in}\, \left\{x_{n}>0\right\},\\
op(b_{1})u=u_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}-i\mu v_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}=e_{1}&\mbox{on}\, \left\{x_{n}=0\right\},\\
op(b_{2})u=\left(D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial
x_{n}}\right)u_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}+\left(D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{2}}{\partial
x_{n}}\right)v_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}=e_{2}&\mbox{on}\,\left\{x_{n}=0\right\},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $f=(f_{1},f_{2})$, $ e=(e_{1},e_{2})$ and $B=\left(op(b_{1}),
op(b_{2})\right)$. We note $p_{j}(x,\xi,\mu)$, $j=1,2$, the associated symbol of $P_{j}(x,D,\mu)$.
We suppose that $\varphi$ satisfies $$\left \{\begin{array}{ll}\label{h1}
\varphi_{1}(x)=\varphi_{2}(x)&
\mbox{on}\,\{x_{n}=0\}\\\\
{\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}>0 &
\mbox{on}\,\{x_{n}=0\}\\\\
\left({\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}\right)^{2}-
\left({\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}\right)^{2}>1&
\mbox{on}\,\{x_{n}=0\}
\end{array}
\right.$$ and the following condition of hypoellipticity of Hörmander: $\exists\, C>0,\,\,\forall x\in K \\\forall\xi\in
{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\backslash\{0\}, $ $$\label{h2}
\,\, \left( \mbox{Re} p_{j}=0\quad\mbox{et}\quad
\frac{1}{2\mu}\mbox{Im}p_{j}=0\right) \,\,\Rightarrow\,\,
\left\{\mbox{Re} p_{j}, \frac{1}{2\mu}\mbox{Im}p_{j}\right\}\geq C
\langle \xi,\mu\rangle^{2},$$ where $\{f,g\}(x,\xi)=\sum \left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial
\xi_{j}} \frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{j}} -\frac{\partial
f}{\partial x_{j}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial \xi_{j}} \right) $ is the Poisson bracket of two functions $f(x,\xi)$ and $g(x,\xi)$ and $K$ is a compact in $\Omega_{2}$.
We denote by $${\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}={\left\Vertu\right\Vert},\quad {\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{k,\mu}^{2}=\sum_{j=0}^{k}\mu^{2\left( k-j\right) }
{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{H^{j}(\Omega_{2})}^{2},
\quad {\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{k}^{2}={\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{k})u\right\Vert}^{2},$$ $${\left\vertu\right\vert}_{k,\mu}^{2}={\left\Vertu|_{x_{n}=0}\right\Vert}_{k,\mu}^{2},
\quad {\left\vertu\right\vert}_{k}^{2}={\left\vertu|_{x_{n}=0}\right\vert}_{k}^{2},\,\, k\in
{\mathbb{R}}\quad\mbox{and}\quad{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}=
{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}u\right\vert}^{2}.$$ We are now ready to state our result.
\[t3\] Let $\varphi$ satisfies (\[h1\]) and (\[h2\]). Let $w\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})
$ and $ \chi\in
C_{0}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1})$ such that $\chi=1$ in the support of $w$. Then there exists constants $C>0$ and $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$ we have the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tt}
\mu{\left\Vertw\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{2}{\left\vertw\right\vert}^{2}_{\frac{1}{2}}+\mu^{2}{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}w\right\vert}^{2}_{-\frac{1}{2}}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
\leq C\left( {\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)w\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\vertop(b_{1})w\right\vert}^{2}_{\frac{1}{2}}+\mu{\left\vertop(b_{2})w\right\vert}^{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
\[t4\] Let $\varphi$ satisfies (\[h1\]) and (\[h2\]). Then there exists constants $C>0$ and $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$ we have the following estimate $$\label{t41}
\mu {\left\Verte^{\mu \varphi}h\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}}\leq C\left( {\left\Verte^{\mu
\varphi}P(x,D)h\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\verte^{\mu\varphi}op(B_{1})h\right\vert}^{2}_{H^{\frac{1}{2}}}+\mu
{\left\verte^{\mu\varphi}op(B_{2})h\right\vert}^{2}\right),$$ for any $h\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$.
[**[Proof.]{}**]{}\
Let $w=e^{\mu\varphi}h$. Recalling that $
P(x,D,\mu)w=e^{\mu\varphi}P(x,D)e^{-\mu\varphi}w$ and using (\[tt\]), we obtain (\[t41\]).
Proof of Theorem \[II\]
-----------------------
We denote $x=(x',x_{n})$ a point in $\Omega$. Let $x_{0}=(0,-\delta)$, $\delta>0$. We set $$\psi(x)={\left\vertx-x_{0}\right\vert}^{2}-\delta^{2}\qquad \mbox{and}$$ $$\varphi_{1}(x)=e^{-\beta\psi(x',-x_{n})}, \quad \varphi_{2}(x)=e^{-\beta(\psi(x)-\alpha x_{n})},\quad \beta>0,\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\frac{\delta}{2}<\alpha<2\delta.$$ The weight function $
\varphi=diag(\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2})$ has to satisfy (\[h1\]) and (\[h2\]). With these choices, we have $\varphi_{1}|_{x_{n}=0}=\varphi_{2}|_{x_{n}=0}$ and $\frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}|_{x_{n}=0}>0$. It remains to verify $$\label{1c}
\left(\frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}} \right)^{2}-
\left(\frac{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}
\right)^{2}>1\quad \mbox{on}\,\{x_{n}=0\}$$ and the condition (\[h2\]). We begin by condition (\[h2\]) and we compute for $\varphi_{1}$ and $p_{1}$ (the computation for $\varphi_{2}$ and $p_{2}$ is made in the same way). Recalling that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\mbox{Re} p_{1},
\frac{1}{2\mu}\mbox{Im}p_{1}\right\}(x,\xi)=\frac{\mbox{Im}}{2\mu}\left[
\partial_{\xi}p_{1}(x,\xi-i\mu \varphi'_{1}(x))\,\partial_{x}p_{1}(x,\xi+i\mu \varphi'_{1}(x))\right]
\\\\+^{t}\left[ \partial_{\xi}p_{1}(x,\xi-i\mu
\varphi'_{1}(x))\right]\varphi''_{1}(x)\left[\partial_{\xi}p_{1}(x,\xi-i\mu
\varphi'_{1}(x)) \right].\end{aligned}$$ We replace $\varphi_{1}(x)$ by $\varphi_{1}(x)= e^{-\beta
\psi(x',-x_{n})}$, $\beta>0$, we obtain, by noting $\xi=-\beta
\varphi_{1}(x)\eta$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{\mbox{Re} p_{1},
\frac{1}{2\mu}\mbox{Im}p_{1}\right\}(x,\xi)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\\\
=(-\beta \varphi_{1})^{3}\left[\left\{\mbox{Re}
p_{1}(x,\eta-i\mu\psi'),\frac{1}{2\mu}\mbox{Im}p_{1}(x,\eta+i\mu\psi')\right\}(x,\eta)
-\beta \left|\psi'(x) \partial_{\eta}p_{1}(x,\eta+i\mu\psi')\right|^{2}\right]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\left|\psi'(x)
\partial_{\eta}p_{1}(x,\eta+i\mu\psi')\right|^{2}=4\left[ \mu^{2}{\left\vertp_{1}(x,\psi')\right\vert}^{2}+
{\left\vert\tilde{p}_{1}(x,\eta,\psi')\right\vert}^{2}\right]$$ where $ \tilde{p}_{1}(x,\eta,\psi')$ is the bilinear form associated to the quadratic form $p_{1}(x,\eta)$. We have $$\left( \mbox{Re} p_{1}=0\quad\mbox{et}\quad
\frac{1}{2\mu}\mbox{Im}p_{1}=0\right) \Longleftrightarrow
p_{1}(x,\eta+i\mu\psi')=0,$$
- If $\mu= 0$, we have $ p_{1}(x,\xi)=0$ which is impossible. Indeed, we have\
$ p_{1}(x,\xi)\geq C{\left\vert\xi\right\vert}^{2}$, $\forall
(x,\xi)\in K \times{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, $K$ compact in $\Omega_{2}$.
- If $\mu\neq 0$, we have $ \tilde{p}_{1}(x,\eta,\psi')=0$.\
Then $ \left|\psi'(x)
\partial_{\eta}p_{1}(x,\eta+i\mu\psi')\right|^{2}=4\mu^{2}{\left\vertp_{1}(x,\psi')\right\vert}^{2}>0$. On the other hand, we have $$\left\{\mbox{Re}
p_{1}(x,\eta-i\mu\psi'),\frac{1}{2\mu}\mbox{Im}p_{1}(x,\eta+i\mu\psi')\right\}(x,\eta)\leq
C_{1}({\left\vert\eta\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{2}{\left\vert\psi'\right\vert}^{2})$$ where $C_{1}$ is a positive constant independent of $\psi'$. Then for $\beta\geq
C_{1}$, we satisfy the condition (\[h2\]).
Now let us verify (\[1c\]). We have, on $\{x_{n}=0\}$, $$\left(\frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}} \right)^{2}-
\left(\frac{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}
\right)^{2}=\beta^{2}\alpha(4\delta-\alpha)e^{-2\beta\psi}.$$ Then to satisfy (\[1c\]), it suffices to choose $\beta=\frac{M}{\delta}$ where $M>0$ such that $\frac{M}{\delta}\geq
C_{1}$.
We now choose $r_{1}<r'_{1}<r_{2}<0=\psi(0)<r'_{2}<r_{3}<r'_{3}$. We denote $$w_{j}=\{ x\in\Omega,\, r_{j}<\psi(x)<r'_{j}\} \quad\mbox{and}\quad T_{x_{0}}=w_{2}\cap\Omega_{2}.$$ We set $R_{j}=e^{-\beta r_{j}}$, $ R'_{j}=e^{-\beta r'_{j}} $, $j=1,2,3$.\
Then $ R'_{3}<R_{3}<R'_{2}<R_{2}<R'_{1}<R_{1}$. We need also to introduce a cut-off function $ \tilde{\chi}\in
C_{0}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1})$ such that $$\tilde{\chi}(\rho)=\left \{\begin{array}{lcc}
0&\mbox{if}& \rho\leq r_{1},\quad \rho\geq r'_{3}\\\\
1&\mbox{if}& \rho \in [r'_{1}, r_{3}].\end{array} \right.$$ Let $\tilde{u}=(
\tilde{u}_{0},\tilde{v}_{0})=\tilde{\chi}u=(\tilde{\chi}u_{0},\tilde{\chi}v_{0})$. Then we get the following system $$\left \{\begin{array}{rcl}
(\triangle-i\mu) \tilde{u}_{0}&=&\tilde{\chi}f_{0}+ [\triangle-i\mu,\tilde{\chi}]u_{0}\\
(\triangle+\mu^{2})\tilde{v}_{0}&=&\tilde{\chi}(g_{1}+i\mu g_{0})+ [\triangle+\mu^{2}, \tilde{\chi}]v_{0},\\
\tilde{v}_{1}&=&g_{0}+i\mu \tilde{v}_{0},
\end{array} \right.$$ with the following boundary conditions $$\left \{\begin{array}{lcl}
\tilde{u}_{0}|_{\Gamma_{1}}=\tilde{v}_{0}|_{\Gamma_{2}}&=&0,\\
op(b_{1})\tilde{u}=\tilde{u}_{0}-i\mu \tilde{v}_{0}&=&(\tilde{\chi}g_{0})|_{\gamma},\\
op(b_{2})\tilde{u}&=&([\partial_{n},\tilde{\chi}]u_{0}-[\partial_{n},
\tilde{\chi}]v_{0})|_{\gamma}.
\end{array} \right.$$ From the Carleman estimate of Corollary \[t4\] , we have $$\label{s3}
\mu{\left\Verte^{\mu\varphi}\tilde{u}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\Verte^{\mu \varphi_{1}}( \triangle-i\mu)\tilde{u}_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\Verte^{\mu \varphi_{2}}( \triangle+\mu^{2})\tilde{v}_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\verte^{\mu
\varphi}op(b_{1})\tilde{u}\right\vert}_{H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{2}+\mu{\left\verte^{\mu
\varphi}op(b_{2})\tilde{u}\right\vert}^{2} \right).$$ Using the fact $[\triangle-i\mu,\tilde{\chi}]$ is the first order operator supported in $ (w_{1} \cup w_{3}) \cap \Omega_{1}$, we have $$\label{s4}
{\left\Verte^{\mu \varphi_{1}}( \triangle-i\mu)\tilde{u}_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}\leq
C\left( e^{2\mu R_{1}}{\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+ e^{2\mu
R_{1}}{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}\right).$$ Recalling that $ [ \triangle+\mu^{2},\tilde{\chi}]$ is the first order operator supported in $(w_{1} \cup w_{3})\cap \Omega_{2}$, we show $$\label{s5}
{\left\Verte^{\mu \varphi_{2}}( \triangle+\mu^{2})\tilde{v}_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}\leq
C\left(e^{2\mu}{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+e^{2\mu
R_{3}}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2} \right).$$ From the trace formula and recalling that $op(b_{2})\tilde{u}$ is an operator of order zero and supported in $\{x_{n}=0\}\cap w_{3}$, we show $$\label{s6}
\mu{\left\verte^{\mu \varphi}op(b_{2})\tilde{u}\right\vert}^{2}\leq C e^{2\mu
R_{3}}{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega)}^{2}\leq C\left(e^{2\mu
R_{3}}{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+e^{2\mu
R_{3}}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2} \right).$$ Now we need to use this result shown in Appendix B
\[le2\] There exists $C>0$ such that for all $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $u\in
C_{0}^{\infty}(\Omega)$, we have $$\label{le21}
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{s})e^{\mu\varphi}u\right\Vert}\leq C e^{\mu
C}{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{s})u\right\Vert}.$$
Following this Lemma, we obtain $$\label{s7}
{\left\verte^{\mu \varphi}op(b_{1})\tilde{u}\right\vert}_{H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{2}\leq C
e^{2\mu c}{\left\vertg_{0}\right\vert}_{H^{\frac{1}{2}}}^{2}\leq C e^{2\mu
c}{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}.$$ Combining (\[s3\]), (\[s4\]), (\[s5\]), (\[s6\]) and (\[s7\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
C\mu e^{2\mu R'_{2}}{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(w_{2}\cap\Omega_{1})}+
C\mu e^{2\mu R'_{2}}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(T_{x_{0}})}\leq
C(e^{2\mu R_{1}}{\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+ e^{2\mu
R_{1}}{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}~~\\\\
+e^{2\mu}{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu g_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+e^{2\mu
R_{3}}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}+e^{2\mu
R_{3}}{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}^{2}+e^{2\mu
c}{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $R'_{2}<R_{1}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{s8}
{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(T_{x_{0}})}&\leq& C
e^{c_{1}\mu}\left[{\left\Vertf_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{1})}+
{\left\Vert g_{1}+i\mu
g_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{L^{2}(\Omega_{2})}+{\left\Vertg_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}+
{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{1})}\right]\nonumber\\\nonumber\\&+&C
e^{-c_{2}\mu}{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{H^{1}(\Omega_{2})}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\gamma$ is compact, then there exists a finite number of $T_{x_{0}}$. Let $V_{\epsilon_{2}} \subset\cup T_{x_{0}}$. Then we obtain (\[II1\])
Proof of Carleman estimate (Theorem \[t3\])
-------------------------------------------
In the first step, we state the following estimates
\[t2\] Let $ \varphi$ satisfies (\[h1\]) and (\[h2\]). Then there exists constants $C>0$ and $\mu_{0}$ such that for any $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$ we have the following estimates $$\label{k4}
\mu{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu
{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right)$$ and $$\label{tt2}
\mu{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}^{2}_{1}+\mu{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}\right),$$ for any $u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$.
In the second step, we need to prove this Lemma
\[ll\] There exists constants $C>0$ and $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$ we have the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lll}
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op( \Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(
\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}
~~~~\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
\leq C\left( {\left\Vert
P(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}^{2}_{1}+\mu{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ for any $ u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$.
[**Proof.**]{}\
We have $$P(x,D,\mu)=D_{x_{n}}^{2}+R+\mu C_{1}+\mu^{2}C_{0},$$ where $R\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{2}$, $C_{1}=c_{1}(x)D_{x_{n}}+T_{1}$, with $T_{1}\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{1}$ and $C_{0}\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{0}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\Vert(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+R)op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\\leq C\left(
{\left\VertPop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}
+\mu^{2}{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{2}{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{4}
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\begin{array} {l}\mu^{4}
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\mu^{3}{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2},\\
\mu^{2}{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C
\mu{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}u\right\Vert}^{2}\quad\mbox{and}\\
\mu^{2}{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}=\mu^{2}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}}op(\Lambda)u,\sqrt{\mu}u)\leq
C \left( \mu
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{3}{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}\right).\end{array}$$ Using the fact that ${\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}\simeq
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}u\right\Vert}^{2}$, we obtain $${\left\Vert(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+R)op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertPop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ Following (\[k4\]), we have $$\label{ll1}
{\left\Vert(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+R)op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertPop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\VertPu\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}\right).$$ We can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ll2}
Pop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u &=& op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})Pu+[P, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]u \nonumber \\
&=& op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})Pu+[R, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]u \nonumber\\
&+& \mu [C_{1}, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]u
+ \mu^{2}[C_{0}, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]u \nonumber\\
&=&op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})Pu+t_{1}+t_{2}+t_{3}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us estimate $t_{1}$, $t_{2}$ and $t_{3}$. We have $[R,
op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{\frac{1}{2}}
$, then following (\[k4\]), we have $$\label{ll4} {\left\Vertt_{1}\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C{\left\Vert
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left({\left\Vert
op(\Lambda)u\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}\right) \leq C\left(
{\left\VertPu\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}\right).$$ We have $t_{3}=\mu [C_{1}, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]u=\mu
[c_{1}(x)D_{x_{n}}, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]u+ \mu [T_{1},
op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]u$. Then following (\[k4\]), we obtain $$\label{ll5} {\left\Vertt_{2}\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left(
\mu^{-1}{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}\right)\leq
C\left({\left\VertPu\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}\right).$$ We have $ [C_{0}, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{-\frac{3}{2}}$, then following (\[k4\]), we obtain $$\label{ll6} {\left\Vert \mu^{2}[C_{0},
op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\mu {\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\VertPu\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}\right)$$ From (\[ll2\]), (\[ll4\]), (\[ll5\]) and (\[ll6\]), we have $${\left\Vert Pop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left({\left\VertPu\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}\right).$$ Inserting this inequality in (\[ll1\]), we obtain $$\label{ll7}
{\left\Vert(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+R)op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\VertPu\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}\right).$$ Moreover, we have $${\left\Vert(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+R)op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}={\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\VertRop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+2\mathcal{R}e(D_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u,Rop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u),$$ where $(., .)$ denoted the scalar product in $L^{2}$. By integration by parts, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ll10}
{\left\Vert(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+R)op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}={\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\VertRop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\\\nonumber\\+2\mathcal{R}e\left(i(D_{x_{n}}u,R
op(\Lambda^{-1})u)_{0}+i(D_{x_{n}}u, [ op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}}),R]
op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u)_{0}
\right)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\\\nonumber\\+2\mathcal{R}e\left((RD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u
)+ (
D_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u,[D_{x_{n}},R]op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u)\right)
.\end{aligned}$$ Since, we have $${\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}= (op(\Lambda^{2})op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u, op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u)=
\sum_{j\leq n-1}(D_{j}^{2}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )+ \mu^{2} ( op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u).$$ By integration by parts, we find $$\label{ll14}
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}= \sum_{j\leq
n-1}(D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{j}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )+ \mu^{2} {\left\Vert
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}= k+\mu^{2} {\left\Vert
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2} .$$ Let $\chi_{0}\in C_{0}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1})$ such that $ \chi_{0}=1$ in the support of $u$. We have $$k=\sum_{j\leq
n-1}(\chi_{0}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{j}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )+ \sum_{j\leq
n-1}((1-\chi_{0})D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{j}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u ).$$ Recalling that $\chi_{0}u=u$, we obtain $$\label{ll15}
k=\sum_{j\leq n-1}(\chi_{0}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{j}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )+\sum_{j\leq
n-1}([(1-\chi_{0}),D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})]u,D_{j}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )=k'+k".$$ Using the fact that $
[(1-\chi_{0}),D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})]\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $ D_{j}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{\frac{3}{2}}$, we show $$\label{ll16}
k"\leq C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u \right\Vert}^{2}.$$ Using the fact that $\sum_{j,k\leq n-1}\chi_{0}a_{j,k}D_{j}v
\overline{D_{k}v }\geq \delta \chi_{0}\sum_{j\leq
n-1}{\left\vertD_{j}v\right\vert}^{2}$, $\delta >0$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
k'\leq C\sum_{j,k\leq n-1}(\chi_{0}
a_{jk}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{k}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u
)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\\\\
\leq C\sum_{j,k\leq n-1}([\chi_{0},
a_{jk}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})]u,D_{k}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )+\sum_{j,k\leq
n-1}(a_{jk}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{k}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u ).\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $[\chi_{0},
a_{jk}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})]\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{\frac{1}{2}} $ and $ D_{k}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u \in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{\frac{3}{2}}$, we obtain $$\label{ll17}
k'\leq C\left(\sum_{j,k\leq
n-1}(a_{jk}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{k}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )+{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u \right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ By integratin by parts and recalling that $R=\sum_{j,k\leq
n-1}a_{j,k}D_{j}D_{k}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ll18}
\sum_{j,k\leq n-1}(a_{jk}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{k}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )&=& (Rop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u \\&+&\sum_{j,k\leq n-1}([ D_{k}, a_{jk}]
D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u)\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Since $[ D_{k}, a_{jk}] D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{\frac{3}{2}} $, then $$\sum_{j,k\leq n-1}([ D_{k}, a_{jk}]
D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u, op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u)\leq
C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u \right\Vert}^{2}.$$ Following (\[ll18\]), we obtain $$\label{ll19}
\sum_{j,k\leq n-1}(a_{jk}D_{j}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{k}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u )\leq
C\left((Rop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u, op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u)
+{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u \right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ Since $$(Rop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u, op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u)=
(Rop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u, op(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u)+ (
[op(\Lambda^{-1}), R]op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u,
op(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u) ).$$ Using the fact that $
[op(\Lambda^{-1}), R]op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and the Cauchy Schwartz inequality, we obtain $$\label{ll20}
(Rop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u, op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u)\leq
\epsilon C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u
\right\Vert}^{2}+\frac{C}{\epsilon}{\left\VertRop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}
+C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u\right\Vert}^{2}$$ Combining (\[ll14\]), (\[ll15\]), (\[ll16\]), (\[ll17\]), (\[ll19\]) and (\[ll20\]), we obtain $${\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u
\right\Vert}^{2}\leq \epsilon C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u
\right\Vert}^{2}+\frac{C}{\epsilon}{\left\VertRop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}
+C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)u\right\Vert}^{2}.$$ For $ \epsilon$ small enough, we obtain $$\label{ll11}
{\left\VertRop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\geq
C\left({\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u \right\Vert}^{2}-
\mu^{2}{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2} \right).$$ Using the same computations, we show $$\label{ll12}
(RD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u,D_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u)\geq
C\left( {\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u \right\Vert}^{2}-\mu{\left\Vert
D_{x_{n}}u\right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ Combining (\[ll10\]), (\[ll11\]) and (\[ll12\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ll8}
{\left\Vert(D_{x_{n}}^{2}+R)op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}&+&{\left\vert(D_{x_{n}}u,R
op(\Lambda^{-1})u)_{0}\right\vert}+ {\left\vert(D_{x_{n}}u, [
op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}}),R]
op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u)_{0}\right\vert}\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&+& {\left\vert(
D_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u,[D_{x_{n}},R]op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u)\right\vert}
+\mu{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\\\nonumber\\
&\geq& C\left( {\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\right)\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\label{ll9}
{\left\vert(D_{x_{n}}u,R op(\Lambda^{-1})u)_{0}\right\vert}+ {\left\vert(D_{x_{n}}u, [
op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}}),R] op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u)_{0}\right\vert}
\leq C\left(
{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}u\right\vert}^{2}+{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\right)=C{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}$$ and $$\label{ll13}
{\left\vert(
D_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u,[D_{x_{n}},R]op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u)\right\vert}\leq
C\mu{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}.$$ From (\[ll7\]), (\[ll8\]), (\[ll9\]), (\[ll13\]) and (\[k4\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+ {\left\VertD_{x_{n}}
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\\\
\leq C\left( {\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Following (\[tt2\]), we obtain (\[lll\]).\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[t3\].
Let $ \chi\in C_{0}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1})$ such that $\chi=1$ in the support of $w$ and $u=\chi op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})w$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ttt1}
Pu&=&op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})Pw+
[P,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w+P[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w
\nonumber\\
&=&op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})Pw +[P,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w
+D_{x_{n}}^{2}[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w \nonumber\\
&+& R[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w + \mu
c_{1}(x)D_{x_{n}}[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w \nonumber\\
&+& \mu T_{1}[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w
+\mu^{2}C_{0}[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w \nonumber\\
&=&op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})Pw
+[P,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w+a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{3}+a_{4}+a_{5}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us estimate $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$, $a_{3}$, $a_{4}$ and $a_{5}$. Recalling that $[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal {O}^{-\frac{3}{2}} $ and $\chi w=w$. Using the fact that $[D_{x_{n}}, T_{k}]\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{k}$ for all $T_{k}\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{k}$, we show $$\label{ttt2}
{\left\Verta_{1}\right\Vert}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{3}{2}})w\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{3}{2}})w\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{-\frac{3}{2}})w\right\Vert}^{2} \right)$$ and $$\label{ttt3}
{\left\Verta_{3}\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left( \mu^{2}
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{3}{2}})w\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{2}
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{-\frac{3}{2}})w\right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ We have $R[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{\frac{1}{2}}$, $T_{1}[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and\
$
C_{0}[\chi,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{-\frac{3}{2}}$. Then we obtain $$\label{ttt4}
{\left\Verta_{2}\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Verta_{4}\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Verta_{5}\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w\right\Vert}^{2}.$$ Using the same computations made in the proof of Lemma \[ll\] (cf $t_{1}$, $t_{2}$ and $t_{3}$ of (\[ll2\])), we show $$\label{ttt5}
{\left\Vert[P,op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\Vert
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}w\right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ Following (\[ttt1\]), (\[ttt2\]), (\[ttt3\]), (\[ttt4\]) and (\[ttt5\]), we obtain $$\label{ttt6}
{\left\VertPu\right\Vert}^{2}\leq
C\left(\mu^{-1}{\left\VertPw\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w\right\Vert}^{2}+
\mu^{-1}{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}w\right\Vert}^{2}+
\mu^{-1}{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-1})w \right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ We have $$op(b_{1})u=op(b_{1})\chi op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})w=op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})
op(b_{1})w+op(b_{1})[\chi, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w.$$ Recalling that $op(b_{1})\in
\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{1}$, we obtain $$\label{ttt7}
\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}_{1}^{2}=\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(\Lambda)op(b_{1})u\right\vert}^{2}\leq
C\left( \mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})op(b_{1})w
\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w \right\vert}^{2} \right).$$ We have $$op(b_{2})u=op(b_{2})\chi op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})w=op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})
op(b_{2})w+op(b_{2})[\chi, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w +[op(b_{2}),
op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w.$$ Recalling that $op(b_{2})\in
D_{x_{n}} +\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{1} $, we obtain $$\label{ttt8}
\mu{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}\leq C \left( \mu
{\left\vertop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})op(b_{2})w\right\vert}^{2}+\mu
{\left\vertop(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2}+ \mu
{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{3}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2} \right).$$ Moreover, we have $$\mu {\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}=\mu {\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1}+ \mu{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}u\right\vert}^{2}=\mu{\left\vertop(\Lambda)u\right\vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}u\right\vert}^{2}.$$ We can write $$op(\Lambda)u=op(\Lambda)\chi op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})w= op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w
+op(\Lambda)[\chi, op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})]w.$$ Then $$\mu {\left\vertop(\Lambda)u\right\vert}^{2}\geq \mu {\left\vert op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2}-C \mu {\left\vert op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2}\geq \mu {\left\vert op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2}- C\mu^{-1}{\left\vert op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2}.$$ For $\mu$ large enough, we obtain $$\label{ttt9}
\mu {\left\vertop(\Lambda)u\right\vert}^{2}\geq C\mu {\left\vert
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2}.$$ By the same way, we prove, for $\mu$ large enough $$\label{ttt10}
\mu{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}u\right\vert}^{2}\geq C\mu
{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2}.$$ Combining (\[ttt9\]) and (\[ttt10\]), we obtain $$\label{ttt11}
\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\geq C\left( \mu {\left\vert
op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2}+\mu
{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})w\right\vert}^{2} \right).$$ By the same way, we prove $$\label{ttt12}
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\geq {\left\Vertop(\Lambda)w\right\Vert}^{2}-
C{\left\Vertw\right\Vert}^{2},$$ $$\label{ttt13}
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\geq
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}w\right\Vert}^{2}-C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{-1})D_{x_{n}}w\right\Vert}^{2}-C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{-1})w\right\Vert}^{2}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ttt14}
{\left\Vert
D_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}\geq~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\\\\
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-1})w\right\Vert}^{2}-C{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-2})w\right\Vert}^{2}-C
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{-2})w\right\Vert}^{2}-C{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{-2})w\right\Vert}^{2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[ttt12\]), (\[ttt13\]) and (\[ttt14\]), we obtain for $\mu$ large enough $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ttt15}
{\left\Vert D_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}op(\Lambda^{\frac{1}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}+
{\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{\frac{3}{2}})u\right\Vert}^{2}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber\\\geq
C\left({\left\VertD_{x_{n}}^{2}op(\Lambda^{-1})w\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\VertD_{x_{n}}w\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertop(\Lambda)w\right\Vert}^{2}
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[lll\]), (\[ttt6\]), (\[ttt7\]), (\[ttt8\]), (\[ttt11\]) and (\[ttt15\]), we obtain (\[tt\]), for $\mu$ large enough.\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
Proof of Theorem \[t2\]
=======================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[t2\].
Study of the eigenvalues
------------------------
The proof is based on a cutting argument related to the nature of the roots of the polynomial $p_{j}(x,\xi',\xi_{n},\mu)$, $j=1,2$, in $\xi_{n}$. On $x_{n}=0$, we note $$q_{1}(x',\xi',\mu)=q_{1,1}(0,x',\xi',\mu)=q_{1,2}(0,x',\xi',\mu).$$ Let us introduce the following micro-local regions $$\mathcal{E}^{+}_{1/_{2}}=\left\{(x,\xi',\mu)\in K\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n},\quad
q_{2,{1/_{2}}}+\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{(\frac{\partial
\varphi_{1/_{2}}}{\partial x_{n}})^{2}}>0 \right\},$$ $$\mathcal{Z}_{1/_{2}}=\left\{(x,\xi',\mu)\in K\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n},\quad q_{2,{1/_{2}}}+\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{(\frac{\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}}{\partial
x_{n}})^{2}}=0 \right\},$$ $$\mathcal{E}^{-}_{1/_{2}}=\left\{(x,\xi',\mu)\in K\times{\mathbb{R}}^{n},\quad q_{2,{1/_{2}}}+\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{(\frac{\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}}{\partial
x_{n}})^{2}}<0 \right\}.$$ (Here and in the following the index $1/_{2}$ using for telling $1$ or $2$).\
We decompose $p_{1/_{2}}(x,\xi,\mu)$ as a polynomial in $\xi_{n}$. Then we have the following lemma describing the various types of the roots of $p_{1/_{2}}$.
\[l1\] We have the following
1. For $(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{E}^{+}_{1/_{2}}$, the roots of $p_{1/_{2}}$ denoted $z_{1/_{2}}^{\pm}$ satisfy $\pm\,\mbox{Im}\,z_{1/_{2}}^{\pm}>0$.
2. For $(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{Z}_{1/_{2}}$, one of the roots of $p_{1/_{2}}$ is real.
3. For $(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{E}^{-}_{1/_{2}}$, the roots of $p_{1/_{2}}$ are in the half- plane $\mbox{Im}\xi_{n}>0$ if $\frac{\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}}{\partial x_{n}}<0$ (resp. in the half-plane $\mbox{Im}\xi_{n}<0$ if $\frac{\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}}{\partial x_{n}}>0$).
[**Proof.**]{}\
Using (\[e4\]) and (\[e5\]), we can write $$\left \{\begin{array}{l}\label{e7}
p_{1}(x',\xi,\mu)=\left(\xi_{n}+i\mu {\displaystyle\frac}{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}-i\alpha_{1}\right)\left(
\xi_{n}+i\mu {\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}+i\alpha_{1}\right),\\\\
p_{2}(x',\xi,\mu)=\left(\xi_{n}+i\mu {\displaystyle\frac}{\partial
\varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}-i\alpha_{2}\right)\left( \xi_{n}+i\mu
{\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}+i\alpha_{2}\right),
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\alpha_{j}\in {\mathbb{C}}$, $j=1,2$, defined by $$\left \{\begin{array}{l}\label{e8}
\alpha_{1}^{2}(x',\xi',\mu)=\left(\mu {\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}} \right)^{2}+q_{2,1}+2i\mu q_{1},\\\\
\alpha_{2}^{2}(x',\xi',\mu)=\left(\mu {\displaystyle\frac}{\partial
\varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}} \right)^{2}-\mu^{2}+q_{2,1}+2i\mu
q_{1}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We set $$\label{e9}
z_{1/_{2}}^{\pm}=-i\mu {\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}}{\partial
x_{n}}\pm i\alpha_{1/_{2}},$$ the roots of $p_{1/_{2}}$. The imaginary parts of the roots of $p_{1/_{2}}$ are $$-\mu \frac{\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}}{\partial
x_{n}}- \mbox{Re}\, \alpha_{1/_{2}},\quad -\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1/_{2}}}{\partial x_{n}}+ \mbox{Re}\, \alpha_{1/_{2}}.$$ The signs of the imaginary parts are opposite if $ {\left\vert\partial
\varphi_{1/_{2}}/\partial x_{n}\right\vert}<{\left\vert\mbox{Re}\,\alpha_{1/_{2}}\right\vert}$, equal to the sign of $ -\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}/\partial x_{n} $ if $ {\left\vert\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}/\partial
x_{n}\right\vert}>{\left\vert\mbox{Re}\,\alpha_{1/_{2}}\right\vert}$ and one of the imaginary parts is null if $ {\left\vert\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}/\partial
x_{n}\right\vert}={\left\vert\mbox{Re}\,\alpha_{1/_{2}}\right\vert}$. However the lines $
\mbox{Re}\,z=\pm \mu\, \partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}/\partial x_{n}$ change by the application $ z\mapsto z'=z^{2}$ into the parabolic curve $ \mbox{Re}\,
z'= {\left\vert\mu \,\partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}/\partial x_{n}\right\vert}^{2}- {\left\vert\mbox{Im}\,z'\right\vert}^{2}/4(\mu\, \partial \varphi_{1/_{2}}/\partial x_{n})^{2}$. Thus we obtain the lemma by replacing $z'$ by $\alpha_{1/_{2}}^{2}$.\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
\[l2\] If we assume that the function $\varphi$ satisfies the following condition $$\label{e10}
\left(\frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}} \right)^{2}- \left(\frac{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}} \right)^{2}>1,$$ then the following estimate holds $$\label{e11}
q_{2,2}-\mu^{2}+\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{\left(\partial \varphi_{2}/\partial x_{n} \right)^{2} }>
q_{2,1}+\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{\left(\partial \varphi_{1}/\partial x_{n} \right)^{2} }.$$
[**Proof.**]{}\
Following (\[e5\]), on $\{x_{n}=0\}$, we have $$\label{e12}
q_{2,2}(x,\xi',\mu)-q_{2,1}(x,\xi',\mu)=\left(\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}} \right)^{2}-\left(\mu\frac{\partial
\varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}} \right)^{2}.$$ Using (\[e10\]), we have (\[e11\]). $~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
\[r1\] The result of this lemma imply that $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{1}\subset
\mathcal{E}^{+}_{2}$.
Estimate in $\mathcal{E}^{+}_{1}$
---------------------------------
In this part we study the problem in the elliptic region $\mathcal{E}^{+}$. In this region we can inverse the operator and use the Calderon projectors. Let $\chi^{+}(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{0}$ such that in the support of $\chi^{+}$ we have $ q_{2,1}+
\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{(\partial \varphi_{1}/\partial x_{n})^{2}}\geq
\delta > 0$. Then we have the following partial estimate.
\[p1\] There exists a constant $C>0$ and $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu
\geq \mu_{0}$, we have $$\label{e17}
\mu^{2}{\left\Vertop(\chi^{+})u\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+
\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right),$$ for any $u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$.
If we suppose moreover that $ \varphi$ satisfies (\[e10\]) then the following estimate holds $$\label{e18}
\mu {\left\vertop(\chi^{+})u\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1} {\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}^{2}_{1}+\mu
{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+
{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}
\right),$$ for any $u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$ and $b_{j}$, $j=1,2$, defined in (\[e16\]).
[**Proof**]{}\
Let $\tilde{u}=op(\chi^{+})u$. Then we get
$$\left \{\begin{array}{lc}\label{e19}
P\tilde{u}=\tilde{f}&\mbox{in}\, \left\{x_{n}>0\right\},\\
op (b_{1})\tilde{u}=\tilde{u}_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}-i\mu \tilde{v}_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}=\tilde{e}_{1}&\mbox{on}\, \left\{x_{n}=0\right\},\\
op(b_{2})\tilde{u}=\left(D_{x_{n}}+ i\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}\right)\tilde{u}_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}+
\left(D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial
x_{n}}\right)\tilde{v}_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}=\tilde{e}_{2}&\mbox{on}\,\left\{x_{n}=0\right\},
\end{array}
\right.$$
with $ \tilde{f}=op(\chi^{+})f+ \left[ P, op(\chi^{+})\right]u $. Since $ \left[ P, op(\chi^{+})\right]\in
(\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{0})D_{x_{n}}+ \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O} ^{1}$, we have $$\label{n0}
\| \tilde{f}\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\leq C \left(
{\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\right)$$ and $\tilde{e}_{1}=op(\chi^{+})e_{1}$ satisfying $$\label{n'0}
{\left\vert\tilde{e}_{1}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\leq C{\left\verte_{1}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}$$ and\
\
$\tilde{e}_{2}= \left[ (D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}), op(\chi^{+})\right]u_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}+
\left[ (D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}),
op(\chi^{+})\right]v_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}+ op(\chi^{+})e_{2}.$\
\
Since $ [D_{x_{n}}, op(\chi^{+})]\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{0}$, we have $$\label{n00}
| \tilde{e}_{2}|^{2}\leq C \left( |u|^{2}+ |e_{2}|^{2}\right).$$ Let $ \underline{\tilde{u}}$ the extension of $\tilde{u}$ by $0$ in $x_{n}<0$. According to (\[e4\]), (\[e5\]) and (\[e6\]), we obtain, by noting $\partial \varphi/\partial
x_{n}=\mbox{diag}\left(\partial \varphi_{1}/\partial x_{n}, \partial
\varphi_{2}/\partial x_{n}\right) $, $
\gamma_{j}(\tilde{u})=\,^t\left( D_{x_{n}}^{j}(\tilde{u}_{0})\mid
_{x_{n}=0^{+}},D_{x_{n}}^{j}(\tilde{v}_{0})\mid
_{x_{n}=0^{+}}\right)$, $j=0,1$ and $\delta^{(j)}=\left(d/d x_{n}
\right)^{j}\left(\delta_{x_{n}=0}\right)$, $$\label{e20}
P\underline{\tilde{u}}=
\underline{\tilde{f}}-\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u})\otimes
\delta'+\frac{1}{i} \left(\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u})+2i\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi}{\partial x_{n}} \right)\otimes \delta$$ Let $ \chi(x,\xi,\mu)\in S_{\mu}^{0}$ equal to $ 1$ for sufficiently large $|\xi|+\mu$ and in a neighborhood of supp($ \chi^{+}$) and satisfies that in the support of $\chi$ we have $p$ is elliptic. These conditions are compatible from the choice made for supp($
\chi^{+}$) and Remark \[r1\]. Let $m$ large enough chosen later, by the ellipticity of $p$ on supp$( \chi)$ there exists $E=op(e)$ a parametrix of $P$. We recall that $e\in S_{\mu}^{-2}$, of the form $e(x,\xi,\mu)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}e_{j}(x,\xi,\mu)$, where $ e_{0}=\chi
p^{-1}$ and $e_{j}=\mbox{diag}(e_{j,1},e_{j,2})\in S_{\mu}^{-2-j}$ such that $e_{j,1}$ and $e_{j,2}$ are rational fractions in $\xi_{n}$. Then we have $$\label{e21}
EP=op(\chi)+ R_{m},\quad R_{m}\in \mathcal{O}^{-m-1}.$$ Following (\[e20\]) and (\[e21\]), we obtain $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{e22}
\underline{\tilde{u}}=E\underline{\tilde{f}}+E\left[ -h_{1}\otimes \delta'+{\displaystyle\frac}{1}{i}h_{0}\otimes \delta\right] +w_{1},\\\\
h_{0}=\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u})+2i\mu {\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi}{\partial x_{n}}\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}),\quad h_{1}=\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}),\\\\
w_{1}=
\left(\mbox{Id}-op(\chi)\right)\underline{\tilde{u}}-R_{m}\underline{\tilde{u}}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Using the fact that supp$(1-\chi)\cap
\mbox{supp}(\chi^{+})=\varnothing$ and symbolic calculus (See Lemma 2.10 in [@LRR]), we have $
\left(\mbox{Id}-op(\chi)\right)op(\chi^{+})\in \mathcal{O}^{-m}$, then we obtain $$\label{n01}
{\left\Vertw_{1}\right\Vert}_{2,\mu}^{2}\leq C \mu^{-2}{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}.$$ Now, let us look at this term $ E\left[ -h_{1}\otimes \delta'+{\displaystyle\frac}{1}{i}h_{0}\otimes \delta\right] $. For $x_{n}>0$, we get $$\left \{\begin{array}{l}
E\left[ -h_{1}\otimes \delta'+{\displaystyle\frac}{1}{i}h_{0}\otimes
\delta\right]=\hat{T}_{1}h_{1}+\hat{T}_{0}h_{0},\\\\
\hat{T}_{j}(h)=\left({\displaystyle\frac}{1}{2\pi}\right)^{n-1}{\displaystyle\int}e^{i(x'-y')\xi'}\hat{t}_{j}(x,\xi',\mu)h(y')dy'd\xi'=op
(\hat{t}_{j})h\\\\
\hat{t}_{j}={\displaystyle\frac}{1}{2\pi
i}{\displaystyle\int}_{\gamma}e^{ix_{n}\xi_{n}}e(x,\xi,\mu)\xi_{n}^{j}d\xi_{n}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\gamma$ is the union of the segment $\{\xi_{n}\in {\mathbb{R}},\,
|\xi_{n}|\leq c_{0}\sqrt{|\xi'|^{2}+\mu^{2}} \}$ and the half circle $\{\xi_{n}\in {\mathbb{C}},\, |\xi_{n}|= c_{0}\sqrt{|\xi'|^{2}+\mu^{2}},\,Im
\xi_{n}>0 \} $, where the constant $c_{0}$ is chosen sufficiently large so as to have the roots $z_{1}^{+}$ and $z_{2}^{+}$ inside the domain with boundary $\gamma$ (If $c_{0}$ is large enough, the change of contour ${\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow \gamma$ is possible because the symbol $e(x,\xi,\mu)$ is holomorphic for large $ |\xi_{n}|$; $\xi_{n}\in C$). In particular we have in $x_{n}\geq 0$ $$\label{n1}
{\left\vert\partial_{x_{n}}^{k}\partial_{x'}^{\alpha}\partial_{\xi'}^{\beta}\hat{t}_{j}\right\vert}\leq
C_{\alpha,\beta,k} \langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{j-1-{\left\vert\beta\right\vert}+k},\quad
j=0,1.$$ We now choose $\chi_{1}(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{0}$, satisfying the same requirement as $\chi^{+}$, equal to $1$ in a neighborhood of supp$(\chi^{+})$ and such that the symbol $\chi$ be equal to $1$ in a neighborhood of supp$(\chi_{1})$. We set $t_{j}=\chi_{1}\hat{t}_{j}$, $j=0,1$. Then we obtain $$\label{n2}
\underline{\tilde{u}}=E\underline{\tilde{f}}+op(t_{0})h_{0}+
op(t_{1})h_{1}+w_{1}+w_{2}$$ where $ w_{2}=
op((1-\chi_{1})\hat{t}_{0})h_{0}+op((1-\chi_{1})\hat{t}_{1})h_{1}$. By using the composition formula of tangential operator, estimate (\[n1\]), the fact that supp$(1-\chi_{1})\cap
\mbox{supp}(\chi^{+})=\varnothing$ and the following trace formula $$\label{n3}
|\gamma_{0}(u)|_{j}\leq C\mu^{-\frac{1}{2}}\|u\|_{j+1,\mu},\quad
j\in {\mathbb{N}},$$we obtain $$\label{n4}
\|w_{2}\|_{2,\mu}^{2}\leq C\mu^{-2}\left(
\|u\|_{1,\mu}^{2}+|u|_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ Since $\chi=1$ in the support of $\chi_{1}$, we have $e(x,\xi,\mu)$ is meromorphic w.r.t $\xi_{n}$ in the support of $\chi_{1}$. $z^{+}_{1/_{2}}$ are in $\mbox{Im}\xi_{n}\geq
c_{1}\sqrt{|\xi'|^{2}+\mu^{2}} $ $(c_{1}>0)$. If $c_{1}$ is small enough we can choose $ \gamma_{1/_{2}}$ in $\mbox{Im}\xi_{n}\geq
\frac{c_{1}}{2}\sqrt{|\xi'|^{2}+\mu^{2}} $ and we can write $$\label{n5}
t_{j}=\mbox{diag}(t_{j,1}, t_{j,2}),\quad
t_{j,1/_{2}}(x,\xi',\mu)=\chi_{1}(x,\xi',\mu)\frac{1}{2\pi
i}\int_{\gamma_{1/_{2}}}e^{ix_{n}\xi_{n}}e_{1/_{2}}(x,\xi,\mu)\xi_{n}^{j}d\xi_{n},\quad
j=0,1.$$ Then there exists $ c_{2}>0$ such that in $x_{n}\geq 0$, we obtain $$\label{n7}
{\left\vert\partial_{x_{n}}^{k}\partial_{x'}^{\alpha}\partial_{\xi'}^{\beta}t_{j}\right\vert}\leq
C_{\alpha,\beta,k}e^{-c_{2}x_{n}\langle \xi',\mu\rangle} \langle
\xi',\mu\rangle^{j-1-|\beta|+k}.$$ In particular, we have $e^{c_{2}x_{n}\mu}(\partial_{x_{n}}^{k})t_{j}$ is bounded in $
\mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{j-1+k}$ uniformly w.r.t $ x_{n}\geq 0$. Then $${\left\Vert\partial_{x'}op(t_{j})h_{j}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}+ {\left\Vertop(t_{j})h_{j}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}\leq
C \int_{x_{n}>0}e^{-2 c_{2}x_{n}\mu} {\left\vert op(
e^{c_{2}x_{n}\mu}t_{j})h_{j}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}(x_{n})dx_{n}\leq C \mu^{-1}
|h_{j}|_{j}^{2}$$ and $${\left\Vert\partial_{x_{n}}op(t_{j})h_{j}\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}\leq C \int_{x_{n}>0}e^{-2 c_{2}x_{n}\mu}
{\left\vert op( e^{c_{2}x_{n}\mu}
\partial_{x_{n}}t_{j})h_{j}\right\vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}(x_{n})dx_{n}\leq C \mu^{-1}
|h_{j}|_{j}^{2}.$$ Using the fact that $
h_{0}=\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u})+2i\mu \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial
x_{n}}\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u})$ and $ h_{1}=\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u})$, we obtain $$\label{n7}
{\left\Vertop(t_{j})h_{j}\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\leq C \mu^{-1}|u|_{1,0,\mu}^{2}.$$ From (\[n2\]) and estimates (\[n0\]), (\[n01\]), (\[n4\]) and (\[n7\]), we obtain (\[e17\]).\
It remains to proof (\[e18\]). We recall that, in supp($\chi_{1}$), we have $$e_{0}=\mbox{diag}\left(e_{0,1},e_{0,2}\right)=
\mbox{diag}\left(\frac{1}{p_{1}},\frac{1}{p_{2}}\right)=
\mbox{diag}\left( \frac{1}{(\xi_{n}-z_{1}^{+})(\xi_{n}-z_{1}^{-})},
\frac{1}{(\xi_{n}-z_{2}^{+})(\xi_{n}-z_{2}^{-})}\right).$$ Using the residue formula, we obtain $$\label{n6}
e^{-ix_{n}z_{1/_{2}}^{+}}t_{j,1/_{2}}=\chi_{1}\frac{
(z_{1/_{2}}^{+})^{j}}{ z_{1/_{2}}^{+}-z_{1/_{2}}^{-}}+
\lambda_{1/_{2}},\quad j=0,1,\quad \lambda_{1/_{2}}\in
\mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{-2+j}.$$ Taking the traces of (\[n2\]), we obtain $$\label{e28}
\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u})=op(c)\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u})+
op(d)\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u})+w_{0},$$ where $ w_{0}=\gamma_{0}(E \underline{\tilde{f}}+w_{1}+w_{2})$ satisfies, according to the trace formula (\[n3\]), the estimates (\[n0\]), (\[n01\]) and (\[n4\]), the following estimate $$\label{n9}
\mu{\left\vertw_{0}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right)$$ and following (\[n7\]), $c$ and $d$ are two tangential symbols of order respectively $0$ and $-1$ given by $$\begin{array}{lll}
c_{0}=\mbox{diag}(c_{0,1},c_{0,2})&\mbox{with}&c_{0,1/_{2}}=
-\left(\chi_{1}{\displaystyle\frac}{z_{1/_{2}}^{-}}
{z_{1/_{2}}^{+}- z_{1/_{2}}^{-}}\right),\\\\
d_{-1}=\mbox{diag}(d_{-1,1},d_{-1,2})&\mbox{with}&d_{-1,1/_{2}}=
\left(\chi_{1}{\displaystyle\frac}{1} {z_{1/_{2}}^{+}- z_{1/_{2}}^{-}}\right).
\end{array}$$ Following (\[e19\]), the transmission conditions give $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\label{e32}
\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}_{0})-i\mu \gamma_{0}(\tilde{v}_{0})=\tilde{e}_{1}\\\\
\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u}_{0})+ \gamma_{1}(\tilde{v}_{0})+i\mu
\frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial
x_{n}}\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}_{0})+i\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}\gamma_{0}(\tilde{v}_{0})=\tilde{e}_{2}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We recall that $ \tilde{u}= (\tilde{u}_{0},\tilde{v}_{0})$, combining (\[e28\]) and (\[e32\]) we show that $$\label{e33}
op(k)\,^t\left( \gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}_{0}),
\gamma_{0}(\tilde{v}_{0}),
\Lambda^{-1}\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u}_{0}), \Lambda^{-1}\gamma_{1}(\tilde{v}_{0})\right)=
w_{0}+\frac{1}{\mu}op \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right)\tilde{e}_{1}+op \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\Lambda^{-1}\tilde{e}_{2}
,$$ where $k$ is a $ 4\times 4$ matrix, with principal symbol defined by $$k_{0}+\frac{1}{\mu}r_{0}=\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1-c_{0,1}&0&-\Lambda\, d_{-1,1}&0\\\\
0&1-c_{0,2}&0&-\Lambda \, d_{-1,2}\\\\
0&-i&0&0\\\\
i\mu\Lambda^{-1}{\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial
x_{n}}&i\mu\Lambda^{-1}{\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial
x_{n}}&1&1
\end{array}
\right)+\frac{1}{\mu}r_{0},$$ where $r_{0}$ is a tangential symbol of order $0$.\
We now choose $\chi_{2}(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{0}$, satisfying the same requirement as $\chi^{+}$, equal to $1$ in a neighborhood of supp$(\chi^{+})$ and such that the symbol $
\chi_{1}$ be equal to $1$ in a neighborhood of supp$(\chi_{2})$. In supp$(\chi_{2})$, we obtain $$k_{0}|_{ \mbox{supp}(\chi_{2})}=\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
{\displaystyle\frac}{z_{1}^{+}}{z_{1}^{+}-z_{1}^{-}}&0&-{\displaystyle\frac}{\Lambda}{z_{1}^{+}-z_{1}^{-}}&0\\\\
0&{\displaystyle\frac}{z_{2}^{+}}{z_{2}^{+}-z_{2}^{-}}&0&-{\displaystyle\frac}{\Lambda}{z_{2}^{+}-z_{2}^{-}}\\\\
0&-i&0&0\\\\
i\mu\Lambda^{-1}{\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial
x_{n}}&i\mu\Lambda^{-1}{\displaystyle\frac}{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}
&1&1
\end{array}
\right).$$ Then, following (\[e9\]), $$\mbox{det}(k_{0})|_{ \mbox{supp}(\chi_{2})}=-\left( z_{1}^{+}-z_{1}^{-}\right)^{-1}\left( z_{2}^{+}-z_{2}^{-}\right)^{-1}\Lambda\,
\alpha_{1}.$$ To prove that there exists $c>0$ such that ${\left\vert
\mbox{det}(k_{0})|_{ \mbox{supp}(\chi_{2})}\right\vert}\geq c $, by homogeneity it suffices to prove that $ \mbox{det}(k_{0})|_{
\mbox{supp}(\chi_{2})}\neq 0$ if $ {\left\vert\xi'\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{2}=1$.\
If we suppose that $\mbox{det}(k_{0})|_{
\mbox{supp}(\chi_{2})}=0 $, we obtain $\alpha_{1}=0$ and then $\alpha_{1}^{2}=0$.\
Following (\[e8\]),we obtain $$q_{1}=0 \quad\mbox{and}\quad \left(\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}\right)^{2}+q_{2,1}=0.$$ Combining with the fact that $q_{2,1}+\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{\left( \partial \varphi_{1}/\partial x_{n}
\right)^{2} }>0$, we obtain $$-\left( \mu \frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial
x_{n}}\right)^{2}>0.$$ Therefore $ \mbox{det}(k_{0})|_{ \mbox{supp}(\chi_{2})}\neq 0$. It follows that, for large $\mu$, $k=k_{0}+\frac{1}{\mu}r_{0}$ is elliptic in supp($\chi_{2}$). Then there exists $l\in
\mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{0}$, such that $$op(l)op(k)=op(\chi_{2})+ \tilde{R}_{m},$$ with $ \tilde{R}_{m} \in \mathcal {T}\mathcal{O}^{-m-1}$, for $m$ large. This yields $$\begin{array}{l} ^t\left( \gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}_{0}),
\gamma_{0}(\tilde{v}_{0}),
\Lambda^{-1}\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u}_{0}),
\Lambda^{-1}\gamma_{1}(\tilde{v}_{0})\right)=
op(l)w_{0}+\frac{1}{\mu}op(l)op \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right)\tilde{e}_{1}+ op(l)op \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\Lambda^{-1}\tilde{e}_{2}\\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+(op(1-\chi_{2})-\tilde{R}_{m})
^t\left( \gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}_{0}), \gamma_{0}(\tilde{v}_{0}),
\Lambda^{-1}\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u}_{0}), \Lambda^{-1}\gamma_{1}(\tilde{v}_{0})\right)
.\end{array}$$ Since supp$(1-\chi_{2})\cap \mbox{supp}(\chi^{+})=\varnothing$ and by using (\[n9\]), we obtain $$\mu|\tilde{u}|_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left( \mu^{-1} |\tilde{e}_{1}|_{1}^{2}+\mu
|\tilde{e}_{2}|+ {\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{-2}
{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ From estimates (\[n’0\]) and (\[n00\]) and the trace formula (\[n3\]), we obtain (\[e18\]).\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
Estimate in $\mathcal{Z}_{1}$
-----------------------------
The aim of this part is to prove the estimate in the region $\mathcal {Z}_{1}$. In this region, if $ \varphi$ satisfies (\[e10\]), the symbol $
p_{1}(x,\xi,\mu)$ admits a real roots and $p_{2}(x,\xi,\mu)$ admits two roots $z_{2}^{\pm}$ satisfy $\pm\mbox{ Im} (z_{2}^{\pm})>0$. Let $ \chi^{0}(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{S}_{\mu}^{0}$ equal to $ 1$ in $\mathcal{Z}_{1}$ and such that in the support of $\chi^{0}$ we have $q_{2,2}-\mu^{2}+ \frac{q_{1}^{2}}{ (\partial
\varphi_{2}/\partial x_{n})^{2}}\geq \delta>0$. Then we have the following partial estimate.
\[p2\] There exists constants $C>0$ and $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$ we have the following estimate $$\label{z1}
\mu{\left\Vertop(\chi^{0})u\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}\leq
C\left({\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}\right),$$ for any $u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$.
If we assume moreover that $ \varphi$ satisfies (\[e10\]) then we have $$\label{z2}
\mu{\left\vertop(\chi^{0})u\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}\leq
C\left({\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1} {\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}^{2}_{1}+\mu
{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+
{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu\right\vert}^{2}_{1,0,\mu}
\right),$$ for any $u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$ and $b_{j}$, $j=1,2$, defined in (\[e16\]).
### Preliminaries
Let $u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(K)$, $ \tilde{u}=op(\chi^{0})u$ and $P$ the differential operator with principal symbol given by $$p(x,\xi,\mu)=\xi_{n}^{2}+q_{1}(x,\xi',\mu)\xi_{n}+q_{2}(x,\xi',\mu)$$ where $q_{j}=\mbox{diag}(q_{j,1},q_{j,2})$, $j=1,2$. Then we have the following system $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\label{z3}
P\tilde{u}=\tilde{f}&\mbox{in}\,\{ x_{n}>0\},\\\\
B\tilde{u}=\tilde{e}=(\tilde{e}_{1},\tilde{e}_{2})&\mbox{on}\,\{x_{n}=0\},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\tilde{f}=op(\chi^{0})f+\left[P,op(\chi^{0})\right]u$. Since $
\left[ P, op(\chi^{0})\right]\in
(\mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{0})D_{x_{n}}+ \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O} ^{1}$, we have $$\label{f1}
\| \tilde{f}\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\leq C \left(
{\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\right),$$ $B$ defined in (\[e16\]) and $\tilde{e}_{1}=op(\chi^{0})e_{1}$ satisfying $$\label{f2}
{\left\vert\tilde{e}_{1}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\leq C{\left\verte_{1}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}$$ and\
\
$\tilde{e}_{2}= \left[ (D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}), op(\chi^{0})\right]u_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}+
\left[ (D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}),
op(\chi^{0})\right]v_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}+ op(\chi^{0})e_{2}.$\
\
Since $ [D_{x_{n}}, op(\chi^{+})]\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{0}$, we have $$\label{f3}
| \tilde{e}_{2}|^{2}\leq C \left( |u|^{2}+ |e_{2}|^{2}\right).$$
Let us reduce the problem (\[z3\]) to a first order system. Put $v=^t\left(\langle D',\mu\rangle
\tilde{u},D_{x_{n}}\tilde{u}\right)$. Then we obtain the following system $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\label{z4}
D_{x_{n}}v-op( \mathcal{P})v=F&\mbox{in}\,\{x_{n}>0\},\\\\
op(\mathcal{B})v=(\frac{1}{\mu}\Lambda\tilde{e}_{1},\tilde{e}_{2})&\mbox{on}\,\{x_{n}=0\},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\mathcal{P}$ is a $4\times4$ matrix, with principal symbol defined by $$\mathcal{P}_{0}= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
0&\Lambda\,\mbox{Id}_{2}\\
\Lambda^{-1}q_{2}&-q_{1}\\
\end{array}
\right),\quad \left( \Lambda= \langle \xi',\mu\rangle=\left( {\left\vert\xi'\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right),$$ $ \mathcal{B}$ is a tangential symbol of order $0$, with principal symbol given by $$\mathcal{B}_{0}+\frac{1}{\mu}r_{0}=\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0&-i&0&0\\
i\mu\Lambda^{-1}\frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial
x_{n}}&i\mu\Lambda^{-1}\frac{\partial \varphi_{2}}{\partial
x_{n}}&1&1
\end{array}
\right)+\frac{1}{\mu}r_{0}$$ ($r_{0}$ a tangential symbol of order $0$) and $F=^t(0,\tilde{f})$.
For a fixed $(x_{0},\xi'_{0},\mu_{0})$ in supp$\chi_{0}$, the generalized eigenvalues of the matrix $\mathcal{P}$ are the zeroes in $\xi_{n}$ of $p_{1}$ and $p_{2}$ i.e $z_{1}^{\pm}=-i\mu\frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial
x_{n}}\pm i\alpha_{1} $ and $z_{2}^{\pm}=-i\mu\frac{\partial
\varphi_{2}}{\partial x_{n}}\pm i\alpha_{2}$ with $\pm
\mbox{Im}(z_{2}^{\pm})>0$ and $ z_{1}^{+}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}$.
We note $s(x,\xi',\mu)=( s_{1}^{-},s_{2}^{-},s_{1}^{+},s_{2}^{+})$ a basis of the generalized eigenspace of $\mathcal{P}(x_{0},\xi'_{0},\mu_{0})$ corresponding to eigenvalues with positive or negative imaginary parts. $s_{j}^{\pm}(x,\xi',\mu)$, $j=1,2$ is a $C^{\infty}$ function on a conic neighborhood of $(x_{0},\xi'_{0},\mu_{0})$ of a degree zero in $(\xi',\mu)$. We denote $op(s)(x,D_{x'},\mu)$ the pseudo-differential operator associated to the principal symbol $
s(x,\xi',\mu)=\left(s_{1}^{-}(x,\xi',\mu),s_{2}^{-}(x,\xi',\mu),s_{1}^{+}(x,\xi',\mu),
s_{2}^{+}(x,\xi',\mu)\right)$.\
Let $ \hat{\chi}(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{0}$ equal to $1$ in a conic neighborhood of $(x_{0},\xi'_{0},\mu_{0})$ and in a neighborhood of supp$ (\chi^{0})$ and satisfies that in the support of $\hat{\chi}$, $ s$ is elliptic. Then there exists $ n\in
\mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{0}$, such that $$op(s)op(n)=op( \hat{\chi})+ \hat{R}_{m},$$ with $ \hat{R}_{m}\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{-m-1}$, for $m$ large.\
Let $V=op(n)v$. Then we have the following system $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\label{f4}
D_{x_{n}}V= GV +AV+F_{1}&\mbox{in}\,\{x_{n}>0\},\\\\
op(\mathcal{B}_{1})V=(\frac{1}{\mu}\Lambda\tilde{e}_{1},\tilde{e}_{2})
+v_{1}&\mbox{on}\,\{x_{n}=0\},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $G=op(n)op(\mathcal{P})op(s)$, $A=
\left[D_{x_{n}},op(n)\right]op(s)$,\
$F_{1}=op(n)F+op(n)op(\mathcal{P})(op(1- \hat{\chi})- \hat{R}_{m})v+
\left[D_{x_{n}},op(n)\right](op(1- \hat{\chi})- \hat{R}_{m})v$, $op(
\mathcal{B}_{1})= op(\mathcal{B})op(s)$ and $v_{1}=op(\mathcal{B})(op(\hat{\chi}-1)+ \hat{R}_{m})v $.\
Using the fact that supp$(1-\hat{\chi})\cap \mbox{supp}(\chi^{0})=
\varnothing$, $ \hat{R}_{m}\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{-m-1}$, for $
m$ large and estimate (\[f1\]), we show $$\label{m1}
\|F_{1}\|^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)
u\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ Using the fact that supp$(1-\hat{\chi})\cap \mbox{supp}(\chi^{0})=
\varnothing$, $\hat{R}_{m}\in \mathcal{T}\mathcal{O}^{-m-1}$, for $
m$ large and the trace formula (\[n3\]), we show $$\label{m2}
\mu{\left\vertv_{1}\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\left(\mu^{-2}
{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ Here we need to recall an argument shown in Taylor [@Ta] given by this lemma
\[l3\] Let $v$ solves the system $$\frac{\partial}{\partial y}v=Gv+Av$$ where $ G= \left( \begin{array}{cc} E&\\
&F\end{array}\right)$ and $A$ are pseudo-differential operators of order $1$ and $0$, respectively. We suppose that the symbols of $E$ and $F$ are two square matrices and have disjoint sets of eigenvalues. Then there exists a pseudo-differential operator $K$ of order $-1$ such that $w=(I+K)v$ satisfies $$\frac{\partial}{\partial y}w= Gw + \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
\alpha_{1}&\\
&\alpha_{2}\end{array}
\right)w+ R_{1}w+R_{2}v$$ where $\alpha_{j}$ and $R_{j}$, $j=1,2$ are pseudo-differential operators of order $0$ and $- \infty$, respectively.
By this argument, there exists a pseudo-differential operator $K(x, D_{x'}, \mu)$ of order $-1$ such that the boundary problem (\[f4\]) is reduced to the following $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\label{z5}
D_{x_{n}}w-op( \mathcal{H})w=\tilde{F}&\mbox{in}\,\{x_{n}>0\},\\\\
op(\tilde{\mathcal{B}})w=
(\frac{1}{\mu}\Lambda\tilde{e}_{1},\tilde{e}_{2}) +v_{1}+
v_{2}&\mbox{on}\,\{x_{n}=0\},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $w=(I+K)V$, $\tilde{F}=(I+K)F_{1}$, $op(\mathcal{H})$ is a tangential of order $1$ with principal symbol $\mathcal{H}=\mbox{diag}(\mathcal{H}^{-}, \mathcal{H}^{+})$ and $-\mbox{Im}(\mathcal{H}^{-})\geq C\Lambda$, $op(\tilde{\mathcal{B}})=op(\mathcal{B}_{1})(I+K')$ with $ K'$ is such that $(I+K')(I+K)= Id+R'_{m}$ ($ R'_{m}\in \mathcal{O}^{-m-1}$, for $m$ large) and $ v_{2}= op(\mathcal{B}_{1})R'_{m}V$.\
According to (\[m1\]), we have $$\label{f5}
\|\tilde{F}\|^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)
u\right\Vert}_{L^{2}}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ Using the fact that $ R'_{m}\in \mathcal{O}^{-m-1}$, for $ m$ large, the trace formula (\[n3\]) and estimates (\[f2\]), (\[f3\]) and (\[m2\]), we show $$\label{f6}
\mu{\left\vertop(\tilde{\mathcal{B}})w\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\left( \frac{1}{\mu}
{\left\verte_{1}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+\mu {\left\verte_{2}\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{-2}
{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\right).$$
\[l4\] Let $\mathcal{R}=\mbox{diag}(-\rho \mbox{Id}_{2},0)$, $\rho>0$. Then there exists $ C>0$ such that
1. $\mbox{Im}(\mathcal{RH})=\mbox{diag}\left(e(x,\xi',\mu),
0\right)$, with $e(x,\xi',\mu)=-\rho Im(\mathcal{H}^{-})$,
2. $e(x,\xi',\mu)\geq C\Lambda$ in $(\chi^{0})$,
3. $-\mathcal{R}+ \tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{\star}\tilde{\mathcal{B}}\geq
C.\mbox{Id}$ on $\{x_{n}=0\}\cap \mbox{supp}\,(\chi^{0})$.
[**Proof**]{}\
Denote the principal symbol $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ of the boundary operator $op (\tilde{\mathcal{B}})$ by $
\left(\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{-},\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+} \right)$ where $ \tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+}$ is the restriction of $
\tilde{\mathcal{B}}$ to subspace generated by $\left(
s_{1}^{+},s_{2}^{+}\right)$. We begin by proving that $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+}$ is an isomorphism. Denote $$w_{1}=^t(1,0)
\quad\mbox{and}\quad w_{2}=^t(0,1).$$ Then $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
s_{1}^{+}=\left(w_{1}, z_{1}^{+}\Lambda^{-1}w_{1}\right)\\\\
s_{2}^{+}=\left(w_{2}, z_{2}^{+}\Lambda^{-1}w_{2}\right)
\end{array} \right.$$ are eigenvectors of $z_{1}^{+}$ and $z_{2}^{+}$. We have $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+}=(\mathcal{B}_{0}+\frac{1}{\mu}r_{0})(s_{1}^{+}\,s_{2}^{+})= \mathcal{B}_{0}^{+}+ \frac{1}{\mu}r_{0}^{+} $. To proof that $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+}$ is an isomorphism it suffices, for large $\mu$, to proof that $\mathcal{B}_{0}^{+} $ is an isomorphism. Following (\[e9\]), we obtain $$\mathcal{B}_{0}^{+}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
\Lambda^{-1}i\alpha_{1} & \Lambda^{-1}i\alpha_{2}\\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Then $$\mbox{det}(\mathcal{B}_{0}^{+})=- \Lambda^{-1}\alpha_{1}.$$ If we suppose that $ \mbox{det}(\mathcal{B}_{0}^{+})=0$, we obtain $
\alpha_{1}=0$ and then $\alpha_{1}^{2}=0$. Following (\[e8\]), we obtain $$q_{1}=0 \quad\mbox{and}\quad \left(\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}\right)^{2}+q_{2,1}=0.$$ Combining with the fact that $q_{2,1}+\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{\left( \partial \varphi_{1}/\partial x_{n}
\right)^{2} }=0$, we obtain $\left( \mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}\right)^{2}=0$, that is impossible because following (\[e10\]), we have $ \left(\frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}\right)^{2}\neq 0$ and following ( \[e5\]), we have $ \mu \neq 0$. We deduce that $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+}$ is an isomorphism.\
Let us show the Lemma \[l4\]. We have $$\label{z6}
\mbox{Im}(\mathcal{RH})=\mbox{diag}\left(-\rho\,\mbox{Im}(\mathcal{H}^{-}),0\right)=
\mbox{diag}\left(e(x,\xi',\mu),0\right),$$ where $ e(x,\xi',\mu)=-\rho\,\mbox{Im}(\mathcal{H}^{-})\geq C
\Lambda$, $C>0$. It remains to proof 3.\
Let $w=(w^{-},w^{+})\in
{\mathbb{C}}^{4}= {\mathbb{C}}^{2}\oplus{\mathbb{C}}^{2}$. Then we have $ \tilde{\mathcal{B}}w=
\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{-}w^{-}+\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+}w^{+}$. Since $\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+} $ is an isomorphism, then there exists a constant $ C>0$ such that $${\left\vert\tilde{\mathcal{B}}^{+}w^{+}\right\vert}^{2}\geq C {\left\vertw^{+}\right\vert}^{2}.$$ Therefore, we have $${\left\vertw^{+}\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\vert\tilde{\mathcal{B}}w \right\vert}^{2}+{\left\vertw^{-}\right\vert}^{2}\right).$$ We deduce $$-(\mathcal{R}w,w)=\rho {\left\vertw^{-}\right\vert}^{2}\geq \frac{1}{C}{\left\vertw^{+}\right\vert}^{2}+(\rho-1)
{\left\vertw^{-}\right\vert}^{2}-{\left\vert\tilde{\mathcal{B}}w \right\vert}^{2}.$$ Then, we obtain the result, if $ \rho$ is large enough.\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
### Proof of proposition \[p2\]
We start by showing (\[z1\]). We have $$\begin{array}{lll}
{\left\VertP_{1}(x,D,\mu)u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}&=&{\left\Vert(\mbox{Re}P_{1})u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vert(\mbox{Im}P_{1})u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}\\&+&
i\Bigg[ \Big((\mbox{Im}P_{1})u_{0},
(\mbox{Re}P_{1})u_{0}\Big)-\Big((\mbox{Re}P_{1})u_{0},
(\mbox{Im}P_{1})u_{0}\Big) \Bigg].\end{array}$$ By integration by parts we find $${\left\VertP_{1}(x,D,\mu)u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}={\left\Vert(\mbox{Re}P_{1})u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vert(\mbox{Im}P_{1})u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}
+i\Big( \left[
\mbox{Re}P_{1},\mbox{Im}P_{1}\right]u_{0},u_{0}\Big)+\mu
Q_{0}(u_{0}),$$ where $$\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}Q_{0}(u_{0})&=&(-2\frac{\partial\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}D_{x_{n}}u_{0},D_{x_{n}}u_{0})_{0}+(op(r_{1})u_{0},
D_{x_{n}}u_{0})_{0}\\\\&+&(op(r'_{1})D_{x_{n}}u_{0},u_{0})_{0}+(op(r_{2})u_{0},u_{0})_{0}+\mu
(\frac{\partial\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}
u_{0},u_{0} )_{0},\\\\
&&r_{1}=r'_{1}=2q_{1,1},\quad\quad
r_{2}=-2\frac{\partial\varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}q_{2,1}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then we have $${\left\vertQ_{0}(u_{0})\right\vert}^{2}\leq C{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}.$$ We show the same thing for $P_{2}(x,D,\mu)v_{0}$. In addition we know that the principal symbol of the operator $ [ \mbox{Re}P_{j},
\mbox{Im}P_{j}]$, $j=1,2$, is given by $
\{\mbox{Re}P_{j},\mbox{Im}P_{j}\}$. Proceeding like Lebeau and Robbiano in paragraph 3 in [@LR], we obtain (\[z1\]).
It remains to prove (\[z2\]). Following Lemma \[l4\], let $G(x_{n})=d/dx_{n}(op(\mathcal{R})w,w)_{L^{2}({\mathbb{R}}^{n-1})}$.\
Using $
D_{x_{n}}w-op(\mathcal{H})=\tilde{F}$, we obtain $$G(x_{n})=-2\,\mbox{Im}(op(\mathcal{R})\tilde{F},w)-2\,\mbox{Im}(op(\mathcal{R})op(\mathcal{H})w,w).$$The integration in the normal direction gives $$\label{z7}
(op(\mathcal{R})w,w)_{0}=
{\displaystyle\int}_{0}^{\infty}\mbox{Im}(op(\mathcal{R})op(\mathcal{H})w,w)dx_{n}+
2{\displaystyle\int}_{0}^{\infty}\mbox{Im}(op(\mathcal{R})\tilde{F},w)dx_{n}.$$ From Lemma \[l4\] and the G[å]{}rding inequality, we obtain, for $\mu$ large, $$\label{z8}
\mbox{Im}(op(\mathcal{R})op(\mathcal{H})w,w)\geq
C{\left\vertw^{-}\right\vert}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{2},$$ moreover we have for all $\epsilon>0$ $$\label{z9}
\int_{0}^{\infty}{\left\vert(op(\mathcal{R})\tilde{F},w)\right\vert}dx_{n}\leq
\epsilon
C\mu{\left\Vertw^{-}\right\Vert}^{2}+\frac{C_{\epsilon}}{\mu}\|\tilde{F}\|^{2}.$$ Applying Lemma \[l4\] and the G[å]{}rding inequality, we obtain, for $\mu$ large, $$\label{z10}
-(op(\mathcal{R})w,w)+|op(\tilde{\mathcal{B}})w|^{2}\geq C{\left\vertw\right\vert}^{2}.$$ Combining (\[z10\]), (\[z9\]), (\[z8\]) and (\[z7\]), we get $$\label{z11}
C{\left\vertw^{-}\right\vert}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{2}+C{\left\vertw\right\vert}^{2}\leq
\frac{C}{\mu}\|\tilde{F}\|^{2}+|op(\tilde{\mathcal{B}})w|^{2}.$$ Then $$\mu {\left\vertw\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\|\tilde{F}\|^{2}+ \mu |op(\tilde{\mathcal{B}})w|^{2}.$$ Recalling that $w=(I+K)V$, $V=op(n)v$, $v=^t\left(\langle
D',\mu\rangle \tilde{u},D_{x_{n}}\tilde{u}\right)$ and $
\tilde{u}=op(\chi^{0})u$ and using estimates (\[f5\]) and (\[f6\]), we prove (\[z2\]).\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
Estimate in $\mathcal{E}_{1}^{-}$
---------------------------------
This part is devoted to estimate in region $ \mathcal{E}_{1}^{-}$.\
Let $\chi^{-}(x,\xi',\mu)\in \mathcal{T}S_{\mu}^{0}$ equal to $1$ in $
\mathcal{E}_{1}^{-}$ and such that in the support of $ \chi^{-}$ we have $q_{2,1}+\frac{q_{1}^{2}}{(\partial \varphi_{1}/\partial
x_{n})^{2}} \leq -\delta < 0$. Then we have the following partial estimate.
\[p3\] There exists constants $C >0$ and $\mu_{0}>0$ such that for any $\mu\geq\mu_{0}$ we have the following estimate $$\label{k1}
\mu{\left\Vertop(\chi^{-})u\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+
\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2} \right),$$ for any $u\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$.
If we assume moreover that $\frac{\partial \varphi_{1}}{\partial x_{n}}>0$ then we have $$\label{k2}
\mu{\left\vertop(\chi^{-})u_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+
\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2} \right)$$ for any $u=(u_{0},v_{0})\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}_{2})$.
[**Proof.**]{}\
Let $\tilde{u}=op(\chi^{-})u= (op(\chi^{-})u_{0},op(\chi^{-})v_{0}
)=(\tilde{u}_{0},\tilde{v}_{0})$.\
In this region we have not a priori information for the roots of $p_{2}(x,\xi,\mu)$. Using the same technique of the proof of (\[z1\]), we obtain $$\label{k3}
\mu{\left\Vertop(\chi^{-})v_{0}\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)v_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+
\mu{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertv_{0}\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2} \right)$$ In supp$(\chi^{-})$ the two roots $ z_{1}^{\pm}$ of $p_{1}(x,\xi,\mu)$ are in the half-plane $ Im\xi_{n}<0$. Then we can use the Calderon projectors. By the same way that the proof of (\[e17\]) and using the fact that the operators $t_{0,1}$ and $
t_{1,1}$ vanish in $ x_{n}>0$ (because the roots are in $Im\xi_{n}<0$, see (\[n5\])), the counterpart of (\[n2\]) is then $$\label{g1}
\tilde{u}_{0}=E\underline{\tilde{f}}_{1}+w_{1,1}+w_{2,1},\quad\mbox{for}\,
x_{n}>0.$$ We then obtain (see proof of (\[e17\])) $$\label{g2}
\mu^{2}{\left\Vertop(\chi^{-})u_{0}\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP_{1}(x,D,\mu)u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+
\mu{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ Combining (\[k3\]) and (\[g2\]), we obtain (\[k1\]).\
It remains to proof (\[k2\]). We take the trace at $x_{n}=0^{+}$ of (\[g1\]), $$\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}_{0})=w_{0,1}=
\gamma_{0}( E\underline{\tilde{f}}_{1}+w_{1,1}+w_{2,1}),$$ which, by the counterpart of (\[n9\]), gives $$\label{g3}
\mu{\left\vert\gamma_{0}(\tilde{u}_{0})\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP_{1}(x,D,\mu)u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ From (\[g1\]) we also have $$D_{x_{n}}\tilde{u}_{0}=D_{x_{n}}
E\underline{\tilde{f}}_{1}+D_{x_{n}}w_{1,1}+D_{x_{n}}w_{2,1},
\quad\mbox{for}\, x_{n}>0.$$ We take the trace at $x_{n}=0^{+}$ and obtain $$\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u}_{0})=\gamma_{0}(D_{x_{n}}(E\underline{\tilde{f}}_{1}+w_{1,1}+w_{2,1} )).$$ Using the trace formula (\[n3\]), we obtain $${\left\vert\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u}_{0})\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\mu^{-1} {\left\VertD_{x_{n}}(E\underline{\tilde{f}}_{1}+w_{1,1}+w_{2,1} ) \right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}
\leq C\mu^{-1}
{\left\VertE\underline{\tilde{f}}_{1}+w_{1,1}+w_{2,1}\right\Vert}_{2,\mu}^{2}$$ and, by the counterpart of (\[n0\]), (\[n01\]) and (\[n4\]), this yields $$\label{g4}
\mu{\left\vert\gamma_{1}(\tilde{u}_{0})\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP_{1}(x,D,\mu)u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ Combining (\[g3\]) and (\[g4\]), we obtain $$\mu{\left\vertop(\chi^{-})u_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP_{1}(x,D,\mu)u_{0}\right\Vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertu_{0}\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ Then we have (\[k2\]).$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$
End of the proof
----------------
We choose a partition of unity $\chi^{+}+\chi^{0}+\chi^{-}=1$ such that $\chi^{+}$, $\chi^{0}$ and $\chi^{-}$ satisfy the properties listed in proposition \[p1\], \[p2\] and \[p3\] respectively. We have $${\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\leq
{\left\Vertop(\chi^{+})u\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertop(\chi^{0})u\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertop(\chi^{-})u\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}.$$ Combining this inequality and (\[e17\]), (\[z1\]) and (\[k1\]), we obtain, for large $\mu$, the first estimate (\[k4\]) of Theorem \[t2\]. i.e. $$\mu{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{1,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu
{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\right).$$ It remains to estimate $\mu
{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}$. We begin by giving an estimate of $\mu
{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}$.\
We have $${\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq {\left\vertop(\chi^{+})u_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+{\left\vertop(\chi^{0})u_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+
{\left\vertop(\chi^{-})u_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2},$$ $${\left\vertop(\chi^{+})u_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq {\left\vertop(\chi^{+})u\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}$$ and $${\left\vertop(\chi^{0})u_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq {\left\vertop(\chi^{0})u\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}.$$ Combining these inequalities, (\[e18\]), (\[z2\]), (\[k2\]) and the fact that\
$
\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}=\mu^{-2}{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}
$, we obtain, for large $\mu$ $$\label{k5}
\mu{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}
+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}\right).$$ For estimate $\mu {\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}$, we need to use the transmission conditions given by (\[e16\]). We have $$op(b_{1})u=u_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}-i\mu v_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}\quad\mbox{on}\,
\left\{x_{n}=0\right\}.$$ Then $$\mu{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\leq C\left( \mu^{-1} {\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\right).$$ Since we have $ \mu^{-1}{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\leq
\mu{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}$. Then using (\[k5\]), we obtain $$\label{k6}
\mu{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\leq
C\left({\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+\mu
{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}
\right).$$ We have also $$op(b_{2})u=\left(D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{1}}{\partial
x_{n}}\right)u_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}+\left(D_{x_{n}}+i\mu \frac{\partial
\varphi_{2}}{\partial
x_{n}}\right)v_{0}|_{x_{n}=0}\quad\mbox{on}\,\left\{x_{n}=0\right\}.$$ Then$$\mu{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}v_{0}\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\left( \mu{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+
\mu {\left\vertD_{x_{n}}u_{0}\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{3}{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{3}{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}^{2}\right).$$ Using the fact that $ {\left\vertu\right\vert}_{k-1}\leq
\mu^{-1}{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{k}$, we obtain $$\mu{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}v_{0}\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\left( \mu{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+
\mu {\left\vertD_{x_{n}}u_{0}\right\vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}\right).$$ Since we have $\mu{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}=\mu{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}u_{0}\right\vert}^{2}+\mu{\left\vertu_{0}\right\vert}_{1}^{2}$. Then using (\[k5\]) and (\[k6\]), we obtain $$\label{k7}
\mu{\left\vertD_{x_{n}}v_{0}\right\vert}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+\mu
{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+\mu^{-2}{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}+
{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}\right).$$ Combining (\[k6\]) and (\[k7\]), we have $$\label{k8}
\mu{\left\vertv_{0}\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+\mu
{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}\right).$$ Combining (\[k5\]) and (\[k8\]), we obtain $$\label{k9}
\mu{\left\vertu\right\vert}_{1,0,\mu}^{2}\leq C\left(
{\left\VertP(x,D,\mu)u\right\Vert}^{2}+\mu^{-1}{\left\vertop(b_{1})u\right\vert}_{1}^{2}+\mu
{\left\vertop(b_{2})u\right\vert}^{2}+{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}_{1,\mu}\right).$$ Inserting (\[k9\]) in (\[k4\]) and for large $\mu$, we obtain (\[tt2\]).\
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\square$\
\
Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
==========
This appendix is devoted to prove Lemma \[le1\]. For this, we need to distinguish two cases.
1. [**[Inside $\mathcal{O}$]{}**]{}\
To simplify the writing, we note $
{\left\Vertu\right\Vert}_{L^{2}(\mathcal{O})}={\left\Vertu\right\Vert}$.\
Let $\chi\in C_{0}^{\infty}(\mathcal{O})$. We have by integration by part $$((\triangle-i\mu)u, \chi^{2}u)=(-\nabla u,\chi^{2}\nabla u)-(\nabla u, \nabla (\chi^{2})u)
-i\mu {\left\Vert\chi u\right\Vert}^{2}.$$ Then $$\mu {\left\Vert\chi u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C \left( {\left\Vertf\right\Vert}{\left\Vert\chi^{2}u\right\Vert}
+{\left\Vert\nabla u\right\Vert}^{2}+ {\left\Vert\nabla u\right\Vert}{\left\Vert\chi u\right\Vert}\right).$$ Then $$\mu {\left\Vert\chi u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C \left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}{\left\Vertf\right\Vert}^{2}+\epsilon {\left\Vert\chi^{2}u\right\Vert}
+{\left\Vert\nabla u\right\Vert}^{2}+ \frac{1}{\epsilon}{\left\Vert\nabla u\right\Vert}^{2}+ \epsilon{\left\Vert\chi u\right\Vert}^{2}\right) .$$ Recalling that $\mu\geq1$, we have for $\epsilon$ small enough $$\label{ap1}
{\left\Vert\chi u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C \left( {\left\Vert\nabla u\right\Vert}^{2} +{\left\Vertf\right\Vert}^{2} \right).$$ Hence the result inside $\mathcal{O}$.
2. [**[ In the neighborhood of the boundary]{}**]{}\
Let $x=(x',x_{n})\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1} \times {\mathbb{R}}$. Then $$\partial \mathcal{O}=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n},\,\,
x_{n}=0\}.$$ Let $ \epsilon>0$ such that $0<x_{n}<\epsilon$. Then we have$$u(x',\epsilon)-u(x',x_{n})=\int_{x_{n}}^{\epsilon}\partial_{x_{n}}u(x',\sigma)d\sigma .$$ Then $${\left\vertu(x',x_{n}) \right\vert}^{2}\leq 2 {\left\vertu(x',\epsilon)\right\vert}^{2}+ 2\left(\int_{x_{n}}^{\epsilon}{\left\vert\partial_{x_{n}}u(x',\sigma)\right\vert}d\sigma \right)^{2}.$$ Using the Cauchy Schwartz inequality, we obtain $${\left\vertu(x',x_{n}) \right\vert}^{2}\leq 2 {\left\vertu(x',\epsilon)\right\vert}^{2}+2
\epsilon^{2}\int_{0}^{\epsilon}
{\left\vert\partial_{x_{n}}u(x',x_{n})\right\vert}^{2}d x_{n}.$$ Integrating with regard to $x'$, we obtain $$\label{ap2}
\int_{{\left\vertx'\right\vert}<\epsilon}{\left\vertu(x',x_{n}) \right\vert}^{2}dx'\leq 2
\int_{{\left\vertx'\right\vert}<\epsilon}{\left\vertu(x',\epsilon)\right\vert}^{2}dx'+2 \epsilon^{2}
\int_{{\left\vertx'\right\vert}<\epsilon,\,{\left\vertx_{n}\right\vert}<\epsilon}\left(
{\left\vert\partial_{x_{n}}u(x',x_{n})\right\vert}^{2}d x_{n}\right)dx'.$$ Using the trace Theorem, we have $$\label{ap3}
\int_{{\left\vertx'\right\vert}<\epsilon}{\left\vertu(x',\epsilon)\right\vert}^{2}dx'\leq C
\int_{{\left\vertx'\right\vert}<2\epsilon,\, {\left\vertx_{n}-\epsilon\right\vert}<\frac{\epsilon}{2}}
({\left\vertu(x)\right\vert}^{2}+{\left\vert\nabla u(x)\right\vert}^{2})dx.$$ Now we need to introduce the following cut-off functions $$\chi_{1}(x)=\left \{\begin{array}{lcl}
1&\mbox{if}& 0<x_{n}<\frac{\epsilon}{2},\\\\
0&\mbox{if}& x_{n>}\epsilon
\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\chi_{2}(x)=\left \{\begin{array}{lcl}
1&\mbox{if}& \frac{\epsilon}{2}<x_{n}<\frac{3 \epsilon}{2},\\\\
0&\mbox{if}& x_{n}<\frac{\epsilon}{4}, \,\,x_{n>}2\epsilon .
\end{array}\right.$$ Combining (\[ap2\]) and (\[ap3\]), we obtain for $\epsilon$ small enough $$\label{ap4}
{\left\Vert\chi_{1}u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left({\left\Vert\chi_{2}u\right\Vert}^{2}+ {\left\Vert\nabla
u\right\Vert}^{2} \right).$$ Since following (\[ap1\]), we have $${\left\Vert\chi_{2}u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\Vertf\right\Vert}^{2}+ {\left\Vert\nabla
u\right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ Inserting in (\[ap4\]), we obtain $$\label{ap5}
{\left\Vert\chi_{1}u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\Vertf\right\Vert}^{2}+ {\left\Vert\nabla
u\right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ Hence the result in the neighborhood of the boundary.
Following (\[ap1\]), we can write $$\label{ap6}
{\left\Vert(1-\chi_{1})u\right\Vert}^{2}\leq C\left( {\left\Vertf\right\Vert}^{2}+ {\left\Vert\nabla
u\right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ Adding (\[ap5\]) and (\[ap6\]), we obtain $${\left\Vertu\right\Vert}^{2}\leq
C\left( {\left\Vertf\right\Vert}^{2}+ {\left\Vert\nabla u\right\Vert}^{2}\right).$$ Hence the result.
Appendix B: Proof of Lemma \[le2\] {#appendix-b-proof-of-lemma-le2 .unnumbered}
==================================
This appendix is devoted to prove Lemma \[le2\].\
Let $\chi\in C_{0}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{n})$ such that $\chi=1$ in the support of $u$. We want to show that $ op(\Lambda^{s})e^{\mu
\varphi}\chi op(\Lambda^{-s})$ is bounded in $L^{2}$. Recalling that for all $u$ and $v \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}}^{n})$, we have $$\mathcal{F}(uv)(\xi')=(\frac{1}{2\pi})^{n-1} \mathcal{F}(u)\ast \mathcal{F}(v)(\xi'),\quad\quad \forall \xi'\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}.$$ Then $$\begin{array}{lcl} \mathcal{F}(op(\Lambda^{s})e^{\mu \varphi}\chi
op(\Lambda^{-s})v)(\xi',\mu)&=& \langle\xi',\mu\rangle^{s }
\mathcal{F}(e^{\mu \varphi}\chi
op(\Lambda^{-s})v)(\xi',\mu)\\\\
&=&({\displaystyle\frac}{1}{2\pi})^{n-1}\langle\xi',\mu\rangle^{s}(g(\xi',\mu)\ast
\langle\xi',\mu\rangle^{-s}\mathcal{F}(v))(\xi',\mu),
\end{array}$$where $ g(\xi',\mu)= \mathcal{F}(e^{\mu\varphi}\chi)(\xi',\mu)$. Then we have $$\mathcal{F}(op(\Lambda^{s})e^{\mu \varphi}\chi
op(\Lambda^{-s})v)(\xi',\mu)=\int g(\xi'-\eta',\mu)\langle
\xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle \eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}
\mathcal{F}(v)(\eta',\mu)d\eta'.$$ Let $k(\xi',\eta')=g(\xi'-\eta',\mu) \langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}$. Our goal is to show that $\int K(\xi',\eta')
\mathcal{F}(v)(\eta',\mu)d\eta'$ is bounded in $L^{2}$. To do it, we will use Lemma of Schur. It suffices to prove that there exists $M>0$ and $N>0$ such that $$\int {\left\vertK(\xi',\eta')\right\vert}d\xi'\leq M\quad\quad
\mbox{and}\quad\quad \int {\left\vertK(\xi',\eta')\right\vert}d\eta'\leq N .$$ In the sequel, we suppose $s\geq 0$ (the case where $s<0$ is treated in the same way).\
For $R>0$, we have $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{2R}g(\xi',\mu)&=&{\displaystyle\int}\langle
\xi',\mu\rangle^{2R}e^{-i x'\xi'}\xi(x)e^{\mu\varphi(x)}dx'\\\\
&=&{\displaystyle\int}(1-\Delta+\mu^{2})^{R}(e^{-i x'\xi'})\chi(x)e^{\mu\varphi(x)}dx'\\\\
&=&{\displaystyle\int}e^{-i
x'\xi'}(1-\Delta+\mu^{2})^{R}(\chi(x)e^{\mu\varphi(x)})dx'.
\end{array}$$ Then there exists $C>0$, such that $$\label{ab}
{\left\vert\langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{2R}g(\xi',\mu)\right\vert}\leq Ce^{C\mu}.$$ Moreover, we can write $$\int{\left\vertK(\xi',\eta')\right\vert}d\xi'= \int\left|{ g(\xi'-\eta',\mu) \langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R}
\frac{\langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu
\rangle^{2R}}}\right|d\xi'.$$ Using (\[ab\]), we obtain $$\int{\left\vertK(\xi',\eta')\right\vert}d\xi'\leq C e^{C\mu}\int \frac{\langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R}}d\xi'.$$ Since $$\int \frac{\langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R}}d\xi'=
\int_{{\left\vert\xi'\right\vert}\leq \frac{1}{\epsilon}{\left\vert\eta'\right\vert}} \frac{\langle
\xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R}}d\xi'+
\int_{{\left\vert\eta'\right\vert}\leq \epsilon{\left\vert\xi'\right\vert}} \frac{\langle
\xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle+
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu
\rangle^{2R}}d\xi',\quad \epsilon >0.$$ If ${\left\vert\xi'\right\vert}\leq \frac{1}{\epsilon}{\left\vert\eta'\right\vert}$, we have $$\frac{\langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R}}\leq C
\frac{\langle \eta',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R}}\leq
\frac{C}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R}}\quad\in\,
L^{1}\quad\mbox{if} \quad 2R>n-1.$$ If ${\left\vert\eta'\right\vert}\leq
\epsilon{\left\vert\xi'\right\vert} $, i.e $\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle\geq \delta
\langle \xi',\mu\rangle$, $\delta>0$, we have $$\frac{\langle \xi',\mu\rangle^{s}\langle
\eta',\mu\rangle^{-s}}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R}}\leq
\frac{C}{\langle\xi'-\eta',\mu \rangle^{2R-s}}\quad\in\,
L^{1}\quad\mbox{if} \quad 2R-s>n-1.$$ Then there exists $M>0$, such that $$\int {\left\vertK(\xi',\eta')\right\vert}d\xi'\leq M e^{C\mu}.$$ By the same way, we show that there exists $N>0$, such that $$\int {\left\vertK(\xi',\eta')\right\vert}d\eta'\leq N e^{C\mu}.$$ Using Lemma of Schur, we have $ (op(\Lambda^{s})e^{\mu \varphi}\chi
op(\Lambda^{-s}))$ is bounded in $L^{2}$ and $${\left\Vertop(\Lambda^{s})e^{\mu \varphi}\chi
op(\Lambda^{-s})\right\Vert}_{ \mathcal{L}(L^{2})}\leq Ce^{C\mu}.$$ Applying in $op(\Lambda^{s})u$, we obtain the result.
[^1]: Laboratoire LMV, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-En-Yvelines, 45 Avenue des Etats-Unis Batiment Fermat 78035 Versailles (France). E-mail address: [email protected]; Tel:+33139253629; Fax:+33139254645.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This paper provides a systematic yet accessible presentation of the Contextuality-by-Default theory. The consideration is confined to finite systems of categorical random variables, which allows us to focus on the basics of the theory without using full-scale measure-theoretic language. Contextuality-by-Default is a theory of random variables identified by their contents and their contexts, so that two variables have a joint distribution if and only if they share a context. Intuitively, the content of a random variable is the entity the random variable measures or responds to, while the context is formed by the conditions under which these measurements or responses are obtained. A system of random variables consists of stochastically unrelated “bunches,” each of which is a set of jointly distributed random variables sharing a context. The variables that have the same content in different contexts form “connections” between the bunches. A probabilistic coupling of this system is a set of random variables obtained by imposing a joint distribution on the stochastically unrelated bunches. A system is considered noncontextual or contextual according to whether it can or cannot be coupled so that the joint distributions imposed on its connections possess a certain property (in the present version of the theory, “maximality”). We present a criterion of contextuality for a special class of systems of random variables, called cyclic systems. We also introduce a general measure of contextuality that makes use of (quasi-)couplings whose distributions may involve negative numbers or numbers greater than 1 in place of probabilities.
KEYWORDS: contextuality, couplings, connectedness, random variables.
author:
- 'Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov'
- 'Janne V. Kujala'
title: 'Context-Content Systems of Random Variables: The Contextuality-by-Default Theory'
---
Introduction
============
Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) is an approach to probability theory, specifically, to the theory of random variables. CbD is not a model of empirical phenomena, and it cannot be corroborated or falsified by empirical data. However, it provides a sophisticated conceptual framework in which one can describe empirical data and formulate models that involve random variables.
In Kolmogorovian Probability Theory (KPT) random variables are understood as measurable functions mapping from one (domain) probability space into another (codomain) probability space. CbD can be viewed as a theory within the framework of KPT if the latter is understood as allowing for multiple domain probability spaces, freely introducible and unrelated to each other. However, CbD can also be (in fact, is better) formulated with no reference to domain probability spaces, with random variables understood as entities identified by their probability distributions and their unique labels within what can be called sets of random variables “in existence” or “in play.”
Although one cannot deal with probability distributions without the full-fledged measure-theoretic language, we avoid technicalities some readers could find inhibitive by focusing in this paper on *finite* systems of *categorical random variables* (those with finite numbers of possible values). Virtually all of the content of this paper, however, is generalizable *mutatis mutandis* to arbitrary systems of arbitrary random entities.
A convention
------------
In the following we introduce sets of random variables classified in two ways, by their *contexts* and by their *contents*, and we continue to speak of contexts and contents throughout the paper. The two terms combine nicely, but they are also easily confused in reading. For this reason, in this paper we do violence to English grammar and write “conteXt” and “conteNt” when we use these words as special terms.
Two conteNts in two conteXts
----------------------------
We begin with a simple example. A person randomly chosen from some population is asked two questions, $q$ and $q'$. Say, $q=\textnormal{\textquotedblleft Do you like bees?\textquotedblright}$ and $q'=\textnormal{\textquotedblleft Do you like to smell flowers?\textquotedblright}$. The answer to the first question (Yes or No) is a random variable whose *identity* (that which allows one to uniquely identify it within the class of all random variables being considered) clearly includes $q$, so it can be denoted $R_{q}$. We will refer to the question $q$ as the *conteNt* of the random variable $R_{q}$. The second random variable then can be denoted $R_{q'},$ and its conteNt is $q'$. The set of all random variables being considered here consists of $R_{q}$ and $R_{q'}$, and we do not confuse them because they have distinct conteNts: we know which of the two responses answers which question.
The two random variables have a joint distribution that can be presented, because they are binary, by values of the three probabilities $$\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{q}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\quad\Pr\left[R_{q'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right].
\end{array}$$ The joint distribution exists because the two responses, $R_{q}$ and $R_{q'}$, occur together in a well-defined empirical sense: the empirical sense of “togetherness” of the responses here is “to be given by one and the same person.” In other situations the empirical meaning can be different, e.g., “to be recorded in the same trial.”
Our example is too simple for our purposes. Let us assume therefore that the two questions $q,q'$ are asked under varying controlled conditions, e.g., one randomly chosen person can be asked these questions after having watched a movie about the killer bees spreading northwards (let us call this condition $c$), another after watching a movie about deciphering the waggle dances of the honey bees ($c'$). Most people would consider $q$ as one and the same question whether posed under the condition $c$ or the condition $c'$; and the same applies to the question $q'$. In other words, the conteNts $q$ and $q'$ of the two respective random variables would normally be considered unchanged by the conditions $c$ and $c'$.
However, the random variables themselves (the responses) are clearly affected by these conditions. In particular, nothing guarantees that the joint distribution of $\left(R_{q},R_{q'}\right)$ will be the same under the two conditions. It is necessary therefore to include $c$ and $c'$ in the description of the random variables representing the responses. We will call $c$ and $c'$ *conteXts* of (or for) the corresponding random variables and present them as $R_{q}^{c},R_{q'}^{c},R_{q}^{c'},R_{q'}^{c'}$. There are now four random variables in play, and we do not confuse them because each of them is uniquely identified by its conteNt and its conteXt.
Jointly distributed versus stochastically unrelated random variables
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In each of the two conteXts, the two random variables are jointly distributed, i.e., we have well-defined probabilities $$\left.\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q'}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\right]
\end{array}\right\} \textnormal{in conteXt }c,$$ and $$\left.\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q'}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right]
\end{array}\right\} \textnormal{in conteXt }c'.$$ No joint probabilities, however, are defined between the random variables picked from different conteXts. We cannot determine such probabilities as $$\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
etc.
\end{array}$$
We express this important fact by saying that any two variables recorded in different conteXts are *stochastically unrelated*. The reason for stochastic unrelatedness is simple: no random variable in conteXt $c$ can co-occur with any random variable in conteXt $c'$ in the same empirical sense in which two responses co-occur within either of these conteXts, because $c$ and $c'$ are mutually exclusive conditions. The empirical sense of co-occurrence in our example is “to be given by the same person,” and we have assumed that a randomly chosen person is either shown one movie or another. If some respondents were allowed to watch both movies before responding, we would have to redefine the classification of our random variables by introducing a third conteXt, $c''=\left(c,c'\right)$. We would then have three pairwise mutually exclusive conteXts, $c,c',c''$, and six random variables, $R_{q}^{c},R_{q'}^{c},R_{q}^{c'},R_{q'}^{c'},R_{q}^{c''},R_{q'}^{c''}$, such that, e.g., $R_{q}^{c''}$ is jointly distributed with $R_{q'}^{c''}$ but not with $R_{q}^{c}$.
In case one is tempted to consider joint probabilities involving $R_{q}^{c}$ and $R_{q}^{c'}$ simply equal to zero (because these two responses never co-occur), this thought should be dismissed. Indeed, then all four joint probabilities, $$\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{Yes}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}^{c'}=\textnormal{No}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{No}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}^{c'}=\textnormal{Yes}\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{q}^{c}=\textnormal{No}\textnormal{ and }R_{q'}^{c'}=\textnormal{No}\right],
\end{array}$$ would have to be equal to zero, which is not possible as they should sum to 1. These probabilities are not zero, they are *undefined*.
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------------------------
$R_{q}^{c}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $R_{q'}^{c}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $c$
\\ \\
\\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{q}^{c'}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $R_{q'}^{c'}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $c'$
\\ \\
\\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{A}}}$
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------------------------
Bunches and connections in conteXt-conteNt matrices
----------------------------------------------------
The picture of the system consisting of our four random variables is now complete. Let us call this system $\mathcal{A}$. It is an example of a *conteXt-conteNt (c-c)* *system* of random variables, and it can be schematically presented in the form of the *conteXt-conteNt (c-c) matrix* in Fig. \[fig:system 2by2\]. All random variables in a system are double-indexed: the lower index indicates their conteNt, the upper index indicates their conteXt. The random variables within each conteXt are jointly distributed, they form what we call a *bunch* (of random variables). One bunch corresponds to one conteXt and occupies one row of the matrix. Any two variables that belong to different bunches are stochastically unrelated. However, a random variable in conteXt $c$ may have a counterpart in conteXt $c'$ that shares the same conteNt with it. In the system $\mathcal{A}$ this is true for each of the two random variables in $c$ (or $c'$): $R_{q}^{c}$ and $R_{q}^{c'}$ represent answers to one and the same question, and so do $R_{q'}^{c}$ and $R_{q'}^{c'}$. The set (in our example, the pair) of all random variables sharing the same conteNt is called a *connection* (because they bridge stochastically unrelated bunches). One connection, in our example $\left(R_{q}^{c},R_{q}^{c'}\right)$ or $\left(R_{q'}^{c},R_{q'}^{c'}\right)$, corresponds to one conteNt and occupies one column of the matrix.
We will see in Section \[sec: Cyclic-c-c-systems\] that $\mathcal{A}$ is the simplest system within the class of so-called cyclic systems. It can, of course, model more than the opening example with bees, flowers, and movies. The variety of possible applications is great, both within psychology and without. The conteNts $q,q'$ can be two physical properties, e.g., spins of a particle measured at two moments in time separated by a fixed interval. The conteXts $c,c'$ can then be, respectively, the presence and absence of a third measurement made prior to these two measurements. Alternatively, $c$ and $c'$ could be two orders in which the two measurements are conducted: $c$ standing for “first $q$ then $q'$” and $c'$ for “first $q'$ then $q$.” In sociology and psychology the prominently studied analogue of the latter example is the paradigm in which two questions are posed in two possible orders (Moore, 2001; Wang & Busemeyer, 2013; Wang et al., 2014). One can also think of questions posed in two different forms, in two different languages, or asked of the representatives of two distinct populations (say, male and female). There is also an inexhaustible variety of psychophysical applications. For instance, $q$ and $q'$ may be visual stimuli, and $c,c'$ may be any two variants of the conditions under which they are presented, such as the time interval or spatial separation between them, or two versions of a previously presented adapting stimulus.
Fig. \[fig: system general\] shows a matrix representation of a more complex system, with three bunches and three connections.
A generalization to arbitrary systems should be obvious: given a set of conteXts and a set of conteNts the cells in a matrix can be filled (or left empty) in all possible ways, although constraints could be imposed to exclude matrices that are uninteresting for contextuality analysis (e.g., empty matrices, or those with a single random variable in a connection or in a bunch).
------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
$R_{1}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{2}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{1}$
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{2}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{3}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{2}$
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{3}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{3}$
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{B}}}$
------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
\[sub: ConteXts-and-conteNts\]ConteXts and conteNts are non-unique but distinct from each other
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do we know that in our opening example the question $q$ and not the movie $c$ determines the conteNt of the response, viewed as a random variable? How do we know that the movie $c$ and not the question $q$ determines the conteXt of this response? The answer is: we don’t. Some theory or tradition outside the mathematical theory of CbD tells us what the conteXts and the conteNts in a given situation are, and then the mathematical computations may commence. In these computations, whatever conteXts and conteNts are given to us, they are treated as strictly distinct entities because the respective bunches and connections they define are fundamentally different: bunches are (multicomponent) random variables, while connections are groups of pairwise stochastically unrelated ones.
It would be a completely different system if the conteNts in our opening example were defined not just by the question asked but also by the movie previously watched. The matrix would then be as shown in Fig. \[fig:system\_noconnect\]. No conteNt in the system $\mathcal{A}'$ occurs more than once, so there is nothing to bridge the two bunches. It is not wrong to present the experiment with the questions and movies in this way, it may very well be the best way of treating this situation from the point of view of some empirical model, but the resulting system is not interesting for our contextuality analysis. The latter is yet to be introduced, but it should be sufficiently clear if we say that the system $\mathcal{A}'$ is uninteresting because contextuality pertains to how the random variables that share conteNts differ in different conteXts.
To prevent turning this discussion into a game of superficial semantics, it would not do to point out that $q_{1}$ and $q_{3}$ in the system $\mathcal{A}'$ share “part” of their conteNt, and hence $R_{q_{1}}^{c}$ and $R_{q_{3}}^{c'}$ can be related to each other on these grounds. If $R_{q_{1}}^{c}$ and $R_{q_{3}}^{c'}$ are members of the same connection, then they should have the same conteNt, by definition. A conteNts is, logically, merely a label for a connection.
----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ --------------------------------
$R_{q_{1}}^{c}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{q_{2}}^{c}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $c$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{q_{3}}^{c'}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{q_{4}}^{c'}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c'$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{A}'}}$
----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ --------------------------------
A symmetrical opposite of the system $\mathcal{A}'$ is to include the questions asked into the conteXts in which they are being asked. This creates the matrix $\mathcal{A}''$ shown in Fig. \[fig:system\_nojoint\]. Since the empirical meaning of co-occurrence in our example is “to be given by the same person,” representing our opening example by the system $\mathcal{A}''$ amounts to simply ignoring the observed joint events. One only records (and estimates probabilities of) the individual events, as if the paired questions were asked separately of different respondents. This would not be a reasonable way of representing the situation (as it involves ignoring available information), but it is logically possible.
The system $\mathcal{A}''$ becomes a reasonable representation, however, in fact the only “natural” one, if the empirical procedure is modified and the questions are indeed asked one at a time rather than in pairs. Then the responses to questions about the bees and about the flowers, whether they are given after having watched the same movie or different movies, come from different respondents, and their joint probabilities are undefined.
The system $\mathcal{A}''$ has the same connections as $\mathcal{A}$, but it is as uninteresting from the point of view of contextuality analysis as the system $\mathcal{A}'$. A system without joint distributions (i.e., one in which every bunch contains a single random variable) is always trivially noncontextual.
For completeness, we should also consider a radical point of view that combines those in the systems $\mathcal{A}''$ and $\mathcal{A}'$. It is shown in Fig. \[fig:system4separate\]: every conteXt and every conteNt include information about both the question being asked and the conditions under which it is asked. This creates four unique conteNts in a one-to-one correspondence with four unique conteXts.
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
$R_{q}^{c_{1}}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cccc} $c_{1}=\left(c,q\right)$
\\ \\
\\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{q}^{c_{2}}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cccc} $c_{2}=\left(c',q\right)$
\\ \\
\\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{cccc} $R_{q'}^{c_{3}}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $c_{3}=\left(c,q'\right)$
\\ \\
\\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{cccc} $R_{q'}^{c_{4}}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $c_{4}=\left(c',q'\right)$
\\ \\
\\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{A}''}}$
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$R_{q_{1}}^{c_{1}}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{1}=\left(c,q\right)$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{q_{2}}^{c_{2}}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{2}=\left(c',q\right)$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{q_{3}}^{c_{3}}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{3}=\left(c,q'\right)$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{q_{4}}^{c_{4}}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{4}=\left(c',q'\right)$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{A}'''}}$
--------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Multiple connections crossing multiple bunches
----------------------------------------------
There is another aspect of the non-uniqueness of representing an empirical situation by a system. As we see in both system $\mathcal{A}$ of Fig. \[fig:system 2by2\] and system $\mathcal{B}$ of Fig. \[fig: system general\], two or more bunches may very well intersect with the same two or more connections. In the system $\mathcal{B}$, the conteNts $q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$ are represented by $R_{1}^{1},R_{2}^{1}$ in the conteXt $c_{1}$ (a short way of saying “in the bunch labeled by the conteXt $c_{1}$”), and the same $q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$ are represented by $R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2}$ in the conteXt $c_{2}$. This may make it desirable (but by no means necessary) to introduce a new conteNt $q_{12}$ and the corresponding connection formed by $R_{12}^{1}=\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{2}^{1}\right)$ and $R_{12}^{2}=\left(R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2}\right)$. In our conceptual framework this means replacing $\mathcal{B}$ with another system, shown in Fig. \[fig: alternative1-1\]. The new system has a different set of conteNts and its contextuality analysis generally will not coincide with that of the system $\mathcal{B}$.
------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
$R_{1}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{2}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{12}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{1}$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{2}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{3}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{12}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{2}$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{3}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{3}$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{B}'}}$
------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------
$R_{1}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{2}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{12}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{1}$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{2}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{3}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{12}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{13}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{2}$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{3}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{13}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{3}$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{B}''}}$
------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------
One can analogously introduce a new connection formed by $R_{13}^{2}=\left(R_{1}^{2},R_{3}^{2}\right)$ and $R_{13}^{3}=\left(R_{1}^{3},R_{3}^{3}\right)$ to bridge the bunches for the conteXts $c_{2}$ and $c_{3}$. One can combine this connection with the one for $q_{12}$. (One could even add a new variable $R_{123}=\left(R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2},R_{3}^{2}\right)$ to the second bunch, for $c_{2}$, but a connection consisting of a single bunch never affects contextuality analysis and can be dropped.) The approach to contextuality presented in this paper allows for any such modifications. However, we do not consider them obligatory, and in some cases, as in the system $\mathcal{A}$ of Fig. \[fig:system 2by2\], they may be considered too restrictive (see the discussion in Section \[sub: (Non)contextuality-of-consistent\]).
\[sub: The-intuition-of\]The intuition for (non)contextuality
-------------------------------------------------------------
The main idea can be intuitively presented as follows. We have defined a system as a set of conteXt-representing bunches together with connections between these bunches that reflect commonality of conteNts. It is equally possible, however, to view a system as a set of conteNt-representing connections related to each other by bunches that reflect commonality of conteXts. Thus, the system $\mathcal{B}$ depicted in Fig. \[fig: system general\] consists of the three connections, the elements of each of which are pairwise stochastically unrelated random variables. However, the element $R_{1}^{1}$ of the first connection is stochastically related to the element $R_{2}^{1}$ of the second connection because they share a conteXt; and analogously for the other two conteXts.
We distinguish two forms of the dependence of random variables on their conteXts. One of them is “*contextuality proper*,” the other one we call “*direct influenc*e*s*.” Let us begin with the latter. Direct influences are reflected in the differences, if any, between the distributions of the elements of the same connection. For instance, if $R_{1}^{1}$ and $R_{1}^{2}$ have different distributions, then the change of the conteXt from $c_{1}$ to $c_{2}$ directly influences the random variable representing the conteNt $q_{1}$. Direct influences are important, but they are of the same nature as the dependence of random variables on their conteNt. Thus, if the distribution of responses to the question about bees changes depending on what movie has been previously watched, the influence of the movie on the response is not any more puzzling than the influence of the question itself. We prefer not to use the term “contextuality” for such forms of conteXt-dependence. Instead we describe them by saying that the system of random variables is *inconsistently connected* if some of the elements of some of the connections in it have different distributions. If in a system all elements of any connection have the same distribution, then we call the system *consistently connected*.
There is a simple and universal (applicable to all systems) way to measure the degree of direct influences within each connection. Although the connections in a system consist of pairwise stochastically unrelated random variables, nothing prevents one from thinking *counterfactually* of what their joint distribution could be *if they were* jointly distributed. (The reader should for now suspend criticism, as later on we will define this counterfactual reasoning rigorously.)
Let us take, e.g., the connection $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{3}\right)$ in the system $\mathcal{B}$ depicted in Fig. \[fig: system general\]. If these random variables were jointly distributed, then we would be able to compute the probability with which they assume identical values, $\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=R_{1}^{2}=R_{1}^{3}\right]$. One may ask: among all possible “imaginary” joint distributions of $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{3}\right)$ (in which all three of them retain their individual distributions), what is the maximal possible value for $\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=R_{1}^{2}=R_{1}^{3}\right]$? As it turns out, this maximal probability is well-defined and uniquely determinable: let us denote it $\max{}_{1}$. We define $\max{}_{2}$ for the connection $\left(R_{2}^{1},R_{2}^{2}\right)$ as the maximal “imaginary” value for $\Pr\left[R_{2}^{1}=R_{2}^{2}\right]$ given the individual distributions of $R_{2}^{1}$ and $R_{2}^{2}$; and we define $\max_{3}$ for the connection $\left(R_{3}^{2},R_{3}^{3}\right)$ analogously. These maximal probabilities of coincidence can be viewed as reflecting the degree of direct influences of conteXts upon the random variables: e.g., $\max_{1}=1$ if and only if the distributions of all three random variables in $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{3}\right)$ are the same; and $\max{}_{1}=0$ if and only if the direct influences are so prominent that the equality $R_{1}^{1}=R_{1}^{2}=R_{1}^{3}$ becomes “unimaginable”: they cannot occur in any of the imagined joint distributions because the supports of the three variable (the subsets of possible values that have nonzero probability masses) do not have elements in common.
Now we come to “contextuality proper.” The maximal probabilities just discussed are computed for each connection taken separately, without taking into account the bunches that reflect the commonality of conteXts across the connections. The question arises: are these maximal probability values, $$\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=R_{1}^{2}=R_{1}^{3}\right]=\max{}_{1},\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{2}^{1}=R_{2}^{2}\right]=\max{}_{2},\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{3}^{2}=R_{3}^{3}\right]=\max{}_{3},
\end{array}$$ compatible with the observed bunches of the system? In other words, can one achieve these maximal (imaginary) probabilities in all three connections simultaneously if one takes into account all the known (not imagined) joint distributions in the bunches of the system? If the answer is affirmative, then we can say that the knowledge of the bunches representing different conteXts adds nothing to what we already know of the direct influences by having considered the connections separately — we call such a system *noncontextual*. If the answer is negative, however, then the conteXts do influence the random variables beyond any direct influences they exert on them — the system is *contextual*. [^1]
\[sub: (Non)contextuality-of-consistent\](Non)contextuality of consistently connected systems
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A system that exhibits no direct influences at all (i.e., is consistently connected) may very well be contextual. In a consistently connected version of our system $\mathcal{B}$ the three maximal probability values will all be 1, and a system will be contextual if the “imaginary” equalities $$\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=R_{1}^{2}=R_{1}^{3}\right]=1,\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{2}^{1}=R_{2}^{2}\right]=1,\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{3}^{2}=R_{3}^{3}\right]=1,
\end{array}\label{eq: B consistent}$$ are incompatible with the observed bunches of the system. This will be the case when one can say, by abuse of language, that the system is contextual because the elements in each of its connections cannot be viewed as being essentially one and the same random variable.
Consistent connectedness, in special forms, is known under a variety of other names. In psychology, within the framework of so-called *selective influences*, the term describing consistent connectedness is “marginal selectivity” (Townsend & Schweickert, 1989). In quantum physics it is often called “no-signaling” property, especially when dealing with the EPR-type paradigms discussed in Section \[sec: Cyclic-c-c-systems\] (Popescu & Rohrlich, 1994; Masanes, Acin, & Gisin, 2006), or somewhat more generally, “no-disturbance” property (Kurzynski, Cabello, & Kaszlikowski, 2014). Cereceda (2000) lists several other terms.
Many scholars, especially in quantum mechanics, have considered contextuality for consistently connected systems only (e.g., Dzhafarov & Kujala, 2014c; Fine, 1982; Kurzynski, Ramanathan, Kaszlikowski, 2012; Kurzynski et al., 2014). The same is true for the contextuality theory of Abramsky and colleagues when it is applied to systems of random variables (Abramsky & Brandenburger, 2011; Abramsky et al., 2015). As a rule, however, consistent connectedness is considered in a *strong version*, wherein a consistently connected system should satisfy the following property: in any two bunches $R^{1},R^{2}$ that share a set of conteNts $q_{1},\ldots,q_{k}$, the corresponding sets of random variables $\left(R_{1}^{1},\ldots,R_{k}^{1}\right)$ and $\left(R_{1}^{2},\ldots,R_{k}^{2}\right)$ have one and the same joint distribution. In the theory of selective influences this property, or requirement, is called “*complete marginal selectivity*” (Dzhafarov, 2003).
When applied to the system $\mathcal{B}$ in Fig. \[fig: system general\], the strong form of consistent connectedness means that, in addition to the same distribution of the random variables in each of the three connections of $\mathcal{B}$, we also posit the same distribution for $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{2}^{1}\right)$ and $\left(R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2}\right)$ and for $\left(R_{1}^{2},R_{3}^{2}\right)$ and $\left(R_{1}^{3},R_{3}^{3}\right)$. It is easy to see that this amounts to replacing the system $\mathcal{B}$ with the redefined system $\mathcal{B}''$ shown in Fig. \[fig: alternative1-2\], and assuming that it is consistently connected in the “ordinary” sense. The CbD theory allows for both $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{B}''$ to represent one and the same empirical situation, the choice between them being outside the scope of the theory. Therefore the notion of consistent connectedness in this paper includes the strong version thereof as a special case.
The difference between the strong and weaker forms of consistent connectedness is especially transparent if we consider the system $\mathcal{A}$ of our opening example (Fig. \[fig:system 2by2\]). Its consistent connectedness means that the distribution of responses to a given question, $q$ or $q'$, is the same irrespective of the conteXt, $c$ or $c'$. The correlations between the two responses, however, may very well be different in the two conteXts. If this is the case, the consistently connected system $\mathcal{A}$ can be shown to be contextual (see Section \[sec: Cyclic-c-c-systems\]). By contrast, if one assumes the strong form of consistent connectedness, the system $\mathcal{A}$ is replaced with the system $\mathcal{A}^{*}$ shown in Fig. \[fig:system 2by2 strong\], consistently connected in the “ordinary” sense. This system is trivially noncontextual, as its two bunches have the same distribution. In Fig. \[fig:system 2by2 strong\] this system is shown together with the system $\mathcal{A}^{**}$ in which the first two columns of the matrix representing $\mathcal{A}^{*}$ are dropped as redundant. Note, however, that the systems $\mathcal{A}^{*}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{**}$ are not equivalent if they are not consistently connected: the single-connection system $\mathcal{A}^{**}$, as should be clear from Section \[sub: The-intuition-of\], is always noncontextual, whereas the system $\mathcal{A}^{*}$ may very well be contextual.
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
$R_{q}^{c}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $R_{q'}^{c}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $\left(R_{q}^{c},R_{q'}^{c}\right)$$\begin{array}{cc} $c$
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{q}^{c'}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $R_{q'}^{c'}$$\begin{array}{cccc} $\left(R_{q}^{c'},R_{q'}^{c'}\right)$$\begin{array}{cc} $c'$
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{A}^{*}}}$
---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
$\qquad$
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
$\left(R_{q}^{c},R_{q'}^{c}\right)$$\begin{array}{cc} $c$
\\
\\
\end{array}$
$\left(R_{q}^{c'},R_{q'}^{c'}\right)$$\begin{array}{cc} $c'$
\\
\\
\end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathcal{A}^{**}}}$
--------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
ConteXts and conteNts: a formal treatment
=========================================
Here, we present the basic conceptual set-up of our theory: a random variable (confined to categorical random variables), jointly distributed random variables (confined to finite sets thereof), functions of random variables, and systems of random variables, with bunches and connections. The reader who is not interested in a systematic introduction may just skim through Sections \[sub:Base-sets-of\] and \[sub: Systems-of-random\] and proceed to Section \[sec: Contextuality-analysis\].
Our view of random variables and relations among them is “discourse-relative,” in the sense that the existence of these variables and relations depends on what other random variables are “in play.”
\[sub:(Categorical)-random-variables\]Categorical random variables
------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin with a class $\mathsf{E}$ of (categorical) random variables that we consider “existing” (or “defined,” or “introducible,” etc.). We need not be concerned with the cardinality of ${\mathsf{E}}$ as in this paper we will always deal with finite subsets thereof.[^2] A random variable $X$ is a pair $$X=\left({\mathsf{id}}X,{\mathsf{di}}X\right),$$ where ${\mathsf{id}}X$ is its unique *identity label* (within the class ${\mathsf{E}}$), whereas ${\mathsf{di}}X$ (to be read as a single symbol) is its *distribution*. The latter in turn is defined as a function $${\mathsf{di}}X:V_{X}\rightarrow[0,1],$$ where $V_{X}$ is a *finite set* (called the *set of possible values* of the random variable $X$), and $$\sum_{v\in V_{X}}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right)=1.$$ The value ${\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right)$ for any $v\in V_{X}$ is referred to as the *probability mass* of $X$ at its value $v$. For any subset $W$ of $V_{X}$ we define the probability of $X\in W$ as $$\Pr\left[X\in W\right]=\sum_{v\in W}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right).$$ In particular, for $v\in V_{X}$, $$\Pr\left[X\in\left\{ v\right\} \right]={\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right),$$ and we may also write $\Pr\left[X=v\right]$ instead of $\Pr\left[X\in\left\{ v\right\} \right]$.
Note that we impose no restrictions on the nature of the values $v$, only that their set $V_{X}$ is finite. In particular, if $V_{1},\ldots,V_{n}$ are finite sets, then a random variable $Z\in{\mathsf{E}}$ with a distribution $${\mathsf{di}}Z:V_{1}\times\ldots\times V_{n}\rightarrow\left[0,1\right]$$ is a categorical random variable. It can be denoted $Z=\left(X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}\right)$, where $X_{i}$ is called the $i$th component (or the $i$th 1-marginal) of $Z$, with the distribution defined by $$\sum_{\substack{\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{i},\ldots,v_{n}\right)\\
\in V_{1}\times\ldots\times V_{i-1}\\
\times\{v_{i}\}\\
\times V_{i+1}\times\ldots\times V_{n}
}
}{\mathsf{di}}Z\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}\right)={\mathsf{di}}X_{i}\left(v_{i}\right),\label{eq: 1-marginals}$$ for any $v_{i}\in V_{i}$. The summation in this formula is across all possible $n$-tuples $\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}\right)$ with the value of $v_{i}$ being fixed.
\[def: Jointly distributed\]We will say that $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ in ${\mathsf{E}}$ are *jointly distributed* if they are 1-marginals of some $Z=\left(X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}\right)$ in ${\mathsf{E}}$. The random variable $Z$ then can be called a vector (sequence, $n$-tuple), of *jointly distributed* $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$. If $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ are not jointly distributed, they are *stochastically unrelated* (in ${\mathsf{E}}$).
Note that according to this definition, $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ in ${\mathsf{E}}$ are not jointly distributed if ${\mathsf{E}}$ does not contain $\left(X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}\right)$, even though one can always conceive of a joint distribution for them. This reflects our interpretation of ${\mathsf{E}}$ as the class of the variables that “exist” (rather than just “imagined,” as discussed in Section \[sub: The-intuition-of\]).
For any subsequence $\left(i_{1},\ldots,i_{k}\right)$ of $\left(1,\ldots,n\right)$ one can compute the corresponding *$k$-marginal* of $Z$. Without loss of generality, let $\left(i_{1},\ldots,i_{k}\right)=\left(1,\ldots,k\right)$. Then the $k$-marginal $Y=\left(X_{1},\ldots,X_{k}\right)$ has the distribution defined by $$\sum_{\substack{\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{k},v_{k+1}\ldots,v_{n}\right)\\
\in\left\{ v_{1}\right\} \times\ldots\times\left\{ v_{k}\right\} \\
\times V_{k+1}\ldots\times V_{X_{n}}
}
}{\mathsf{di}}Z\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}\right)={\mathsf{di}}Y\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{k}\right),\label{eq: k-marginals}$$ for any $\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{k}\right)\in V_{1}\times\ldots\times V_{k}$. The summation in this formula is across all possible $n$-tuples $\left(v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}\right)$ with the values of $v_{1},\ldots,v_{k}$ being fixed. This distribution of the $k$-marginal $Y$ is referred to as a *$k$-marginal distribution*.
\[sub: Functions-of-random\]Functions of random variables
---------------------------------------------------------
Let $X\in{\mathsf{E}}$ be a random variable with the distribution ${\mathsf{di}}X:V_{X}\rightarrow[0,1]$, and let $f:V_{X}\rightarrow f\left(V_{X}\right)$ be some function. The function $f\left(X\right)$ of a random variable $X$ is a random variable $Y$ such that $X$ and $Y$ are 1-marginals of some random variable $Z=\left(X,Y\right)$ with the distribution ${\mathsf{di}}Z:V_{X}\times f\left(V_{X}\right)\rightarrow\left[0,1\right]$ defined by $${\mathsf{di}}Z\left(v,w\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right) & \textnormal{if }w=f\left(v\right)\\
\\
0 & \textnormal{if otherwise}
\end{array}.\right.\label{eq: function f pair}$$ It follows that the distribution of $Y$ as a 1-marginal of $Z$ is defined by $${\mathsf{di}}Y\left(w\right)=\sum_{v\in f^{-1}\left(\left\{ w\right\} \right)}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right),\label{eq: function f marginal}$$ for any $w\in f\left(V_{X}\right)$.
We stipulate as the main property of the class ${\mathsf{E}}$ that *any function of $X$ in ${\mathsf{E}}$ belongs to ${\mathsf{E}}$*. This property together with the definition of 1-marginals implies that $Z=\left(X,f\left(X\right)\right)$ belongs to ${\mathsf{E}}$, i.e., $X$ and $f\left(X\right)$ are jointly distributed.
If $Y_{1}=f_{1}\left(X\right)$ and $Y_{2}=f_{2}\left(X\right)$, we can consider $\left(f_{1},f_{2}\right)$ as a function $f$ mapping $V_{X}$ into $f_{1}\left(V_{X}\right)\times f_{2}\left(V_{X}\right)$. Then $Y=\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right)$ being a function of $X$ is merely a special case of the situation considered above. Its meaning is that $X$ and $\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right)$ are 1-marginals of some random variable $Z=\left(X,\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right)\right)$ (that belongs to ${\mathsf{E}}$) whose distribution is defined by $${\mathsf{di}}Z\left(v,\left(w_{1},w_{2}\right)\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right) & \textnormal{if }\left(w_{1},w_{2}\right)\\
& =f\left(v\right)=\left(f_{1}\left(v\right),f_{2}\left(v\right)\right)\\
\\
0 & \textnormal{if otherwise}
\end{array}.\right.\label{eq: function f1,f2 pair}$$ The (1-marginal) distribution of $Y=\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right)$ is defined by $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathsf{di}}Y\left(w_{1},w_{2}\right)=\sum_{v\in f^{-1}\left(\left\{ \left(w_{1},w_{2}\right)\right\} \right)}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right)\\
\\
=\sum_{v\in f_{1}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{1}\right\} \right)\cap f_{2}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{2}\right\} \right)}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right).
\end{array}\label{eq: function f1,f2 marginal}$$ The random variables $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$ themselves are 1-marginals of $Y=\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right)$ just defined. Indeed, the separate distribution of $Y_{1}$ computed in accordance with (\[eq: function f marginal\]) is $${\mathsf{di}}Y_{1}\left(w_{1}\right)=\sum_{v\in f_{1}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{1}\right\} \right)}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right),$$ for any $w_{1}\in f_{1}\left(V_{X}\right)$. We get the same formula from (\[eq: function f1,f2 marginal\]) by applying to it the formula for computing 1-marginals, (\[eq: 1-marginals\]): $$\begin{array}{l}
{\mathsf{di}}Y_{1}\left(w_{1}\right)=\sum_{w_{2}}\sum_{v\in f_{1}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{1}\right\} \right)\cap f_{2}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{2}\right\} \right)}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right)\\
\\
=\sum_{v\in f_{1}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{1}\right\} \right)\cap\left(\bigcup_{w_{2}}f_{2}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{2}\right\} \right)\right)}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right)\\
\\
=\sum_{v\in f_{1}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{1}\right\} \right)}{\mathsf{di}}X\left(v\right),
\end{array},$$ because the union of the sets $f_{2}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{2}\right\} \right)$ across all values of $w_{2}\in f_{2}\left(V_{X}\right)$ is the entire set $V_{X}$. Analogous reasoning applies to $Y_{2}$.
This shows that $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$ defined as functions of some $X\in{\mathsf{E}}$ are jointly distributed in the sense of Definition \[def: Jointly distributed\]: they are 1-marginals of some $Y=\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right)\in{\mathsf{E}}$. It is easy to show that the converse holds true as well: if $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$ in ${\mathsf{E}}$ are jointly distributed, then they are functions of one and the same random variable that belongs to ${\mathsf{E}}$. Indeed, in accordance with Definition \[def: Jointly distributed\], they are 1-marginals of some $Y=\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right)\in{\mathsf{E}}$. But then $Y_{1}$ and $Y_{2}$ are functions of this $Y$. Specifically, denoting the sets of possible values for $Y_{1},Y_{2}$ by $W_{1},W_{2}$, respectively, we have $Y_{1}=f_{1}\left(Y\right)$, where $$f_{1}:W_{1}\times W_{2}\rightarrow W_{1}$$ is defined by $f_{1}\left(w_{1},w_{2}\right)=w_{1}$ (a projection function). The computations of the distribution of $Y_{1}$ in accordance with (\[eq: 1-marginals\]) coincides with that in accordance with (\[eq: function f marginal\]), $${\mathsf{di}}Y_{1}\left(w_{1}\right)=\sum_{w_{2}\in W_{2}}{\mathsf{di}}Y\left(w_{1},w_{2}\right)=\sum_{v\in f_{1}^{-1}\left(\left\{ w_{1}\right\} \right)}{\mathsf{di}}Y\left(v\right),$$ for any $w_{1}\in W_{1}$. Analogous reasoning applies to $Y_{2}$.
This result is trivially generalized to an arbitrary finite set of random variables.[^3]
\[thm: JDC\]Random variables $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}\in{\mathsf{E}}$ are jointly distributed if and only if they are representable as functions of one and the same random variable $X\in{\mathsf{E}}$.
Note that this $X$ may very well equal one of the $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$. More generally, one can add $X$ to its functions $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ to create a jointly distributed set $X,X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ in which all elements are, obviously, functions of one of its elements. Note also that if $X_{i}=f_{i}\left(X\right)$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, then $f=\left(f_{1},\ldots,f_{n}\right)$ is a function, and we can equivalently reformulate Theorem \[thm: JDC\] as saying that a vector of random variables $\left(X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}\right)$ is a random variable (by definition, with jointly distributed components) if and only if it is a function of some random variable $X$.
In spite of its simplicity, Theorem \[thm: JDC\] was discovered, in various special forms, only in the 1980s (Suppes & Zanotti, 1981; Fine, 1982). It has a direct bearing on the problem of “hidden variables” in quantum mechanics: given a set of random variables, is there a random entity of which these random variables are functions? To formulate this problem rigorously and to enable the use of Theorem \[thm: JDC\] for solving it we will need the notion of a coupling, introduced below (Section \[sub: (Probabilistic)-couplings\]).
\[sub: Two-meanings-of\]Two meanings of equality of random variables
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The following remark may prevent possible confusions. Given a random variable $Z$ and a measurable set $E$, the expression $Z\in E$ clearly does not mean that $Z$ as a random variables (with its identity ${\mathsf{id}}Z$ and distribution ${\mathsf{di}}Z$) is an element of $E$. Rather this expression is a way of saying that we are considering an event $E$ in the measure space ${\mathsf{di}}Z=\left(S_{Z},\Sigma_{Z},\mu_{Z}\right)$ associated with a random variable $Z$. Thus, $\Pr\left[Z\in E\right]$ is $\mu_{Z}\left(E\right)$. As a special case, given jointly distributed $X,Y$, the expression $X=Y$ is merely a shortcut for $\left(X,Y\right)\in W$, where $W=\left\{ \left(v_{1},v_{2}\right)\in S_{X}\times S_{Y}:v_{1}=v_{2}\right\} $. This meaning of equality should not be confused with another meaning: $X=Y$ can also mean that these two symbols refer to one and the same random variable, so that ${\mathsf{id}}X={\mathsf{id}}Y$ and (consequently) ${\mathsf{di}}X={\mathsf{di}}Y$. We think that the meaning of $X=Y$ in this paper is always clear from the context (now using this word without capital X).
\[sub:Base-sets-of\]Base sets of random variables\[sub: Base set\]
------------------------------------------------------------------
How does one construct the class ${\mathsf{E}}$? For instance, with $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ all in ${\mathsf{E}}$, how do we know whether they are jointly distributed, i.e., whether ${\mathsf{E}}$ contains a $Z=\left(X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}\right)$? Can we simply declare that any random variables $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ are jointly distributed? The answer to the last question is negative: to be able to model empirical phenomena one needs to keep the meaning of joint distribution tied to the empirical meaning of “co-occurrence” — which means that joint distribution cannot be imposed arbitrarily.
To make all of this clear, let us construct the class ${\mathsf{E}}$ of “existing” random variables systematically. The construction is simple: we introduce a nonempty *base set* $\mathsf{{\mathsf{R}}}$ of (categorical) random variables (in this paper we assume this set to be finite, but this need not be so generally), and we posit that
[(P1)]{}
: a random variable belongs to ${\mathsf{E}}$ if and only if it is a function of any one of the elements of $\mathsf{{\mathsf{R}}}$;
[(P2)]{}
: no random variable in ${\mathsf{E}}$ is a function of two distinct elements of $\mathsf{{\mathsf{R}}}$.
The constraints (P1-P2) ensure that no two random variables existing in the sense of belonging to ${\mathsf{E}}$ may have a joint distribution unless they are functions of one and the same element of $\mathsf{{\mathsf{R}}}$. Indeed, let some transformations $\alpha\left(A\right)$ and $\beta\left(B\right)$ have a joint distribution, for $A,B\in\mathsf{R}$. Then a random variable $\left(\alpha\left(A\right),\beta\left(B\right)\right)$ exists, which means that this pair is a function of some $C\in\mathsf{R}$. But then $\alpha\left(A\right)$ is a function of $A$ and $C$, whence $A=C$, and $\beta\left(B\right)$ is a function of both $B$ and $C$, whence $B=C=A$. (In reference to Section \[sub: Two-meanings-of\], the equalities here are used in the sense of “one and the same random variable.”)
Instead of “$X$ belongs to ${\mathsf{E}}$” we can also say “$X$ exists with respect to ${\mathsf{R}}$.” This is preferable if one deals with different base sets ${\mathsf{R}}$ inducing different classes ${\mathsf{E}}$, as we do in the subsequent sections.
Consider an example: let $\mathsf{R}$ consist of the four random variables $$X=\left(X_{1},X_{2},X_{3}\right),Y=\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right),Z,U=\left(U_{1},U_{2}\right).$$ These random variables are declared to exist, and then so are functions of these random variables. Thus, $X_{2}$ exists because $X$ exists and $X_{2}$ is its function (second projection). Analogously, if the values of $Y_{1},Y_{2}$ are numerical, the variable $Y_{1}+Y_{2}$ exists. However, no component of one of the four random variables, say, $X_{2}$, is jointly distributed with any component of another, say, $U_{1}$, and no function $f\left(U_{1},X_{2}\right)$ is a random variable (its distribution is undefined). By the same logic, no two different vectors in ${\mathsf{R}}$ can share a component: if they did, this component would be a function of both of them, contravening (P2).
\[sub: Systems-of-random\]Systems of random variables
-----------------------------------------------------
The example of ${\mathsf{R}}$ at the end of the previous section is in fact how we introduce our main object: *conteXt-conteNt systems of random variables*.
\[def: c-c\]Let ${\mathsf{R}}$ be a base set of (categorical) random variables each element of which, called a *bunch*, is a vector of random variables. Let $U_{{\mathsf{R}}}$ be the union of all components of these bunches. A *conteXt-conteNt (c-c) system* $\mathcal{R}$ of random variables based on $\mathsf{{\mathsf{R}}}$ is created by endowing $\mathsf{{\mathsf{R}}}$ with a partition of $U_{{\mathsf{R}}}$ into subsets called *connections* and satisfying the following two properties:
*(intersection property*) a bunch and a connection do not have more than one component of $U_{{\mathsf{R}}}$ in common; and
*(comparability property)* elements of a connection have the same set of possible values.[^4]
Recall that partitioning of a set means creating a set of pairwise disjoint subsets whose union is the entire set. Note that due to the intersection property in Definition \[def: c-c\], any two elements of a connection are stochastically unrelated (they are 1-marginals of different bunches). Note also that due to the comparability property the elements of a connection may (but generally do not) have the same distribution.
Let the bunches of the system be enumerated $1,\ldots,n$, and the connections be enumerated $1,\ldots,m$. Due to the intersection property in Definition \[def: c-c\], any random variable in the set $U_{{\mathsf{R}}}$ of a system $\mathcal{R}$ can be uniquely identified by the labels of the bunch and of the connection it belongs to. These labels (or some symbols in a one-to-one correspondence with them) are referred to as *conteXts* (labels for bunches) and *conteNts* (labels for connections). As we see, in the formal theory bunches and connection define rather than are defined by the conteXts and conteNts, respectively. It is the other way around in empirical applications (see the introductory section), where our understanding of what constitutes a given conteNt under different conteXts guides the creation of the bunches and connections.
The unique labeling of the random variables by the conteXts and conteNts means that any system can be presented in the form already familiar to us from the introduction: a conteXt-conteNt () matrix. An example of a system presented in the form of a matrix is given in Fig. \[fig: system general\]. The initial base set of random variables is $$\mathsf{{\mathsf{R}}}=\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
R^{1}=\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{2}^{1}\right)\\
\\
R^{2}=\left(R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2},R_{3}^{2}\right)\\
\\
R^{3}=\left(R_{1}^{3},R_{3}^{3}\right)
\end{array}\right\} ,\label{eq: three bunches in R}$$ the union set is $$U_{{\mathsf{R}}}=\left\{ R_{1}^{1},R_{2}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{2}^{2},R_{3}^{2},R_{1}^{3},R_{3}^{3}\right\} \label{eq: union of all in R}$$ with the lower indexes already chosen in view of the partitioning into connections, $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{3}\right)\\
\\
\left(R_{2}^{1},R_{2}^{2}\right)\\
\\
\left(R_{3}^{2},R_{3}^{3}\right)
\end{array}\right\} .\label{eq: three connections in R}$$
The intersection property in Definition \[def: c-c\] is critical: if a conteXt and a connection could have more than one random variable in common, both the double-indexing of the random variables by conteXts and conteNts and the subsequent contextuality analysis of the system would be impossible.
Kolmogorovian Probability Theory and Contextuality-by-Default
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we briefly discuss the relationship between KPT and CbD. This discussion is not needed for understanding the subsequent sections. We will assume the reader’s familiarity with the basics of measure theory.
The definition of (categorical) random variables in KPT is as follows. Let $\left(S,\Sigma,\mu\right)$ be a domain probability space, and let $\left(V_{X},\Sigma_{X}\right)$ be a codomain measurable space, with $V_{X}$ a finite set and $\Sigma_{X}$ usually (and here) defined as its power set. A random variable $X$ is a function $S\rightarrow V_{X}$ such that $X^{-1}\left(\left\{ v\right\} \right)\in\Sigma$, for any $v\in V_{X}$. The probability mass $p_{X}\left(v\right)$ is defined as $\mu\left(X^{-1}\left(\left\{ v\right\} \right)\right)$, and for any subset $V\subset V_{X},$ the probability of $X$ falling in $V$ is computed as $$\Pr\left[X\in V\right]=\mu\left(X^{-1}\left(V\right)\right)=\sum_{v\in V}p_{X}\left(v\right).$$ We call $\left(S,\Sigma,\mu\right)$ the *sample space*[^5] for $X$.
The great conceptual convenience of KPT is that the joint distribution of two random variables taken as two functions defined on the same sample space is uniquely determined by these two functions: if $X$ is as above and $Y$ is another random variable, then its joint distribution with $X$ above is defined by $$p_{XY}\left(v,w\right)=\mu\left(X^{-1}\left(\left\{ v\right\} \right)\cap Y^{-1}\left(\left\{ w\right\} \right)\right),$$ for any $\left(v,w\right)\in V_{X}\times V_{Y}$.
In CbD, random variables are considered only with respect to a specified base set. A random variable exists if it is a function of one and only one of the elements of this base set; and functions of different base random variables are considered stochastically unrelated. Is this picture compatible with KPT? We think it is, provided KPT is not naively thought of as positing the existence of a single sample space for all imaginable random variables. Such a view can be shown to be mathematically flawed (Dzhafarov & Kujala, 2014a-b).
Every sample space $\left(S,\Sigma,\mu\right)$ corresponds to a random variable $Z$ defined as the identity mapping $S\rightarrow S$ from $\left(S,\Sigma,\mu\right)$ to $\left(S,\Sigma\right)$, and then every random variable defined on $\left(S,\Sigma,\mu\right)$ is representable as a transformation of $Z$. If we consider a set of sample spaces unrelated to each other, then the corresponding identity functions form a base set of random variables, and what we get is essentially the same picture as in CbD.
We need one qualification though: even if all the functions considered are categorial random variables, the base set itself need not be a finite set of categorical random variables, as it is in Section \[sub: Systems-of-random\]. This is not, however, a restriction inherent in CbD but the choice we have made in this paper. A finite number of categorical base variables are sufficient if one only considers a finite set of functions thereof, which is the case we deal with.
\[sec: Contextuality-analysis\]Contextuality analysis
=====================================================
In this section we give the definitions and introduce the conceptual apparatus involved in determining whether a system is contextual or noncontextual.
\[sub: (Probabilistic)-couplings\]Probabilistic couplings
---------------------------------------------------------
Imagining joint distributions for things that are not jointly distributed, as it was presented in Section \[sub: The-intuition-of\], is not rigorous mathematics. The latter requires that we use the mathematical tool of *(probabilistic) couplings*.
A coupling of a set of random variables $X_{1},\ldots,X_{n}$ is a random variable $\left(Y_{1},\ldots,Y_{n}\right)$ (with jointly distributed components) such that $Y_{i}$ has the same distribution as $X_{i}$, for all $i=1,\ldots,n$.
As an illustration, let $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$ be distributed as
[c|c|c|c|c]{} & & & & [\
]{} $\textnormal{pr. mass}$ & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.4 & [\
]{}
and
[c|c|c|c]{} & & & [\
]{} $\textnormal{pr. mass}$ & 0.7 & 0.3 & [\
]{}
Then $\left(Y_{1},Y_{2}\right)$ with the distribution
----------- ----- ----- ----- -----
$Y_{2}=1$ 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.7
$Y_{2}=2$ 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
----------- ----- ----- ----- -----
is a coupling for $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$. And so is $\left(Y'_{1},Y'_{2}\right)$ with the distribution
------------ ----- ----- ----- -----
$Y'_{2}=1$ 0.3 0 0.4 0.7
$Y'_{2}=2$ 0 0.3 0 0.3
------------ ----- ----- ----- -----
.
Generally, the number of couplings of a given set of random variables is infinite.
In our paper couplings are constructed in two ways only: either for connections in a system, taken separately, or for the entire set of bunches in the system. In relation to the system $\mathcal{B}$ in Fig. \[fig: system general\] and (\[eq: three bunches in R\]), a coupling for the connection $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{3}\right)$ is a triple $\left(T_{1}^{1},T_{1}^{2},T_{1}^{3}\right)$ such that $T_{1}^{j}$ and $R_{1}^{j}$ have the same distribution, for $j=1,2,3$; and analogously for the other two connections.
The set of the three bunches $\left(R^{1},R^{2},R^{3}\right)$ in (\[eq: three bunches in R\]) is coupled by $S=\left(S^{1},S^{2},S^{3}\right)$ where $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
S^{1}=\left(S_{1}^{1},S_{2}^{1}\right)\\
\\
S^{2}=\left(S_{1}^{2},S_{2}^{2},S_{3}^{2}\right)\\
\\
S^{3}=\left(S_{1}^{3},S_{3}^{3}\right)
\end{array}\right\}$$ such that $S^{j}$ and $R^{j}$ have the same distribution, for $j=1,2,3$.
In the following we will freely use phrases indicating that a coupling for some random variables “exists,” or “can be constructed,” or that these random variables “can be coupled.” Note, however, that the couplings do not “exist” with respect to the base set of random variables formed by the bunches of a system, as no coupling of the bunches can be presented as a function of just one of these bunches. If the bunches are assumed to have links to empirical observations, then the couplings can be said to have no empirical meaning. A coupling forms a base set of its own, consisting of itself. Its marginals (or *subcouplings*) corresponding to the bunches of the system do “exist” with respect to this new base set, as they are functions of its only element. However, the bunches of the system themselves do not “exist” with respect to the base set formed by this coupling. One can add the coupling $S=\left(S^{1},S^{2},S^{3}\right)$ to the set $\left(R^{1},R^{2},R^{3}\right)$ of the three bunches of our system $\mathcal{B}$ as a fourth element of a new base set, stochastically unrelated to the bunches.
\[sub: Flattening-convention\]“Flattening” convention
-----------------------------------------------------
Let us adopt the following simplifying convention in regard to couplings (and more generally, vectors of jointly distributed variables): a vector of jointly distributed random variables $\left(A^{1},\ldots,A^{n}\right)$ in which $A^{i}=\left(A_{1}^{i},\ldots,A_{k_{i}}^{i}\right)$, for each $i=1,\ldots,n$, is considered equivalent (replaceable by) the vector $$\left(A_{1}^{1},\ldots,A_{k_{1}}^{1},\ldots,A_{1}^{n},\ldots,A_{k_{n}}^{n}\right).$$ As each of the random variables is assumed to be uniquely indexed (in our analysis, double-indexed), the order in which they are shown in any given vector is usually arbitrary. As an example, a coupling $S=\left(S^{1},S^{2},S^{3}\right)$ of the three bunches $\mathcal{R}=\left(R^{1},R^{2},R^{3}\right)$ in (\[eq: three bunches in R\]), written in extenso, is $$S=\left(\left(S_{1}^{1},S_{2}^{1}\right),\left(S_{1}^{2},S_{2}^{2},S_{3}^{2}\right),\left(S_{1}^{3},S_{3}^{3}\right)\right)$$ with $\left(S_{1}^{1},S_{2}^{1}\right)$ distributed as the bunch $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{2}^{1}\right)$, etc. In accordance with our agreement, this coupling can be equivalently written as $$S=\left(S_{1}^{1},S_{2}^{1},S_{1}^{2},S_{2}^{2},S_{3}^{2},S_{1}^{3},S_{3}^{3}\right),\label{eq: coupling for R}$$ in which $\left(S_{1}^{1},S_{2}^{1}\right)$ distributed as the bunch $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{2}^{1}\right)$, etc. The “flattening” convention makes it easier to compare couplings of a connection taken in isolation with the *subcoupling* of the coupling (\[eq: coupling for R\]) corresponding to the same connection. Thus, for the connection $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{3}\right)$ taken separately we can consider all possible couplings $\left(T_{1}^{1},T_{1}^{2},T_{1}^{3}\right)$ and then compare them with the subcouplings $\left(S_{1}^{1},S_{1}^{2},S_{1}^{3}\right)$ extracted as 3-marginals from all possible couplings (\[eq: coupling for R\]). We will need such comparisons for determining whether the system in question is contextual.
Maximal couplings for connections
---------------------------------
Let $R_{j}^{1},\ldots,R_{j}^{k}$ be a connection (for a conteNt $q_{j}$) in a system. A coupling $\left(T_{j}^{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{k}\right)$ of $R_{j}^{1},\ldots,R_{j}^{k}$ is a *maximal coupling* if the value of $$\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=\ldots=T_{j}^{k}\right]$$ is the largest possible among all couplings of $R_{j}^{1},\ldots,R_{j}^{k}$.
(In relation to Section \[sub: Two-meanings-of\], the equality here clearly is not the identity of the random variables but a description of an event associated with jointly distributed variables.) Theorem \[thm: maximal-coupling\] below ensures that the maximum mentioned in the definition always exist. The notion of a maximal coupling is well-defined for arbitrary sets of arbitrary random variables (see Thorisson, 2000), but we will only need it for connections formed by categorical variables.[^6]
For any coupling $\left(T_{j}^{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{k}\right)$ of $\left(R_{j}^{1},\ldots,R_{j}^{k}\right)$ ,
$$\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=\ldots=T_{j}^{k}\right]=\sum_{v\in V}\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=v,\ldots,T_{j}^{k}=v\right],$$
where $V$ is the set of possible values shared by the elements of the connection. This sum is maximized across all possible couplings if each of the summands on the right-hand side is maximized separately. The maximal possible value for $\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=v,\ldots T_{j}^{k}=v\right]$ (with the individual distributions of $Y_{i}$ being fixed) is $$\max p_{v}=\min\left(\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=v\right],\ldots,\Pr\left[T_{j}^{k}=v\right]\right).\label{eq: max coupling mins}$$ Indeed, the probability of a joint event can never exceed any of the probabilities of the component events. To prove that a maximal coupling exists for any connection, we need to show that every value of $\left(T_{j}^{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{k}\right)$ can be assigned a probability so that, for all $v\in V$, $$\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=v,\ldots T_{j}^{k}=v\right]=\max p_{v},$$ and $$\sum_{\substack{v_{1},\ldots,v_{i-1},\\
v_{i}=v,\\
v_{i+1},\ldots,v_{k}
}
}\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=v_{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{k}=v_{k}\right]=\Pr\left[Y_{i}=v\right],$$ for any $i=1,\ldots,k$. A simple proof that this is always possible can be found in Thorisson (2000, pp. 7-8 and 104-107).
\[thm: maximal-coupling\]A maximal coupling $\left(T_{j}^{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{k}\right)$ can be constructed for any connection $\left(R_{j}^{1},\ldots,R_{j}^{k}\right)$ in a system, with $$\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=\ldots=T_{j}^{k}=v\right]\\
=\min\left(\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=v\right],\ldots,\Pr\left[T_{j}^{k}=v\right]\right),
\end{array}\label{eq: theorem}$$ for any $v$ in the set $V$ of possible values of (each of) $R_{j}^{1},\ldots,R_{j}^{k}$.
As an example, let the variables $R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{3}$ in the first connection of the system $\mathcal{B}$ of Fig. \[fig: system general\] be binary, with the possible values 1 and 2. Let
-- --------------- --------------- --
$R_{1}^{1}=1$ $R_{1}^{1}=2$
-- --------------- --------------- --
-- --------------- --------------- --
$R_{1}^{2}=1$ $R_{1}^{2}=2$
-- --------------- --------------- --
[c|c|c|c]{} & & & [\
]{} $\textnormal{pr. mass}$ & 0.7 & 0.3 & [\
]{}
Then, in the maximal coupling $\left(T_{1}^{1},T_{1}^{2},T_{1}^{3}\right)$, $$\begin{array}{l}
\max p_{1}=\Pr\left[T_{1}^{1}=T_{1}^{2}=T_{1}^{3}=1\right]\\
\\
=\min\left(0.3,0.4,0.7\right)=0.3,\\
\\
\max p_{2}=\Pr\left[T_{1}^{1}=T_{1}^{2}=T_{1}^{3}=2\right]\\
\\
=\min\left(0.7,0.6,0.3\right)=0.3.
\end{array},$$ We can now assign probabilities to the rest of the values of $\left(T_{1}^{1},T_{1}^{2},T_{1}^{3}\right)$ in an infinity of possible ways, e.g., as shown below,
[c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c]{} & & & & & & & & & [\
]{} $\textnormal{pr. mass}$ & 0.3 & 0 & 0 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0 & 0 & 0.3 & [\
]{}
so that these joint probabilities yield the right values of $\Pr\left[T_{1}^{j}=1\right]=\Pr\left[R_{1}^{j}=1\right]$, for $j=1,2,3$.
Consider another example, using the second connection in the system $\mathcal{B}$, $\left(R_{2}^{1},R_{2}^{2}\right)$. Suppose that both these variables have the same distribution:
[c|c|c|c|c]{} & & & & [\
]{} $\textnormal{pr. mass}$ & 0.3 & 0.2 & 0.5 & [\
]{}
in which case we can say that this connection is *consistent* (and, to remind, if this is the case for all connections, then the system is consistently connected). The maximal coupling $\left(T_{2}^{1},T_{2}^{2}\right)$ here has a uniquely determined distribution
--------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
$T_{2}^{2}=1$ 0.3 0 0 0.3
$T_{2}^{2}=2$ 0 0.2 0 0.2
$T_{2}^{2}=3$ 0 0 0.5 0.5
--------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
,
with $\Pr\left[T_{2}^{1}=T_{2}^{2}\right]=1$.
Contextuality
-------------
------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------
$R_{1}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{2}^{1}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{1}$
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{2}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{3}^{2}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{2}$
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{cc} $R_{3}^{3}$$\begin{array}{cc} $c_{3}$
\\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathsf{SZLG}}}$
------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------------------
\[def: cntx\]A coupling for (the bunches of) a system is *maximally connected* if its subcouplings corresponding to the connections of the system are maximal couplings of these connections. If a system has a maximally connected coupling, it is *noncontextual*. Otherwise it is *contextual*. [^7]
For motivation of this definition, see Section \[sub: The-intuition-of\]. Let us illustrate this definition using the system of binary random variables first considered, in abstract, by Suppes and Zanotti (1981) and then, as a paradigm in quantum mechanics, by Leggett and Garg (1985). The matrix for this system is presented in Fig. \[fig: SZLG\]. There are three conteNts here, any two of which are represented (measured, responded to) in one of three possible conteXts. Figure \[fig: SZLG and coupling\] (top panel) shows this system schematically: a set of three bunches stochastically unrelated to each other, and three connections “bridging” them. Since any of the six random variables in the system has two possible values, any coupling $$S=\left(S_{1}^{1},S_{2}^{1},S_{2}^{2},S_{3}^{2},S_{3}^{3},S_{1}^{3}\right)$$ of this system has $2^{6}$ possible values, and its distribution is defined by assigning $2^{6}$ probability masses to them.
It is difficult to see how one could show graphically that six random variables are jointly distributed. In the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig: SZLG and coupling\] this problem is solved by invoking Theorem \[thm: JDC\], according to which the random variables in a coupling are all functions of one and the same, “hidden” random variable. We do not need to specify this random variable and the functions producing the components of a coupling explicitly. It is always possible, however, to choose this random variable to be the coupling $S$ itself, and treat the random variables in the coupling as projection functions: $S_{1}^{1}$ is the first projection of $S$, $S_{2}^{1}$ is the second projection of $S$, etc.
The distribution of the six random variables in the coupling should, by definition, agree with the bunches of the system $\mathcal{B}$, each of which is uniquely characterized by three probabilities: $$\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=1\right]=p_{1}^{1}=\Pr\left[S_{1}^{1}=1\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{2}^{1}=1\right]=p_{2}^{1}=\Pr\left[S_{2}^{1}=1\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=1,R_{2}^{1}=1\right]=p_{12}=\Pr\left[S_{1}^{1}=1,S_{2}^{1}=1\right]
\end{array}$$ for the bunch $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{2}^{1}\right)$, and analogously for the other two. There are generally an infinity of couplings that satisfy these equations.
Consider now the three connections of the system as three separate pairs of random variables (Fig. \[fig: SZLG connections\], top panel), and for each of them consider its coupling (Fig. \[fig: SZLG connections\], middle panel). The distributions of the elements of a connection are fixed, and its coupling should, by definition, preserve them. Thus, for the connection $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{3}\right)$, $$\begin{array}{c}
\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=1\right]=p_{1}^{1}=\Pr\left[T_{1}^{1}=1\right],\\
\\
\Pr\left[R_{1}^{3}=1\right]=p_{1}^{3}=\Pr\left[T_{1}^{3}=1\right].
\end{array}$$ With $p_{1}^{1}$ and $p_{1}^{3}$ given, the distribution of the coupling $\left(T_{1}^{1},T_{1}^{3}\right)$ of $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{3}\right)$ is determined by $$\Pr\left[T_{1}^{1}=1,T_{1}^{3}=1\right]=p_{1}.$$ By Theorem \[thm: maximal-coupling\], $p_{1}$ can be chosen so that $\Pr\left[T_{1}^{1}=T_{1}^{3}\right]$ attains its maximal possible value, and this choice is $$p_{1}=\min\left(p_{1}^{1},p_{1}^{3}\right).$$ We know that such a coupling is a maximal coupling of $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{3}\right)$, in this simple case, uniquely determined. We choose values $p_{2}$ and $p_{3}$ for the maximal couplings of the remaining two connections analogously.
In accordance with Definition \[def: cntx\], the question now is whether these three values of the joint probabilities, $p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}$, are compatible with the bunches of the system. Put differently, can one construct a maximally connected coupling shown in Fig. \[fig: SZLG connections\], bottom panel, a coupling in which all the probabilities shown are achieved together? The system is noncontextual if and only if the answer to this question is affirmative.
To see that it does not have to be affirmative, consider the example presented in Fig. \[fig: SZLG exmaple\]. The maximally connected coupling does not exist because, in the bottom-panel diagram,
[00.00.0000]{}
going clockwise from $S_{1}^{1}$ and using the transitivity of the relation “always equals,” we conclude that $\Pr\left[S_{1}^{1}=S_{3}^{3}\right]=1$;
going counterclockwise from $S_{1}^{1}$ we see that $\Pr\left[S_{1}^{1}=S_{1}^{3}\right]=1$;
but then $\Pr\left[S_{1}^{3}=S_{3}^{3}\right]$ must also be 1, which it is not.
\[sec: Contextuality-as-LP\]Contextuality as a linear programming problem
=========================================================================
Is there a general method for establishing contextuality or lack thereof in a given system? It turns out that such a method exists, and insofar as finite sets of categorical random variables are involved, it is a simple linear programming method. A maximally connected coupling of a system is uniquely associated with a certain underdetermined system of linear equations, and the system is contextual if and only if this system of linear equations has no nonnegative solutions. The theory of these equations generalizes the Linear Feasibility Test described in Dzhafarov and Kujala (2012).
Notation and conventions
------------------------
We need to introduce or recall some notation and conventions. Let a system $\mathcal{R}$ involve conteXts $c_{1},\ldots,c_{n}$ ($n>1$) and conteNts $q_{1},\ldots,q_{m}$ ($m>1$).
1. Notation related to a system $\mathcal{R}$: $$\mathcal{R}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\ddots & \vdots & \iddots\\
\cdots & R_{j}^{i} & \cdots & \left(\textnormal{bunch }R^{i}\right)\\
\iddots & \vdots & \ddots\\
& \left(\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{connection}\\
\mathcal{R}_{j}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right).$$
2. Corresponding notation for a (maximally connected) coupling $S$ of $\mathcal{R}$: $$S=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\ddots & \vdots & \iddots\\
\cdots & S_{j}^{i} & \cdots & \left(\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{subcoupling }\\
S^{i}
\end{array}\right)\\
\iddots & \vdots & \ddots\\
& \left(\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{subcoupling}\\
S_{j}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right).$$
3. Notation for any (maximal) coupling $T_{j}$ of a connection $\mathcal{R}_{j}$ taken separately: $$T_{j}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\vdots\\
T_{j}^{i}\\
\vdots
\end{array}\right).$$
4. A value of a random variable $R_{j}^{i}$ (hence also of $S_{j}^{i}$ or $T_{j}^{i}$) is denoted $v_{j}^{i}$ or $w_{j}^{i}$. A value of a bunch $R^{i}$ (hence also of the subcoupling $S^{i}$ of $S$) is denoted $v^{i}$ or $w^{i}$. We use $v_{j}$ or $w_{j}$ to denote values of couplings $T_{j}$ and the corresponding subcouplings $S_{j}$ of $S$ (assumed to be maximally connected). The value $v$ of $S$ has the structure $$v=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\ddots & \vdots & \iddots\\
\cdots & v_{j}^{i} & \cdots & \left(\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{bunch}\\
\textnormal{ value }v^{i}
\end{array}\right)\\
\iddots & \vdots & \ddots\\
& \left(\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{connection}\\
\textnormal{ value }v_{j}
\end{array}\right)
\end{array}\right).\label{eq: value v}$$ As is customary, we use $v,v^{i},v_{j},v_{j}^{i}$ sometimes as variables and sometimes as specific values of these variables.
5. Recall that in these matrices and vectors some entries are not defined: not every conteNt is paired with every conteXt. If $q_{j}$ is measured (responded to) in conteXt $c_{i}$, the random variable $R_{j}^{i}$ exists, and the elements of the set $V_{j}$ of its possible values can be enumerated $1,\ldots,k_{j}$. Denoting $$k=\max_{j=1,\ldots,m}k_{j},$$ without loss of generality, we can assume that $$V_{j}=\left\{ 1,\ldots,k\right\} ,$$ for every $j=1,\ldots,m$. Indeed, one can always add values to $V_{j}$ that occur with probability zero. The set of all values $v$ of a coupling $S$ is therefore $\left\{ 1,\ldots,k\right\} ^{N}$, where $N$ is the number of all random variables in $S$.
6. We will refer to the values $v$ of $S$ as *hidden outcomes*. The term derives from quantum mechanics, where the problem of contextuality was initially presented as that of hidden variables (see the last paragraph of Section \[sub: Functions-of-random\]).
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & & [\
]{}$\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & & [\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S^{1}=\left(+,+\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R^{1}=\left(+,+\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} & & & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S^{1}=\left(+,-\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R^{1}=\left(+,-\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} & & & & & & & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S^{1}=\left(-,+\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R^{1}=\left(-,+\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} & & & & & & & & & & & & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S^{1}=\left(-,-\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R^{1}=\left(-,-\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S^{2}=\left(+,+\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R^{2}=\left(+,+\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S^{2}=\left(+,-\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R^{2}=\left(+,-\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S^{2}=\left(-,+\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R^{2}=\left(-,+\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S^{2}=\left(-,-\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R^{2}=\left(-,-\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{1}=\left(+,+\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[T_{1}=\left(+,+\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} & & & & & & & & & & 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{1}=\left(-,-\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[T_{1}=\left(-,-\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & & & & & 1 & & 1 & & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{2}=\left(+,+\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[T_{2}=\left(+,+\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} & & & & & 1 & & 1 & & & & & & 1 & & 1 & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{2}=\left(-,-\right)\right]\\
=\Pr\left[T_{2}=\left(-,-\right)\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{}
Linear equations associated with a c-c system
---------------------------------------------
To specify a distribution of $S$, each of the hidden outcomes $v$ should be assigned a probability mass $\gamma\left(v\right)$. Let us form a column vector $\mathbf{Q}$ by arranging these $\gamma\left(v\right)$-values in some, say, lexicographic order of $v$. Let us also form a column vector $\mathbf{P}$ with the following structure: $$\mathbf{P}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{\emph{bunch}}\\
\textnormal{\emph{probabilities}}\\
\textnormal{for }c_{1},\ldots,c_{n}
\end{array},\ldots,\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{\emph{connection}}\\
\textnormal{\emph{probabilities}}\\
\textnormal{for }q_{1},\ldots,q_{m}
\end{array}\right).$$ Here, $$\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{bunch}\\
\textnormal{probabilities}\\
\textnormal{for }c_{i}
\end{array}=\left(\Pr\left[R^{i}=v^{i}\right]:v^{i}\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,k\right\} ^{n_{i}}\right),$$ where $n_{i}$ is the number of elements in $v^{i}$. That is, the bunch probabilities for $c{}_{i}$ are the joint probabilities that determine the distribution of the bunch $R^{i}$. The connection probabilities for $q_{j}$ are the probabilities imposed by the maximal coupling $T_{j}$ of the connection $\mathcal{R}_{j}$ taken separately: $$\begin{array}{c}
\textnormal{connection}\\
\textnormal{probabilities}\\
\textnormal{for }q_{j}
\end{array}=\left(\Pr\left[T_{j}=\left(l,\ldots,l\right)\right]:l\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,k\right\} \right).$$
Since $S$ is a coupling of $\mathcal{R}$, we should have, for every value $w^{i}$ of every bunch $R^{i}$, $$\sum_{v}\lambda^{i}\left(v,w^{i}\right)\gamma\left(v\right)=\Pr\left[R^{i}=w^{i}\right],\label{eq: bunch equations}$$ where $\lambda^{i}\left(v,w^{i}\right)=1$ if $v^{i}=w^{i}$ (i.e., if the $i$th row of $v$, in reference to (\[eq: value v\]), equals $w^{i}$), and $\lambda^{i}\left(v,w^{i}\right)=0$ otherwise. Since $S$ is a maximally connected coupling of $\mathcal{R}$, we should have, for every value $w_{j}=\left(l,\ldots,l\right)$ of every maximal coupling $T_{j}$,
$$\sum_{v}\lambda_{j}\left(v,w_{j}\right)\gamma\left(v\right)=\Pr\left[T_{j}=w_{j}=\left(l,\ldots,l\right)\right]\label{eq: connection equations}$$
where $\lambda_{j}\left(v,w_{j}\right)=1$ if the $j$th column $v_{j}$ of $v$ in (\[eq: value v\]) equals $w_{j}$, and $\lambda_{j}\left(v,w_{j}\right)=0$ otherwise.
In we list the hidden outcomes $v$ in the same order as in the vector $\mathbf{Q}$, the $1/0$ values of $\lambda^{i}\left(v,w^{i}\right)$ and $1/0$ values of $\lambda_{j}\left(v,w_{j}\right)$ in (\[eq: bunch equations\]) and (\[eq: connection equations\]) form rows of a Boolean matrix $\mathbf{M}$, one row per each $\left(i,w^{i}\right)$ and each $\left(j,w_{j}\right)$, such that (\[eq: bunch equations\]) and (\[eq: connection equations\]) can be written together as $$\mathbf{MQ}=\mathbf{P}.\label{eq: associated eqs}$$ We will refer to this matrix equation as the *system of equations associated with the system* $\mathcal{R}$. In Section \[sec: How-to-measure\] below we will show that a vector of real numbers $\mathbf{Q}$ satisfying this equation always exist. To form a distribution for a maximally connected coupling $S$, however, $\mathbf{Q}$ also has to satisfy the following two constrains:
[(a)]{}
: all components of $\mathbf{Q}$ are nonnegative, and
[(b)]{}
: they sum to 1.
The latter requirement is satisfied “automatically.” Indeed, by construction, the rows of $\mathbf{M}$ corresponding to all possible values of any given bunch have pairwise disjoint cells containing 1’s: a hidden outcome $v$ in (\[eq: value v\]) contains in its $i$th row one and only one value of the $i$th bunch. This means that if one adds all the rows of $\mathbf{M}$ corresponding to the $i$th bunch one will get a row with 1’s in all cells. The scalar product of this row and $\mathbf{Q}$ equals both the sum of the elements in $\mathbf{Q}$ and the sum of all bunch probabilities in the $i$th bunch, which is 1.
The nonnegativity constraint, however, does not have to be satisfied: it is possible that every one of the infinite set of solutions for $\mathbf{Q}$ contains some negative components. This is the case when the system for which we have constructed the equations is contextual.
We can formulate now the main statement of this section.
\[thm: LP\]A system is noncontextual (i.e., it has a maximally connected coupling) if and only if the associated system of equations $\mathbf{MQ=P}$ has a solution for $\mathbf{Q}$ with nonnegative components. Any such a solution defines a distribution of the hidden outcomes of the coupling.
The task of finding solutions for (\[eq: associated eqs\]) subject to the nonnegativity constraint is a linear programming task. It is always well-defined and leads to an answer (an example of a solution or the determination that it does not exist) in polynomial time with respect to the number of the elements in $\mathbf{Q}$ (Karmarkar, 1984). This is all that matters to us theoretically. In practice, some algorithms are more efficient than Karmarkar’s in most cases (e.g., the simplex algorithm).
The linear programming problem in Theorem \[thm: LP\] is especially transparent when all variables in a system are binary with the same possible values, say, 1 and -1. The reader may find it useful to check, using Fig. \[tab:The-Boolean-matrix\], all the steps of the derivation of the linear equations (\[eq: associated eqs\]) using the system $\mathcal{A}$ of our opening example (Fig. \[fig:system 2by2\]). Whether this system is contextual depends on $\mathbf{P}$, specifically, on the bunch probabilities in $\mathbf{P}$. Recall that the connection probabilities, the last four elements of $\mathbf{P}$ in Fig. \[tab:The-Boolean-matrix\], are computed from the bunch probabilities using Theorem \[thm: maximal-coupling\]. Thus, if the bunch probabilities in $\mathbf{P}$ are as shown in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig: QQ system\], then the connection probabilities should be as in the middle panel, and it can be shown by applying a linear programming algorithm that the matrix equation $\mathbf{MQ}=\mathbf{P}$ does not have a solution with nonnegative elements. In this simple case we can confirm this result by a direct observation of the internal contradiction in the maximally connected coupling shown in the bottom panel.
\[sec: Cyclic-c-c-systems\]Cyclic c-c systems
=============================================
The question we pose now is: is there a shortcut to find out if a system is contextual, without resorting to linear programming? As it turns out, for an important class of so-called cyclic systems with binary variables (Dzhafarov, Zhang, & Kujala, 2015; Dzhafarov, Kujala, & Cervantes, 2016; Kujala, Dzhafarov, & Larsson, 2015; Kujala & Dzhafarov, 2016) the answer to this question is affirmative.
Contextuality criterion for cyclic c-c systems
----------------------------------------------
![\[fig: cyclicity proof\]The conteNts (small circles) in a system satisfying the conditions CYC1-CYC2 can be arranged in a cycle (upper left panel) or several disjoint cycles (upper right panel), such that any two adjacent conteNts define one conteXt. The proof is in the lower panels: for the conteNts not to form cycles, some conteNt should be placed in a position like the ones of the open circles in the two lower panels. This is, however, impossible: in the left one it belongs to more than two conteXts (identified with a pair of conteNts), in the right one it belongs to a single conteXt.](arrangements)
A *cyclic* system is defined as a system in which
[(CYC1)]{}
: each conteXt includes precisely two conteNts,
[(CYC2)]{}
: each conteNt is included in precisely two conteXts.
We will also assume that
[(CYC3)]{}
: all random variables are binary with the same two possible values (traditionally, $1$ and $-1$).
Fig. \[fig: cyclicity proof\] makes it clear why such a system is called cyclic: to satisfy the properties above, the conteNts should be arrangeable in one or more cycles in which a conteXt corresponds to any two adjacent conteNts. If the conteNts are arranged into several cycles, from the point of view of contextuality analysis each cycle forms a separate system, with no information regarding one of them being relevant for another’s analysis. We will therefore, with no loss of generality, assume that a cyclic system involves a single cycle.
The number of conteNts (or connections) in a cyclic system equals the number of conteXts (or bunches) in it, and it is referred to as the *rank* of the system. The matrix for the cyclic system has the form shown in Fig. \[fig: cyclic n\], generalizing the matrices in Fig. \[fig:system 2by2\] (cyclic system of rank 2) and Fig. \[fig: SZLG\] (cyclic system of rank 3).
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
$R_{1}^{1}$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{2}^{1}$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{1}$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{2}^{2}$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{3}^{2}$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{2}$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{3}^{3}$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{4}^{3}$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{3}$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\vdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\vdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\vdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\vdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\iddots$$\begin{array}{c} $\vdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\vdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\vdots$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdots$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{n-1}^{n-1}$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{n}^{n-1}$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{n-1}$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{n}$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdots$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{n}^{n}$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{n}$
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathsf{CYC}}}$
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
In the presentation below we use $\left\langle X\right\rangle $ to denote the expected value of a random variable $X$ with possible values $+1$ and $-1$: $$\left\langle X\right\rangle =\Pr\left[X=1\right]-\Pr\left[X=-1\right].$$
Given $k>0$ real numbers $x_{1},\ldots,x_{k}$, we define the function $${\mathsf{{s_{odd}}}}\left(x_{1},\ldots,x_{k}\right)=\max_{\left(\iota_{1},\ldots,\iota_{k}\right)\in\left\{ -1,1\right\} ^{k}:\prod_{i=1}^{k}\iota_{i}=-1}\left(\sum_{\begin{array}{c}
i=1\end{array}}^{k}\iota_{i}x_{i}\right).$$ This means that one takes each argument $x_{i}$ in the sum with either $+$ sign or $-$ sign, tries all combinations in which the number of minuses is odd, and chooses the largest sum. For example, $$\begin{array}{c}
{\mathsf{{s_{odd}}}}\left(5,6\right)=-5+6,\\
\\
{\mathsf{{s_{odd}}}}\left(5,-6\right)=5-\left(-6\right),\\
\\
{\mathsf{{s_{odd}}}}\left(1,2,-3,-10,100\right)=-1+2-\left(-3\right)-\left(-10\right)+100.
\end{array}$$ Finally, we have to introduce the cyclic addition and subtraction operations, $\oplus1$ and $\ominus1$: if the numbers $1,\ldots,n$ are arranged circularly like on a clock dial, then $\oplus1$ and $\ominus1$ mean, respectively, clockwise and counterclockwise shift to the next position. The only difference of these operations from the usual $+1$ and $-1$ is that $n\oplus1=1$ and $1\ominus1=n$.
Now we can formulate a criterion of (i.e., a necessary and sufficient condition for) contextuality of a cyclic system.
A cyclic system of rank $n$ is noncontextual if and only if $${\mathsf{{s_{odd}}}}\left(\left\langle R_{i}^{i}R_{i\oplus1}^{i}\right\rangle :i=1,\ldots,n\right)\leq n-2+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left|\left\langle R_{i}^{i}\right\rangle -\left\langle R_{i}^{i\ominus1}\right\rangle \right|.\label{eq: criterion gen}$$
In the left-hand side expression, the arguments of the function ${\mathsf{{s_{odd}}}}$ are the expected products for the $n$ bunches of the system: $\left\langle R_{1}^{1}R_{2}^{1}\right\rangle $, $\left\langle R_{2}^{2}R_{3}^{2}\right\rangle $, etc., the last one, due to the cyclicality, being $\left\langle R_{n}^{n}R_{1}^{n}\right\rangle $. In the right-hand side of the inequality, the summation sign operates over the $n$ connections of the system: for each connection, $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{n}\right),\left(R_{2}^{2},R_{2}^{1}\right),\ldots,\left(R_{n}^{n},R_{n}^{n-1}\right)$, we take the distance between the expectations of its elements. If the system is consistently connected, all these distances are zero, and the criterion acquires the form $${\mathsf{{s_{odd}}}}\left(\left\langle R_{i}^{i}R_{i\oplus1}^{i}\right\rangle :i=1,\ldots,n\right)\leq n-2.\label{eq: criterion cons}$$
Examples of cyclic systems
--------------------------
It has been mentioned in the introduction that cyclic systems of rank 2 have been prominently studied in a behavioral setting, in the paradigm where the conteNts are two Yes/No questions and conteXts are defined by two orders in which these questions are asked. The noncontextuality criterion (\[eq: criterion gen\]) for $n=2$ acquires the form $$\left|\left\langle R_{1}^{1}R_{2}^{1}\right\rangle -\left\langle R_{2}^{2}R_{1}^{2}\right\rangle \right|\leq\left|\left\langle R_{1}^{1}\right\rangle -\left\langle R_{1}^{2}\right\rangle \right|+\left|\left\langle R_{2}^{1}\right\rangle -\left\langle R_{2}^{2}\right\rangle \right|.\label{eq: QQ}$$ It is known (Moore, 2002) that the distributions of responses to the same question depend on whether the question is asked first or second. In our terminology, this means that the system is inconsistently connected, and the right-hand side of the inequality above is greater than zero. At the same time, as Wang and Busemeyer (2013) have discovered in their analysis of a large body of question pairs, the probability with which the answer to the two questions is one and the same does not depend on the order in which they are asked. To the extent this generalization holds, it means that the left-hand side of the inequality (\[eq: QQ\]) is zero. In turn, this means that the system describing responses to two questions asked in two orders cannot be contextual (see Dzhafarov, Zhang, Kujala, 2015, for a detailed discussion).
Perhaps the best known cyclic system is one of rank 4, whose quantum-mechanical version is shown in Fig. \[fig:Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm-sys\]. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, the product expectation $\left\langle R_{i}^{i}R_{i\oplus1}^{i}\right\rangle $ for Alice’s choice of axis $q_{i}$ and Bob’s choice of axis $q_{i\oplus1}$ equals $-\cos\theta_{i,i\oplus1}$, where $\theta_{i,i\oplus1}$ denotes the angle between the two axes. Assume, e.g., that the four axes are coplanar, and form the following angles with respect to some fixed direction $$\begin{array}{cccc}
q_{1} & q_{2} & q_{3} & q_{4}\\
0 & \nicefrac{\pi}{4} & \nicefrac{\pi}{2} & -\nicefrac{\pi}{4}
\end{array}.$$ The calculation yields in this case $${\mathsf{{s_{odd}}}}\left(\left\langle R_{i}^{i}R_{i\oplus1}^{i}\right\rangle :i=1,2,3,4\right)=2\sqrt{2}.$$ If any possibility of direct interaction between Alice and Bob is excluded, i.e., Alice’s measurements are not influenced by Bob’s choices of his axes and Bob’s measurements are not influenced by Alice’s choices of her axes, and if we exclude any possibility of misrecording, then $$\sum_{i=1}^{4}\left|\left\langle R_{i}^{i}\right\rangle -\left\langle R_{i}^{i\ominus1}\right\rangle \right|=0,$$ and the inequality (\[eq: criterion gen\]) acquires the form of the inequality (\[eq: criterion cons\]), for $n=4$. The value $2\sqrt{2}$ for the left-hand side expression violates this inequality, indicating that the system is contextual.
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------------
$R_{1}^{1}$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{2}^{1}$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{1}$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{2}^{2}$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{3}^{2}$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{2}$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{3}^{3}$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{4}^{3}$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{3}$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$R_{1}^{4}$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $\cdot$$\begin{array}{c} $R_{4}^{4}$$\begin{array}{c} $c_{4}$
\\ \\ \\ \\
\\ \\ \\ \\
\end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$ \end{array}$
$\boxed{\boxed{\mathsf{EPR-B}}}$
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ----------------------------------
![\[fig:Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm-sys\]Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm-system (Bohm & Aharonov, 1957), for which the celebrated Bell-CHSH inequalities were derived (Bell, 1964, 1966; Clauser et al., 1969; Clauser & Horne, 1974). This is a cyclic system of rank 4. Two spin-$\nicefrac{1}{2}$ particles (e.g., electrons) are created in what is called a “singlet state” and move away from each other while remaining entangled. Alice chooses one of the two axes denoted $1$ and $3$ and measures the spin of the left particle, “up” ($+1$) or “down” ($-1$). Bob chooses one of the two axes denoted $2$ and $4$ and measures the spin of the right particle, $+1$ or $-1$. The conteNts here are the (choices of the) four axes, $q_{1},q_{2},q_{3},q_{4}$, the conteXts are defined by the pairs of the axes chosen, one by Alice and another by Bob. The system is contextual for some combinations of the four axes.](n4n4)
There were several studies of systems having the cyclic rank 4 structure in behavioral settings. Thus, Fig. \[fig:A-matching-experiment\] describes one of the psychophysical matching experiments analyzed in Dzhafarov, Ru, and Kujala (2015). The dichotomization of the response variables was done as follows: we choose radial length values $rad_{1},rad_{3}$ (they may be the same) and polar angle values $ang_{2}$ and $ang_{4}$ (they also may be the same), and we define $$\begin{array}{l}
R_{i}^{i}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
+1 & \textnormal{if} & Rad_{i,i\oplus1}>rad_{i}\\
\\
-1 & \textnormal{if} & Rad_{i,i\oplus1}\leq rad_{i}
\end{array}\right.,\\
\\
R_{i\oplus1}^{i}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
+1 & if & Ang_{i,i\oplus1}>ang_{i\oplus1}\\
\\
-1 & if & Ang_{i,i\oplus1}\leq ang_{i\oplus1}
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}$$ for $i=1,3$, and $$\begin{array}{l}
R_{i}^{i}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
+1 & if & Ang_{i,i\oplus1}>ang_{i}\\
\\
-1 & if & Ang_{i,i\oplus1}\leq ang_{i}
\end{array}\right.,\\
\\
R_{i\oplus1}^{i}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
+1 & \textnormal{if} & Rad_{i,i\oplus1}>rad_{i\oplus1}\\
\\
-1 & \textnormal{if} & Rad_{i,i\oplus1}\leq rad_{i\oplus1}
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}$$ for $i=2,4.$ The parameters $rad_{1},rad_{3}$ and $ang_{2},ang_{4}$ can be chosen in multiple ways, paralleling various sets of four axes in the Alice-Bob quantum-mechanical experiment.
See Dzhafarov, Ru, and Kujala (2015) for other examples of behavioral rank 4 cyclic systems. That paper also reviews a behavioral experiment with a cyclic system of rank 3. Cyclic systems of rank 5 play an important role in quantum theory (Klyachko et al., 2008). For the contextuality analysis of an experiment designed to test (a special form of) the inequality (\[eq: criterion gen\]) for $n=5$ (Lapkiewitz et al., 2011), see Kujala, Dzhafarov, and Larsson (2015).
![\[fig:A-matching-experiment\]A matching experiment: a participant rotated a trackball that controlled the position of the dot within a lower-right circle until she judged it to match the fixed position of the target dot in the upper-left circle. The positions were described in polar coordinates, and the target position could have one of two radius values $q_{1}$ or $q_{3}$ combined with one of two polar angles, $q_{2}$ or $q_{4}$. In each of the four conteXts, $\left(q_{i},q_{i\oplus1}\right)$, $i=1,2,3,4$, the adjusted dot’s position was described by two polar coordinates (random variables) $Rad_{i,i\oplus1}$ and $Ang{}_{i,i\oplus1}$, that were then dichotomized to create a cyclic system of rank 4.](dot1)
\[sec: How-to-measure\]How to measure degree of contextuality
=============================================================
Intuitively, some contextual systems are more contextual than others. For instance, a cyclic system of rank $n$ can violate the inequality (\[eq: criterion gen\]) “grossly” or “slightly,” and in the latter case it may be considered less contextual. The question we pose now is: if a system is contextual, is there a *principled* way to measure the degree of contextuality in it? The emphasis is on the qualifier “principled,” as one can easily come up with various ad hoc measures for special types of systems.
In this section we describe one way of constructing such a measure. It uses the notion of *quasi-probability distributions* that differ from the proper ones in that the probability masses in them are replaced with arbitrary, possibly negative, real numbers summing to unity. This conceptual tool has been previously used to deal with contextuality in consistently connected systems (Abramsky & Brandenburger, 2011; Al-Safi & Short, 2013). A measure of contextuality based on the notion of quasi-probability distributions, also for consistently connected systems, was proposed by de Barros and Oas (2014) and investigated in de Barros, Oas, and Suppes (2015) and de Barros et al. (2015). Our measure is a generalization of the de Barros-Oas measure to arbitrary systems. Another generalization and a different way of using quasi-probability distributions to measure contextuality in arbitrary systems was recently proposed by Kujala (2016). This measure requires a modification of CbD and will not be discussed here.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & & [\
]{}$\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & & [\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & $\begin{array}{l}
\\
\\
\end{array}\Pr\left[\right]=1$[\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{1}^{1}=+\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=+\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{2}^{1}=+\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R_{2}^{1}=+\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{1}^{2}=+\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R_{1}^{2}=+\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{2}^{2}=+\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R_{2}^{2}=+\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{1}^{1}=+,S_{2}^{1}=+\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R_{1}^{1}=+,R_{2}^{1}=+\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{1}^{2}=+,S_{2}^{2}=+\right]\\
=\Pr\left[R_{1}^{2}=+,R_{2}^{2}=+\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{1}^{1}=+,S_{1}^{2}=+\right]\\
=\Pr\left[T_{1}^{1}=+,T_{1}^{2}=+\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & & & & & 1 & & 1 & & & & & & & $\begin{array}{l}
\Pr\left[S_{2}^{1}=+,S_{2}^{2}=+\right]\\
=\Pr\left[T_{2}^{1}=+,T_{2}^{2}=+\right]
\end{array}$[\
]{}
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} [\
]{}$\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$[\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1[\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & [\
]{} 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & [\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & [\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & [\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & & & [\
]{} 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & [\
]{} 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & [\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & & & & & 1 & & 1 & & & & & [\
]{}
$\mathbf{Q}$
--------------------
0
0
0
$\nicefrac{1}{2}$
0
$\nicefrac{1}{2}$
0
$-\nicefrac{1}{2}$
0
0
$\nicefrac{1}{2}$
$-\nicefrac{1}{2}$
0
0
0
$\nicefrac{1}{2}$
[c]{} [\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}
[|c|]{} [\
]{}[\
]{} $1$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $0$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{}
Dropping the nonnegativity constraint
-------------------------------------
We have seen that a system is contextual if and only if the associated system of linear equations $\mathbf{MQ}=\mathbf{P}$ does not have a solution for $\mathbf{Q}$ with nonnegative components. In this section we show that if we drop the nonnegativity constraint the system of linear equations always has a solution (and generally an infinity of them). Any such a solution assigns real numbers to all hidden outcomes of the hypothetical maximally connected coupling. Some of these numbers can be negative and some may exceed 1, but they sum to 1.
The existence of $\mathbf{Q}$ solving the linear equations $\mathbf{MQ}=\mathbf{P}$ follows from the existence of $\mathbf{Q}$ solving another system of linear equations, $$\mathbf{M^{*}Q}=\mathbf{P}^{*}.$$ We will refer to it as a *modified-and-expanded* system of linear equations associated with a system. The term reflects the fact that in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ as compared to $\mathbf{P}$ the bunch probabilities are presented in a modified form, and the connection probabilities are expanded to specify entire distributions of the (maximal) couplings of all connections. The rows of the Boolean matrix $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ as compared to $\mathbf{M}$ change accordingly, although its columns remain corresponding to the hidden outcomes $v$ ordered in the same way as $\gamma\left(v\right)$ are ordered in $\mathbf{Q}$.
The construction of $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ and $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ consists of three parts.
**Part 1: first row.** The first element of $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ is 1, and the first row of $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ is filled with $1$’s. This choice ensures $$\sum_{v}\gamma\left(v\right)=1.$$
**Part 2: bunch probabilities.** Next we include in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ the $1$-marginal probabilities $\Pr\left[R_{j}^{i}=l\right]$ for all random variables $R_{j}^{i}$ and all $l=1,\ldots,k-1$. The value $l=k$ is excluded because $\Pr\left[R_{j}^{i}=k\right]$ is uniquely determined as a linear combination of the probabilities already included. The row of $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ corresponding to $\Pr\left[R_{j}^{i}=l\right]$ (i.e., the row whose scalar product by $\mathbf{Q}$ yields this probability) has 1’s in the cells for $v$ with $v_{j}^{i}=l$, and it has zeros in other cells.
The next set of elements of $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ are $2$-marginal probabilities $\Pr\left[R_{j}^{i}=l,R_{j'}^{i}=l'\right]$ for all pairs of random variables $R_{j}^{i},R_{j'}^{i}$ ($j<j'$) and $\left(l,l'\right)\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,k-1\right\} ^{2}$. The $2$-marginal probabilities for $R_{j}^{i}=k$ or $R_{j'}^{i}=k$ are excluded because they are uniquely determinable as linear combinations of the probabilities already included. The row of $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ corresponding to $\Pr\left[R_{j}^{i}=l,R_{j'}^{i}=l'\right]$ has 1’s in the cells for $v$ with $v_{j}^{i}=l,v_{j'}^{i}=l'$, and it has zeros in other cells.
Proceeding in this manner, we include in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ the $r$-marginal probabilities $\Pr\left[R_{j_{1}}^{i}=l_{1},\ldots,R_{j_{r}}^{i}=l_{r}\right]$ ($j_{1}<\ldots<j_{r}$) for all bunches $R^{i}$ with at least $r$ distinct random variables, and for all $\left(l_{1},\ldots,l_{r}\right)\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,k-1\right\} ^{r}$. We exclude all probabilities involving the value $k$ for at least one of the random variables in the $r$-marginal. The row in $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ corresponding to $\Pr\left[R_{j_{1}}^{i}=l_{1},\ldots,R_{j_{r}}^{i}=l_{r}\right]$ has 1’s in the cells for $v$ with $v_{j_{1}}^{i}=l_{1},\ldots,v_{j_{r}}^{i}=l_{r}$, and it has zeros in other cells. The procedure stops at the smallest $r$ such that no bunches in the system contain $r$ distinct random variables.
**Part 3: connection probabilities.** This part of the construction deals with the maximal couplings for connections. By Theorem \[thm: maximal-coupling\], a maximal coupling $T_{j}$ for a connection $\mathcal{R}_{j}$ always exists, i.e., one can always find the joint probabilities $\Pr\left[T_{j}=v_{j}\right]$ for all $v_{j}$, so that $$\Pr\left[T_{j}^{i}=v_{j}^{i}\right]=\Pr\left[R_{j}^{i}=v_{j}^{i}\right]$$ for all $R_{j}^{i}$ in $\mathcal{R}_{j}$, and $$\Pr\left[T_{j}=\left(l,\ldots,l\right)\right]=\min_{\textnormal{components }T_{j}^{i}\textnormal{ of }T_{j}}\Pr\left[T_{j}^{i}=l\right]\label{eq: maximality constarint}$$ for $l=1,\ldots,k$. We choose any maximal coupling $T_{j}$ for each connection $\mathcal{R}_{j}$, and we treat it as if it were an observed bunch. This allows us to repeat on $T_{j}$ the procedure of Part 2, except that the $1$-marginal probabilities $\Pr\left[T_{j}^{i}=v_{j}^{i}\right]=\Pr\left[R_{j}^{i}=l\right]$, which are the same for both bunches and connections, have already been included in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ (and the corresponding rows in $M^{*}$ have been formed). We add, however, all higher-order marginals $\Pr\left[T_{j}^{i_{1}}=l_{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{i_{r}}=l_{r}\right]$ ($i_{1}<\ldots<i_{r}$) for all connections $R$$_{j}$ with at least $r$ distinct random variables, for all $\left(l_{1},\ldots,l_{r}\right)\in\left\{ 1,\ldots,k-1\right\} ^{r}$. The row in $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ corresponding to $\Pr\left[T_{j}^{i_{1}}=l_{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{i_{r}}=l_{r}\right]$ has 1’s in the cells for $v$ with $v_{j}^{i_{1}}=l_{1},\ldots,v_{j}^{i_{r}}=l_{r}$, and it has zeros in other cells. We apply this procedure to $r=2,3,\ldots$ until we reach the smallest $r$ such that no connection in the system contains $r$ distinct random variables.
This completes the construction of $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ and $\mathbf{M}^{*}$. As an example, Fig. \[tab:The-Boolean-matrix-1\] shows $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ and $\mathbf{M}^{*}$ for the system $\mathcal{A}$ of Fig. \[fig:system 2by2\], whose associated $\mathbf{P}$ and $\mathbf{M}$ are shown in Fig. \[tab:The-Boolean-matrix\]. Since all connections in this system contain just two binary variables (as in any cyclic system), the expanded connection probabilities in this case are uniquely determined by the 1-marginal (bunch) probabilities and the joint probabilities with which the coupled variables attain the value 1. In more complex systems the expanded connection probabilities for maximal couplings can be specified in an infinity of ways.
It can now be shown that the rows in **$\mathbf{M^{*}}$** are linearly independent. Indeed, consider a linear combination of these rows that equals the null vector. $$\alpha_{1}\left(row_{1}\right)+\alpha_{2}\left(row_{2}\right)+\ldots+\alpha_{N_{rows}}\left(row_{N_{rows}}\right)=\mathbf{0}.\label{eq: ex-linear combination}$$ The first row of **$\mathbf{M^{*}}$** consists of $1$’s only, and this includes the entry $1$ in the column of **$\mathbf{M^{*}}$** corresponding to the hidden outcome $v$ with all elements in it equal to $k$. Any other row in **$\mathbf{M^{*}}$** contains zero in this column. Indeed, entry 1 would have meant that the corresponding probability in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ was computed for at least one random variable attaining a value belonging to $v$: $S_{j}^{i}=v_{j}^{i}=k$. But this is impossible because the value $k$ is not used in any of the probabilities in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$. It follows that $\alpha_{1}=0$. Without loss of generality therefore, we can eliminate this row from consideration.
The row corresponding to a 1-marginal $\Pr\left[S_{j}^{i}=l\right]$ ($l<k$) contains $1$ in the column corresponding to the hidden outcome $v$ with $v_{j}^{i}=l$ and other entries equal to $k$. All other rows of **$\mathbf{M^{*}}$**, now that we have eliminated the first row, contain zero in the column corresponding to this $v$. Indeed, to have 1 for this $v$ in another row would have meant that the corresponding probability in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ was computed for the conjunction of $S_{j}^{i}=l$ with at least one other random variable attaining a value belonging to $v$: $S_{j'}^{i}=v_{j'}^{i}$ or $S_{j}^{i'}=v_{j}^{i'}$. But all other elements of $v$ equal $k$, and the value $k$ is not used in any of the probabilities in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$. It follows that the $\alpha$-coefficients in (\[eq: ex-linear combination\]) are zero for all rows corresponding to 1-marginal probabilities. Consequently we can consider all these rows eliminated.
The row corresponding to a 2-marginal $\Pr\left[S_{j}^{i}=l,S_{j'}^{i'}=l'\right]$ (where $i=i'$ if this is a bunch probability, or $j=j'$ if it is a connection probability, $l,l'<k$) contains $1$ in the column corresponding to the hidden outcome $v$ with $v_{j}^{i}=l,v_{j'}^{i'}=l'$ and all other values equal to $k$. All other rows in this column, now that we have eliminated the first row and all 1-marginal rows, contain zero in the column corresponding to this $v$. Indeed, to have 1 for this $v$ in another row would have meant that the corresponding probability in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ was computed for the conjunction of $S_{j}^{i}=l,S_{j'}^{i'}=l'$ with at least one other random variable attaining a value belonging to $v$: $S_{j''}^{i''}=v_{j''}^{i''}$ (where $i''=i'=i$ or $j''=j'=j$), which is impossible as all other elements of $v$ equal $k$. It follows that the $\alpha$-coefficients in (\[eq: ex-linear combination\]) are zero for all rows corresponding to 2-marginal (bunch and connection) probabilities. Consequently we can consider all these rows eliminated.
Proceeding in this manner to higher-order marginals until all of them are exhausted, we prove that the rows in **$\mathbf{M^{*}}$** are linearly independent. It follows that the system of equations $\mathbf{M}^{*}\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{P}^{*}$ always has solutions for $\mathbf{Q}$ with real-number components (summing to 1). Since $\mbox{\textbf{M}}$ and $\mathbf{P}$ in the original system of linear equations $\mathbf{M}\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{P}$ associated with a given system are obtained as one and the same linear combination of the rows of, respectively, **$\mathbf{M^{*}}$** and $\mathbf{P}^{*}$, any solution of $\mathbf{M}^{*}\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{P}^{*}$ is also a solution of $\mathbf{M}\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{P}$.
\[thm: quasi\]Any modified-and-expanded system of equations $\mathbf{M^{*}Q=P}^{*}$ associated with a system has a solution for $\mathbf{Q}$ whose components are real numbers summing to 1. Any such solution is also a solution for the original system of equations $\mathbf{MQ=P}$ associated with the same system.
In relation to the possible generalization of CbD discussed in the concluding section of this paper, note that nowhere in the proof of this theorem did we use the fact that a quasi-coupling $S$ for the system $\mathcal{R}$ is maximally connected. In other words, the proof and the construction of **$\mathbf{M^{*}}$** and $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ make no use of the maximality constraint (\[eq: maximality constarint\]). The only fact that matters is that every connection taken separately is coupled in some way, so that all connection probabilities in $\mathbf{P}^{*}$ are well-defined.
Quasi-probabilities and quasi-couplings
---------------------------------------
Let us call the components $\gamma\left(v\right)$ of $\mathbf{Q}$ ** in Theorem \[thm: quasi\] *(signed) quasi-probability masses*, and let us call the function $\gamma$ *(signed) quasi-probability distribution*. Using this terminology, the system of linear equations $\mathbf{M^{*}Q}=\mathbf{P}^{*}$ (hence also $\mathbf{MQ=P}$) always produces (generally an infinity of) quasi-probability distributions of hidden outcomes as solutions for $\mathbf{Q}$.
If the quasi-probability distribution of the hidden outcomes is not a proper probability distribution, then it does not define a coupling for the system we are dealing with. However, we can introduce the notion of a (maximally connected) *quasi-coupling*, by replicating the definition of a (maximally connected) coupling, but with all references to probabilities being replaced with quasi-probabilities.
A *quasi-random variable* $X$ in general is defined as a pair $$X=\left({\mathsf{id}}X,{\mathsf{qdi}}X\right),$$ where ${\mathsf{id}}X$ is as before and ${\mathsf{qdi}}X$ is a ** quasi-probability distribution function mapping a (finite) set $V_{X}$ of possible values of $X$ into the set of reals, $${\mathsf{qdi}}X:V_{X}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}.$$ The only constraint is that $$\sum_{v\in V_{X}}{\mathsf{qdi}}X\left(v\right)=1.$$ For any subset $V$ of $V_{X}$ we define quasi-probabilities[^8] $${\mathsf{qPr}}\left[X\in V\right]=\sum_{v\in V}{\mathsf{qdi}}X\left(v\right).$$ The rest of the conceptual set-up (the class ${\mathsf{E}}$ generated from a base set ${\mathsf{R}}$, the notion of jointly distributed quasi-random variables, their marginals, functions, etc.) precisely parallels one for the ordinary, or proper probability distributions and random variables. We can safely omit details.
A *quasi-coupling* $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ of a system $\mathcal{R}$ is defined as a set of jointly distributed quasi-random variables in a one-to-one correspondence with the union of the components of the bunches of $\mathcal{R}$, such that the quasi-probability distribution of every marginal of $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ that corresponds to a bunch of the system coincides with the (proper) distribution of this bunch. A quasi-coupling $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ of $\mathcal{R}$ is *maximally connected* if every marginal of $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ that corresponds to a connection of the system is a maximal coupling for this connection.
Let us illustrate this definition on the contextual rank 2 cyclic system shown in Fig. \[fig: QQ system\]. The set of hidden outcomes here consists of the 16 four-component combinations of 1’s and -1’s shown in Fig. \[tab:The-Boolean-matrix-1\]. The contextuality of this system means that these hidden outcomes cannot be assigned proper probabilities. We can, however, assign real numbers to these outcomes as shown in Fig. \[tab:The-Boolean-matrix-2\].
1. Taking the scalar product of this vector of numbers with the first row (i.e., summing these numbers), we get 1. This shows that our assignment of the numbers is a quasi-probability distribution, so we can consider a quasi-random variable $S$ with this distribution.
2. Taking the scalar product of the quasi-probability masses with the subsequent six rows, we get numerical values that are equal to the corresponding (proper) probabilities characterizing the bunches of the system in Fig. \[fig: QQ system\]. This shows that $S$ is a quasi-coupling of this system.
3. Finally, the scalar products of the quasi-probability masses with the last two rows yield the values of the probabilities characterizing the maximal couplings for the connections of the system in Fig. \[fig: QQ system\]. This shows that $S$ is a maximally connected quasi-coupling of this system.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} [\
]{}$\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & +\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
+ & -\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & +\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
+ & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
+ & -
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
- & +
\end{array}\!$ & $\!\begin{array}{cc}
- & -\\
- & -
\end{array}\!$[\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1[\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & [\
]{} 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & [\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & [\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & & 1 & [\
]{} 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & & & [\
]{} 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & & 1 & & & [\
]{} 1 & 1 & & & 1 & 1 & & & & & & & & & & [\
]{} 1 & & 1 & & & & & & 1 & & 1 & & & & & [\
]{}
$\mathbf{Q}$
------------------
$\frac{35}{256}$
$\frac{69}{256}$
$\frac{11}{32}$
$-\frac{1}{4}$
$-\frac{1}{8}$
$\frac{7}{32}$
$-\frac{1}{16}$
$-\frac{1}{32}$
$-\frac{1}{128}$
$-\frac{1}{64}$
$\frac{7}{256}$
$-\frac{1}{256}$
$-\frac{1}{256}$
$\frac{7}{256}$
$\frac{49}{256}$
$\frac{73}{256}$
[c]{} [\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}[\
]{}
[|c|]{} [\
]{}[\
]{} $1$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $0$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{} $\nicefrac{1}{2}$[\
]{}
Contextuality measure based on quasi-couplings
----------------------------------------------
Proper probability distributions are quasi-probability distributions with no negative quasi-probability masses. If $X$ is a quasi-random variable, the value $$\left\Vert X\right\Vert =\sum_{v\in V_{X}}\left|{\mathsf{qdi}}X\left(v\right)\right|$$ is known in the theory of signed measures as the *total variation* of ${\mathsf{qdi}}X$ (or simply of $X$). Its value is 1 if $X$ is a proper random variable. Otherwise $\left\Vert X\right\Vert >1$, and the excess of $\left\Vert X\right\Vert $ over 1 can be thought of as a measure of “improperness” of $X$.
Consider the set of all maximally connected quasi-couplings $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ of a system. We are now interested in the total variations $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $ of (the distributions of) the quasi-couplings. The set of these values is bounded from below by 1, therefore it has an infimum, $$t=\inf\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert .$$ It can be readily seen that this infimum is in fact a minimum of all $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $, i.e., that the set of all $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ contains a quasi-coupling $S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}$ with $$\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}\right\Vert =t.$$ Indeed, if the set of all $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ is finite, the statement is trivially true; otherwise we choose an infinite sequence of $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $ converging to $t$. Without loss of generality, we can assume for all members of this sequence $$\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert -t<\varepsilon.$$ It follows that the quasi-probability masses ${\mathsf{qdi}}S_{\mathcal{R}}\left(v\right)$ for all hidden outcomes $v$ in all these quasi-couplings are confined within a closed interval $\left[-t-\varepsilon,t+\varepsilon\right]$. So the quasi-probability distributions ${\mathsf{qdi}}S_{\mathcal{R}}$ (viewed as vectors of real numbers)[^9] are confined within a cube $\left[-t-\varepsilon,t+\varepsilon\right]^{N}$, where $N$ is the number of the hidden outcomes. Since the cube is compact, from the sequence of $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ one can choose a converging subsequence, with the limit $S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}$, and it is easy to see that $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}\right\Vert $ cannot exceed $t$ (otherwise the original sequence of $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $ would have converged to two distinct limits).
So, the set of quasi-couplings $S_{\mathcal{R}}$ for any system $\mathcal{R}$ contains a quasi-coupling $S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}$ with the smallest possible value of the total variation $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $. If $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}\right\Vert $ equals 1, then the system is noncontextual, because then $S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}$ is a proper maximally connected coupling. If $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}\right\Vert >1$, then no proper maximally connected coupling for $\mathcal{R}$ exists, and the quantity $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}\right\Vert -1$ can be taken as a measure (of degree) of contextuality. Note that while the minimum total variation $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}\right\Vert $ is unique, the quasi-coupling $S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}$ generally is not.
Consider again Fig. \[tab:The-Boolean-matrix-2\]. The value of $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $ in it is $6\cdot\frac{1}{2}=3$. Is this the smallest possible value? It is not. A direct minimization of $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $ subject to the linear equations $\mathbf{MQ}=\mathbf{P}$ shows the minimum value in the case of the system depicted in Fig. \[fig: QQ system\] to be 2. It is reached, e.g., in the quasi-probability distribution shown in Fig. \[tab:The-Boolean-matrix-3\]. This distribution therefore defines an $S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}$. There are other quasi-probability distributions (in fact an infinity of them) with this minimum value of $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $.
It is instructive to see how this total variation measure changes as we change the value of $p=\Pr\left[S_{1}^{2}=1,S_{2}^{2}=1\right]$ from zero to the maximal possible value $\frac{1}{2}$ while keeping all other probabilities fixed (see Fig. \[fig: QQ system-1\]). The relationship turns out to be linear: $$\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}\right\Vert =2\left(1-p\right).$$ The system is maximally contextual at $p=0$, the case we focused on in our examples. When $p$ reaches $\frac{1}{2}$, the system is noncontextual: trivially so, because then its two bunches are identical.
A direct minimization of $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}\right\Vert $ subject to the linear equations $\mathbf{MQ}=\mathbf{P}$ is a nonlinear problem, but it can be reduced to a linear programming one, in the following way:
1. Create a matrix $\mathbf{M}_{wide}$ by horizontally concatenating $\mathbf{M}$ and $\mathbf{M'}=\left(-1\right)\cdot\mathbf{M}$, $$\mathbf{M}_{wide}=\left(\mathbf{M}\,\brokenvert\,\mathbf{M'}\right)$$ Each hidden outcome $v$ labels two columns of $\mathbf{M}_{wide}$ (one in the $\mathbf{M}$ half and one in the $\mathbf{M'}$ half).
2. Create a column vector $\mathbf{Q}_{long}$ whose length is twice that of $\mathbf{Q}$, $$\mathbf{Q}_{long}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{Q}_{1}\\
--\\
\mathbf{Q}_{2}
\end{array}\right)$$ Its elements are labelled in the same way as the columns of $\mathbf{M}_{wide}$.
3. Solve the linear programming problem $$\mathbf{M}_{wide}\mathbf{Q}_{long}=\mathbf{P}$$ subject to three constraints: (a) nonnegativity of the components of $\mathbf{Q}_{long}$, and (b) minimality of the sum of the components of $\mathbf{Q}_{2}$.
To every hidden outcome $v$ there correspond two elements of $\mathbf{Q}_{long}$, denoted $\gamma^{+}\left(v\right)$ and $\gamma^{-}\left(v\right)$, and the quasi-probability mass assigned to $v$ is $\gamma^{+}\left(v\right)-\gamma^{-}\left(v\right)$. The sum of these quasi-probabilities across all $v$ equals 1, and the sum of their absolute values is the minimal total variation $\left\Vert S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}\right\Vert $. The reasoning above (the proof that $S_{\mathcal{R}}^{*}$ always exists) guarantees that this linear programming problem always has a solution, generally non-unique.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have described the basic elements of a theory aimed at analyzing systems of random variables classified in two ways: by their conteXts and by their conteNts. Irrespective of one’s terminological preferences, the classification of such systems into contextual and noncontextual ones, as well as into consistently connected and inconsistently connected ones, is meaningful and, at least in some applications of the theory, fundamentally important. We would like to conclude this paper by recapitulating a few points made in this paper and by offering a general observation.
#### (1)
Inconsistency of connectedness should be distinguished from contextuality. One may call inconsistency “a kind of contextuality,” but it is contextuality of a different kind. Inconsistency of connectedness is about direct influences of certain elements of conteXts upon random variables. Such influences are revealed on the level of stochastically unrelated random variables sharing the same conteNt (i.e., within connections). Direct influences cannot act, e.g., from the future to the past or from one event to a spatially separated but simultaneous one. Contextuality, by contrast, is revealed in joint distributions of random variables, and it is not constrained by considerations of causality. As an example, consider a physical realization of the Suppes-Zanotti-Legett-Garg system (Leggett and Garg, 1985) that consists in three measurements made at three moments in time with respect to some zero point, as shown below: $$\xymatrix{\ar@{-}+<0ex,0ex>;[rrrr] & \overset{}{\underset{\begin{array}{c}
t_{1}\end{array}}{\bullet}} & \overset{}{\underset{\begin{array}{c}
t_{2}\end{array}}{\bullet}} & \overset{}{\underset{\begin{array}{c}
t_{3}\end{array}}{\bullet}} & \,}$$ The measurements are always made in pairs: at moments $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ or at moments $t_{1}$ and $t_{3}$ or at moments $t_{2}$ and $t_{3}$. Each pair of times moments defines a conteXt, and each moment defines a conteNt (because the measurement in this analysis are distinguished only by the time moments at which they are made). Now, it is perfectly possible that the distribution of $R_{t_{2}}^{\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)}$ differs from the distribution of $R_{t_{2}}^{\left(t_{2},t_{3}\right)}$, because in the former case the measurement at moment $t_{2}$ can be directly influenced by the fact that a measurement was made at some moment in the past, $t_{1}$ (if the system is a quantum one, its quantum state, prepared at moment zero, can be changed by a previous measurement); but a measurement cannot be influenced by another measurement yet to be made at a future moment, $t_{3}$. By contrast, in any joint distributions of the variables, such as $\left(R_{t_{1}}^{\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)},R_{t_{2}}^{\left(t_{1},t_{2}\right)}\right)$, the future random variable stochastically depends on the past one exactly whenever the past one stochastically depends on the future one. Contextuality is only revealed by looking at such joint distributions within bunches and comparing them across bunches.
#### (2)
A distinguishing feature of Contextuality-by-Default, and the main reason for the “by-default” in its name, is that it treats random variables in different conteXts as different random variables, even if they have conteNts in common. As a result, the bunches of a system never overlap, and the problem of contextuality therefore is not posed as a problem of compatibility of different overlapping groups of random variables. Rather it is posed as a problem of compatibility between the bunches on the one hand and maximal couplings for the connections on the other. In this respect Contextuality-by-Default is distinct from other approaches to contextuality, e.g., the prominent line of contextuality research by Abramsky and his colleagues (Abramsky & Brandenburger, 2011; Abramsky et al, 2015).
#### (3)
Treating random variables in different conteXts as different, however, in no way means that conteXts are fused (or confused) with conteNts. On the contrary, Contextuality-by-Default is based on a strict differentiation of these entities, although, being an abstract mathematical theory, it cannot determine what constitutes conteNts and conteXts in a given empirical situation. This determination is made before the theory applies. If one changes one’s double-classification of the random variables (by the conteNts and by the conteXts), the contextuality of the system changes too.
#### (4)
Contextuality-by-Default is not a model for empirical phenomena. As any abstract mathematical theory, it has no predictive power as a result of having no predictive intent. It is a theoretical language, on a par with, say, real analysis or probability theory. In fact, if presented in full generality to include arbitrary systems of arbitrary random variables (the presentation in this paper was confined to finite sets of categorical variables only), Contextuality-by-Default is essentially co-extensive with Kolmogorovian theory of random variables. The main difference from Kolmogorovian probability theory is that the Contextuality-by-Default theory may (but does not have to) be constructed without sample spaces, that it prominently uses the notion of stochastic unrelatedness (implicit or underemphasized in Kolmogorovian probability theory), and that the theory of couplings (rather peripheral to the mainstream Kolmogorovian theory) is at the very heart of the Contextuality-by-Default theory.
#### (5)
In dealing with contextuality, the Contextuality-by-Default theory is about compatibility (or lack thereof) of the observed bunches of a system with maximal couplings of the separately taken connections. Maximality is not, however, the only possible constraint imposable on the couplings of the connections. Contextuality-by-Default can be expanded or modified in various ways by replacing it with other constraints, and any new constraint replacing maximality would tackle a new meaning of contextuality. Using the same logic as in Section \[sub: The-intuition-of\] and in Definition \[def: cntx\], if separately taken connections can be coupled subject to some constraint $\mathsf{C}$, then the system is “$\mathsf{C}$-noncontextual” if it can be coupled so that all subcouplings corresponding to its connections satisfy $\mathsf{C}$; otherwise the system is “$\mathsf{C}$-contextual.” It is remarkable that the representation of the contextuality problem as a linear programming task (Section \[sec: Contextuality-as-LP\]) and the construction of the measure of contextuality based on the quasi-couplings (Section \[sec: How-to-measure\]) apply with no modifications to any choice of $\mathsf{C}$ such that a coupling satisfying $\mathsf{C}$ exists for any connection taken separately. Indeed, the only property of connection probabilities required for the construction of the matrix-vector pair $\mathbf{M^{*}}$-$\mathbf{P}^{*}$ (hence also $\mathbf{M}$-$\mathbf{P}$) is that these probabilities exist, not the way they are computed. (The choices of $\mathsf{C}$ for which a coupling satisfying $\mathsf{C}$ may not exist for some connections taken separately requires a modification in the definition of contextuality, but can be handled too: any system possessing these connections can be treated as “automatically” contextual.) In choosing a constraint $\mathsf{C}$ to replace maximality, one can be guided by certain reasonable desiderata, one of them being that $\mathsf{C}$ should be reduced to the identity constraint when a system is consistently connected. Another reasonable desideratum could be that the “$\mathsf{C}$-theory” reduces to the one described in Section \[sec: Cyclic-c-c-systems\] when specialized to cyclic systems with binary random variables. We will elaborate elsewhere.[^10]
Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
----------------
This research has been supported by NSF grant SES-1155956, AFOSR grant FA9550-14-1-0318, and A. von Humboldt Foundation. We are grateful to Victor H. Cervantes of Purdue University for his insights on maximal couplings that helped us in the linear programming treatment of contextuality and the construction of a measure of contextuality. The latter was also inspired by the use of quasi-probability distributions (“negative probabilities”) in dealing with contextuality by Samson Abramsky of Oxford University and J. Acacio de Barros of San Francisco State University. We greatly benefited from numerous discussions with them and their colleagues. We are grateful to Matt Jones of the University of Colorado whose critical analysis of our treatment of contextuality helped us to improve the motivation and argumentation for our approach to contextuality. Victor H. Cervantes and Farzin Shamloo of Purdue University were most helpful in discussing and finding imprecisions and typos in earlier versions of the paper.
[99]{} Abramsky, S., Brandenburger, A. (2011). The sheaftheoretic structure of nonlocality and contextuality. *New Journal of Physics* **13**, 113036113075.
Abramsky, S., Barbosa, R.S., Kishida, K., Lal, R., Mansfield, S. (2015). Contextuality, cohomology and paradox. *24th EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic* (S. Kreuzer, ed.), pp. 211228.
6[\]]{} Al-Safi, S.W., Short, A.J. (2013). Simulating all nonsignaling correlations via classical or quantum theory with negative probabilities. *Physical Review Letters*, **111**:170403.
Bell, J. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. *Physics* **1**, 195-200.
Bell, J. (1966). On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. *Review of Modern Physics* **38**, 447-453.
Bohm, D, Aharonov, Y. (1957). Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen and Podolski. *Physical Review* **108**, 1070-1076.
Cereceda, J. (2000). Quantum mechanical probabilities and general probabilistic constraints for EinsteinPodolskyRosenBohm experiments. *Foundations of Physics Letters* **13**, 427442.
Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A. (1969). Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. *Physical Review Letters* **23**, 880-884.
Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A. (1974). Experimental consequences of objective local theories. *Physical Review D* **10**, 526-535.
de Barros, J.A., Oas, G. (2014). Negative probabilities and counter-factual reasoning in quantum cognition. *Physica Scripta* **T163**:014008.
de Barros, J.A., Oas, G., Suppes, P. (2015). Negative probabilities and counterfactual reasoning on the double-slit experiment. In J.-Y. Beziau, D. Krause, J. B. Arenhart (Eds.), *Conceptual Clarification: Tributes to Patrick Suppes* (1992-2014). London: College Publications.
de Barros, J.A., Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V., Oas, G. (2015). Measuring Observable Quantum Contextuality. *Lecture Notes in Computer Science* **9535**, 36-47.
Dzhafarov, E. N. (2003). Selective influence through conditional independence. *Psychometrika*, **68**, 726.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V. (2010). The Joint Distribution Criterion and the Distance Tests for selective probabilistic causality. *Frontiers in Psychology* **1**:151 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00151.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V. (2012). Selectivity in probabilistic causality: Where psychology runs into quantum physics. *Journal of Mathematical Psychology* **56**, 54-63.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V. (2014a). A qualified Kolmogorovian account of probabilistic contextuality. *Lecture Notes in Computer Science* **8369**, 201-212. 8.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V. (2014b). Embedding quantum into classical: contextualization vs conditionalization. *PLoS One* **9**(3): e92818. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092818.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V. (2014c). Contextuality is about identity of random variables. *Physica Scripta* **T163**, 014009.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V. (2016a). Contextuality-by-Default 2.0: Systems with binary random variables. *arXiv:1604.04799*.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V. (2016a). Probabilistic foundations of contextuality. *arXiv:*1604.08412.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Kujala, J.V., Cervantes, V.H. (2016). Contextuality-by-Default: A brief overview of ideas, concepts, and terminology. *Lecture Notes in Computer Science* **9535**, 12-23.
Dzhafarov, E.N., Zhang, R., Kujala, J.V. (2015). Is there contextuality in behavioral and social systems? *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A* **374**: 20150099.
Fine, A. (1982). Hidden variables, joint probability, and the Bell inequalities. *Physical Review Letters* **48**, 291–295.
Karmarkar, N. (1984). A new polynomial-time algorithm for linear programming. *Combinatorica*, **4**, 373395.
Klyachko, A.A., Can, M.A., Binicioglu, S., Shumovsky, A.S. (2008). A simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 system. *Physical Review Letters* **101**:020403.
Kujala, J.V. (2016). Minimal distance to approximating noncontextual system as a measure of contextuality. arXiv:1512.02340.
Kujala, J.V., Dzhafarov, E.N. (2016). Proof of a conjecture on contextuality in cyclic systems with binary variables. *Foundations of Physics*, 46, 282-299.
Kujala, J.V., Dzhafarov, E.N., Larsson, J.-Å. (2015). Necessary and sufficient conditions for maximal noncontextuality in a broad class of quantum mechanical systems. *Physical Review Letters* **115**:150401.
Kurzynski, P., Ramanathan, R., Kaszlikowski, D. (2012). Entropic test of quantum contextuality. *Physical Review Letters* **109**:020404.
Kurzynski, P., Cabello, A., Kaszlikowski, D. (2014). Fundamental monogamy relation between contextuality and nonlocality. *Physical Review Letters* **112**:100401.
Lapkiewicz, R., Li, P., Schaeff, C., Langford, N.K., Ramelow, S., Wieśniak, M., Zeilinger, A. (2011). Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system. *Nature* **474**, 490–493.
Leggett, A., Garg, A. (1985). Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when nobody looks? *Physical Review Letters* **54**:857.
Masanes, Ll. , Acin, A. , Gisin, N. (2006). General properties of nonsignaling theories. *Physical Review A* **73**: 012112.
Moore, D.W. (2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects. *Public Opinion Quarterly* **66**, 80-91.
Popescu, S., Rohrlich, D. (1994). Quantum nonlocality as an axiom. *Foundations of Physics* **24**, 379385.
Suppes, P., Zanotti, M. (1981). When are probabilistic explanations possible? *Synthese* **48**, 191-199.
Thorisson, H. (2000). *Coupling, Stationarity, and Regeneration*. New York: Springer.
Townsend, J.T., Schweickert, R. (1989). Toward the trichotomy method of reaction times: Laying the foundation of stochastic mental networks. *Journal of Mathematical Psychology*, **33**, 309327.
Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J.R. (2013). A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction. *Topics in Cognitive Science* **5**, 689710.
Wang, Z., Solloway T., Shiffrin, R.M., Busemeyer, J.R. (2014). Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* **111**, 9431-9436.
[^1]: In reference to footnote \[fn: As-the-reviewing\] below, in the newer version of CbD (Dzhafarov & Kujala, 2016a,b), in the case of more than two random variables, as in $\left(R_{1}^{1},R_{1}^{2},R_{1}^{3}\right)$, the maximum probability should be considered not only for $R_{1}^{1}=R_{1}^{2}=R_{1}^{3}$ but also for each of $R_{1}^{1}=R_{1}^{2}$, $R_{1}^{2}=R_{1}^{3}$, and $R_{1}^{1}=R_{1}^{3}$.
[^2]: The cardinality need not even be defined, as we consider ${\mathsf{E}}$ a class rather than a set.
[^3]: In fact it holds for any set of any random entities (Dzhafarov & Kujala, 2010), but our focus in this paper is on finite sets of categorical random variables.
[^4]: In a more general treatment this translates into the same set and the same sigma algebra of events.
[^5]: It seems common to use this term for the set $S$ alone; but the term “space” in mathematics means a set with some structure imposed on it, and the structure here is the sigma algebra and the measure. We prefer therefore to use the term “sample space” for the entire domain probability space. $S$ alone can be referred to as the *sample set* for $X$.
[^6]: It is a common mistake to think that this notion may be useless outside the class of categorical variables: thus, one might erroneously assume that if the distributions of $T_{j}^{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{k}$ are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on the set of reals, then $\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=\ldots=T_{j}^{k}\right]$ must be zero. In fact, this probability can be any number between 0 and 1, because the joint distribution of $T_{j}^{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{k}$ within the intersection of their supports may very well be concentrated on the diagonal $T_{j}^{1}=\ldots=T_{j}^{k}$. In particular, if $R_{j}^{1},\ldots,R_{j}^{k}$ are identically distributed, then, irrespective of this distribution, they have a maximal coupling $\left(T_{j}^{1},\ldots,T_{j}^{k}\right)$ with $\Pr\left[T_{j}^{1}=\ldots=T_{j}^{k}\right]=1$.
[^7]: In reference to footnote \[fn: As-the-reviewing\] below, in a newer version of CbD (Dzhafarov & Kujala, 2016a,b) (non)contextuality is defined in terms of multimaximal couplings, rather than merely maximal ones. This does not, however, affects the logic of CbD in any nontrivial way.
[^8]: This is a specialization of the measure-theoretic notion of *signed measure* (or *charge*) to probability spaces with finite sets.
[^9]: Note that ${\mathsf{qdi}}S_{\mathcal{R}}$ can be viewed as the same entity as the vector $\mathbf{Q}$ in the matrix equation $\mathbf{MQ}=\mathbf{P}$, because $\mathbf{Q}$ is a vector of real numbers indexed by the hidden outcomes. There is a subtlety here (and throughout this paper) related to distinguishing indexed values and the pairs consisting of indexes and values, but we will ignore it.
[^10]: \[fn: As-the-reviewing\]As the reviewing of this paper was nearing completing and no substantive changes could be made, we proposed a new version of CbD, with $\mathsf{C}$-couplings being “multimaximal” ones (Dzhafarov and Kujala, 2016a,b): in such a coupling of a connection any of its subcouplings is a maximal coupling of the corresponding subset of the connection. If random variables in a connection are binary, their multimaximal coupling always exists and is unique. For connections with more-than-binary categorical variables, one possible approach is to replace them with all their possible dichotomizations; in each conteXt, these dichotomizations are jointly distributed and form a sub-bunch of the bunch corresponding to the context. The replacement of maximality with multimaximality affects classification of the systems into contextual and noncontextual, but it does not affect the validity of our theorems related to the measure of contextuality, as the maximality constraint was not used in their proofs. The specializations of CbD to consistently connected systems and to cyclic systems with binary random variables remain unchanged.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a real analytic map $F=(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$, $2 \le k \le n-1$, that satisfies Milnor’s conditions (a) and (b) introduced by D. Massey. This implies that every real analytic $f_I=(f_{i_1},\ldots,f_{i_l}) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^l,0)$, induced from $F$ by projections where $1 \le l \le n-2$ and $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}$, also satisfies Milnor’s conditions (a) and (b). We give several relations between the Euler characteristics of the Milnor fibre of $F$, the Milnor fibres of the maps $f_I$, the link of $F^{-1}(0)$ and the links of $f_I^{-1}(0)$.'
address:
- 'N. Dutertre: Aix-Marseille Université, LATP, 39 rue Joliot-Curie, 13453 Marseille Cedex 13, France'
- 'R. N. Araújo dos Santos: Departamento de Matemática, Instituto de Ciências Matemáticas e de Computação, Universidade de São Paulo - Campus de São Carlos, Caixa Postal 668, 13560-970 São Carlos, SP, Brazil'
author:
- Nicolas Dutertre and Raimundo Araújo dos Santos
title: 'Topology of real Milnor fibrations for non-isolated singularities'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In the last fourty years many research has been developed toward understanding the geometry and topology of complex and real singularities. After the famous book of J. Milnor [@Mi] the search for real and complex topological invariants of singularity have gotten special attentions. In [@Mi] Milnor considered a holomorphic function $f:0\in U\subset \mathbb{C}^{n}\to \mathbb{C},$ $f(0)=0$ and $\nabla f(0)=0,$ and proved the existence of a smooth fiber bundle in a neighborhood of the critical point $0.$ Moreover, if the critical point is isolated he related the Euler-Poincaré number of the fiber of this fibration with the topological degree of the gradient vector field $\nabla f.$ This became a starting point of several others formulae in the real and complex settings. Let us remind below some of them in the real case.
In [@Kh] Khimshiashvili proved a Poincaré-Hopf formula which relates the Euler-Poincaré number of a regular local fiber of an analytic function with the topological degree of its gradient vector field, as follows.
Let $f : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R},0)$ be a germ of a real analytic function with isolated critical point, then $$\chi \big(f^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \big)=1-\hbox{sign}(-\delta)^n \hbox{deg}_0 \nabla f,$$ where $0 < \vert \delta \vert \ll \varepsilon \ll 1$ is a regular value, $B_{\epsilon}$ stands for the close ball centered at the origin, $\nabla f$ is the gradient vector field of $f$ and deg$_0 \nabla f$ is the topological degree of the mapping $$\epsilon \frac{\nabla f}{\| \nabla f \|} :S_\epsilon ^{n-1} \rightarrow S_{\epsilon}^{n-1}.$$
A similar formula was proved before by Milnor (see [@Mi], page 61) for the case of holomorphic functions with isolated singularity.
Several relative versions of the Khimshiashvili formula were proved afterwards. Let us present them briefly. Let $\psi =(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$, $2 \le k \le n$, be an analytic map-germ and let us denote by $\phi$ the map-germ $(f_1,\ldots,f_{k-1}): (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^{k-1},0)$. We assume that $\psi^{-1}(0)$ and $\phi^{-1}(0)$ have an isolated singularity at $0$ (note that here the maps $\phi$ and $\psi$ do not need to have an isolated critical point at the origin). Some authors investigated the following difference: $$D_{\delta,\alpha}= \chi \big( \phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{k} \ge \alpha\} \cap B_\epsilon \big) - \chi \big( \phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{k} \le \alpha\} \cap B_\epsilon \big),$$ where $(\delta,\alpha)$ is a regular value of $\psi$ such that $0 \le \vert \alpha \vert \ll \vert \delta \vert \ll \epsilon$.
In [@Du2], the first author proved that: $$D_{\delta,\alpha} \equiv \hbox{dim}_{\mathbb{R}} \frac{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{R}^n,0}}{I} \bmod 2,$$ where $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{R}^n,0}$ is the ring of analytic function-germs at the origin and $I$ is the ideal generated by $f_1,\ldots,f_{k-1}$ and all the $k\times k$ minors $\frac{\partial (f_k,f_1,\ldots,f_{k-1})}{\partial(x_{i_1},\ldots,x_{i_k})}$. This is only a mod 2 relation and we may ask if it is possible to get a more precise relation.
When $k=n$ and $f_k=x_1^2+\cdots+x_n^2$, according to Aoki et al. ([@AFN1], [@AFS]), $D_{\delta,0}= \chi \big(\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\varepsilon \big)= 2 \hbox{deg}_0 H$ and $2\hbox{deg}_0 H$ is the number of semi-branches of $\phi^{-1}(0),$ where $$H=(\frac{\partial (f_n,f_1,\ldots,f_{n-1})}{\partial(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})},f_1,\ldots,f_{n-1}).$$ They proved a similar formula in the case $f_k=x_n$ in [@AFN2] and Szafraniec generalized all these results to any $f_k$ in [@Sz3].
When $k=2$ and $f_2=x_1$, Fukui [@Fu1] stated that $$D_{\delta,0}=-\hbox{sign}(-\delta)^n \hbox{deg}_{0} H,$$ where $H=(f_1,\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial x_2},\ldots,\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial x_n})$. Several generalizations of Fukui’s formula are given in [@Fu2], [@Du1], [@FK] and [@Du4]. Note that in [@Du4], the first author gave degree formulas for the Euler characteristic of regular fibers of some map-germs from $(\mathbb{R}^n,0)$ to $(\mathbb{R}^2,0)$ called partially parallelizable.
More recently in [@ADD] the authors of the present paper and D. Dreibelbis proved an extension of Khimshiashvili’s formula in the following way.
Take $\psi =(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$, $n \geq k \geq 2$, an analytic map germ and suppose that $0\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is an isolated singular point of $\psi .$ By Milnor [@Mi], page 98, it is known that for each small enough $\epsilon >0$, there exists $0<\eta \ll \epsilon $ such that the mapping
$$\label{equation1}
\psi_{|}:B_{\epsilon}\cap \psi^{-1}(S_{\eta}^{p-1})\to S_{\eta}^{p-1}$$
is the projection of a smooth locally trivial fibration.
Denote by $M_{\psi}$ its fiber, [*also known as Milnor fiber*]{}. The main result was:
Let $\psi =(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$ as above.
- If $n$ is even, then $\chi \big(M_{\psi}) = 1-\hbox{\em deg}_0 \nabla f_1.$ Moreover, $$\deg_{0} \nabla f_{1}=\cdots =\deg_{0} \nabla f_{k}.$$
- If $n$ is odd, then $\chi \big(M_{\psi}) = 1 ,$ and $\hbox{\em deg}_0 \nabla f_i=0$, for all $i.$
In the present paper we will use tools from Morse theory and singularity theory to prove several extensions of the previous formula for the setting of real analytic mappings with non-isolated singularity. Our formulae relates the Euler-Poincaré number of the Milnor fibers with the Euler-Poincaré number of the singular link. We will assume that the analytic maps satisfies the Milnor conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$ defined by D. Massey in [@Ma], so it implies the existence of [*the tube Milnor fibration*]{} like in ${\bf (1)}$ above. These conditions seem to be strong in the setting of real analytic mappings, but it is not difficult to show that any holomorphic function satisfies them. See Example \[R1\] for further details. Therefore, our formulae also provide an extension of Milnor’s formula (see [@Mi], page 64) for the case of holomorphic functions with non-isolated singularity. We will also answer a question stated by Milnor in [@Mi], page 100, (see below) under these more general Milnor conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$. Let us remind this conjecture below:
[*“ Note that any polynomial mapping $\mathbb{R}^{n}\to \mathbb{R}^{k}$ with isolated singularity at origin can be composed with the projection $\mathbb{R}^{k}\to \mathbb{R}^{k-1}$ to obtain a new mapping $\mathbb{R}^{n}\to \mathbb{R}^{k-1},$ also with isolated singularity at origin "*]{}.
The fiber of the fibration associated with this new mapping is homeomorphic to the product of the old fiber with the unit interval.
We should say that as far as we know this problem was approached by A. Jacquemard in [@Ja] under different hypotheses that cover the isolated singular case as our hypotheses do.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we remind the definition of Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$ and recall the proof of Milnor’s fibration theorem. Section 3 contains some auxiliary lemmas about subanalytic sets. In section 4, we state basic results for mappings satisfying Milnor’s conditions. In section 5, we study the behavior of some critical points on the boundary of the Milnor fiber. In section 6, we consider a mapping satisfying Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b),$ give a proof of Milnor’s conjecture stated above and study the Euler-Poincaré numbers of the Milnor fibers of the mappings given by compositions of this initial mapping and projections. In section 7, we still consider these mappings and we relate the Euler-Poincaré number of their Milnor fibers to the Euler-Poincaré number of the links of their zero sets. In section 8, we establish several formulae for the Euler-Poincaré number of semi-analytic sets defined by the components of the initial mapping. Last section contains some applications and examples.
[*Acknowledgments.*]{} Computations are made in section 9, they have been carried out by a program, based on the Eisenbud-Levine-Khimshiashvili formula, written by A. Łecki. The authors are very grateful to him and Z. Szafraniec for giving them this program.
The authors thank the USP-Cofecub project “UcMa133/12 - Structure fibrée de l’espace au voisinage des singularités des applications".
The first author is partially supported by the program “Catédras Lévi-Strauss $-$ USP/French Embassy, no. 2012.1.62.55.7".
Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$
===================================
In this section we will follow the definitions and results given by D. Massey in [@Ma].
Let $F=(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$ be an analytic map, $2\leq k \leq n-1,$ $V=F^{-1}(0)$ and $\Sigma_F$ be the set of critical points of $F$, i.e., the set of points where the gradients $\nabla f_1,\ldots,\nabla f_k$ are linearly dependent. Of course, here and in the rest of the paper we assume that $F$ is not constant.
Let $\rho$ be the square of the distance function to the origin and denote by $\Sigma_{F,\rho}$ the set of critical points of the pair $(F,\rho)$, i.e., the set of points where the gradients $\nabla \rho,\nabla f_1,\ldots,\nabla f_k$ are linearly dependent.
It follows by definition that $\Sigma_F\subseteq \Sigma_{F,\rho}.$
[@Ma]\[defMilnorCond\]Given $F$ and $\rho $ as above.
1. We say that $F$ satisfies Milnor’s condition $(a)$ at the origin, if $\Sigma_F \subset V$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
2. We say that $F$ satisfies Milnor’s condition (b) at the origin, if $0$ is isolated in $V \cap \overline{\Sigma_{F,\rho}\setminus V}$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
Next example shows that the Milnor condition $(a)$ is not enough to ensure the existence of Milnor’s fibration.
This example is inspired by examples in [@CSS].
Let $f:(\mathbb{R}^{3},0)\to (\mathbb{R}^{2},0),$ $f(x,y,z)=(x^2z+y^2,x).$ It is easy to see that $\Sigma_f=\{(0,0,z): z\in \mathbb{R}\}\subseteq V$ and so Milnor’s condition $(a)$ holds. However, for any $\delta > 0$ we have that the fibers $f^{-1}(\delta , 0)\neq f^{-1}(-\delta,0).$
It follows from definition $2)$ the equivalence:
The mapping $F$ satisfies Milnor’s condition $(b)$ at origin if and only if there exist $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that, for each $0<\epsilon \leq \epsilon_{0}$ we have $B_{\epsilon}\cap V \cap (\overline{\Sigma_{F,\rho}\setminus V}) \subseteq \{0\}$ if and only if for each $\epsilon>0$ small enough, there exist $\delta>0$, $0<\delta \ll \epsilon $ such that the restriction map $F_|:S_{\epsilon}^{n-1}\cap F^{-1}({B^{p}_{\delta}\setminus \{0\}})\to B^{p}_{\delta}\setminus \{0\}$ is a smooth submersion (and onto, if the link of $F^{-1}(0)$ is not empty).
We say that $\epsilon >0$ is a [*Milnor radius for $F$ at origin*]{}, provided that $B_{\epsilon}\cap {(\overline{\Sigma_{F}-V}})= \varnothing $, and $B_{\epsilon}\cap {V\cap(\overline{\Sigma_{F,\rho}\setminus V})}\subseteq \{0\}$, where $B_{\epsilon}$ denotes the closed ball in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with radius $\epsilon$.
Consequently under Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$, we can conclude that for all regular values close to the origin the respective fibers into the closed $\epsilon-$ball are smooth and transverse to the sphere $S^{n-1}_{\epsilon}.$
Let $F:(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$ and $\epsilon_{0}>0$ be a Milnor’s radius for $F$ at origin. Then, for each $0<\epsilon \leq \epsilon_{0}$, there exist $\delta,$ $0<\delta \ll \epsilon ,$ such that
$$F_{|}:B_{\epsilon}\cap F^{-1}(B^{p}_{\delta}\setminus \{0\})\to B^{p}_{\delta}\setminus \{0\}$$
is the projection of a smooth locally trivial fiber bundle.
(Idea)
Since $\epsilon_{0}>0$ is a Milnor’s radius for $F$ at origin, we have that $\Sigma_{F}\cap B_{\epsilon_{0}} \subset V\cap B_{\epsilon_{0}}$. It means that, for all $0<\epsilon \leq \epsilon_{0}$ the map $F_|: \mathring{B_{\epsilon }}\setminus V \to R^{k}$ is a smooth submersion in the open ball $\mathring{B_{\epsilon }}$.
From the Milnor condition $(b)$, and the remark above, it follows that: for each $\epsilon$ there exists $\delta $, $0<\delta \ll \epsilon $, such that $$\displaystyle{ F_|: S_{\epsilon}^{n-1} \cap F^{-1}(B_{\delta}-\{0\}) \to B_{\delta}-\{0\}}$$ is a submersion on the boundary $\displaystyle{S_{\epsilon}^{n-1}}$ of the closed ball $\displaystyle{ B_{\epsilon}}$.
Now, combining these two conditions we have that, for each $\epsilon $, we can choose $\delta $ such that
$$F_|: B_{\epsilon}\cap F^{-1}(B_{\delta}-\{0\}) \to B_{\delta}-\{0\}$$
is a proper smooth submersion. Applying the Ehresmann Fibration Theorem for the manifold with boundary $B_{\epsilon}$, we get that it is a smooth locally trivial fibration.
Let $F:(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$ and $\epsilon_{0}>0$ be a Milnor’s radius for $F$ at origin. Then, for each $0<\epsilon \leq \epsilon_{0}$, there exists $\delta,$ $0<\delta \ll \epsilon ,$ such that
$$F_{|}:B_{\epsilon}\cap F^{-1}(S^{p-1}_{\delta})\to S^{p-1}_{\delta}$$
is the projection of a smooth locally trivial fiber bundle.
\[R1\]
Let $f:(\mathbb{C}^{n},0)\to (\mathbb{C},0)$ be a holomorphic function germ, then it satisfies the Milnor conditions $(a)$ and $(b).$
In fact, it can be seen as an application of Łojasiewicz’s inequality (see [@Lo]) which states that, in a small neighborhood of the origin, there are constants $C>0$ and $0<\theta<1$ such that
$$|f(x)|^{\theta}\leq C\|\nabla f(x)\|.$$
It is easy to see that Milnor condition $(a)$ holds. In [@HL], page 323, Hamm and Lê proved that the Łojasiewicz inequality implies Thom $a_{f}-$condition for a Whitney $(a)$ stratification of $V.$ Therefore, Milnor’s condition $(b)$ follows.
Let $F:(\mathbb{R}^{n},0)\to (\mathbb{R}^{k},0)$ be an analytic map-germ with an isolated singular point at origin. Then, Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$ above hold. In fact, Milnor’s condition $(b)$ follows since the zero locus is transversal to all small spheres.
Some results about subanalytic sets
===================================
Let us recall some terminology and results on the critical points of a function on the link of a real subanalytic set. The situation is described as follows. Let $Y \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ be a smooth subanalytic set of dimension $d$ that contains $0$ in its closure and let $g : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a smooth subanalytic function such that $g(0)=0$.
\[PtsCrit\] The critical points of $g_{\vert Y}$ lie in $\{g=0\}$ in a neighborhood of the origin.
By the Curve Selection Lemma, we can assume that there is a smooth subanalytic curve $p: [0,\nu[ \rightarrow \overline{Y}$ such that $p(0)=0$ and $p(t)$ is a critical point of $g_{\vert Y}$ for $t\in ]0,\nu[$. Therefore we have $$(g \circ p(t))' =\langle \nabla g(p(t)), p'(t) \rangle =0,$$ since $p'(t)$ is a tangent vector to $Y$ at $p(t)$. This implies that $g \circ p(t)=g(p(0))=0$.
Now we are interested in the critical points of $g_{\vert Y \cap S_\varepsilon}$, where $0 < \varepsilon \ll 1$, lying in $\{g \not= 0 \}$. Let $q$ be such a critical point. By the previous lemma, we know that $\nabla g_{\vert Y}(q) \not= 0$ and so there exists $\lambda (q) \not= 0$ such that $$\nabla g_{\vert Y} (q) = \lambda (q) \nabla \rho_{\vert Y} (q).$$
\[outin\] We say that $q \in \{Y \cap S_ \varepsilon \}$ is an outwards-pointing (resp. inwards-pointing) critical point for $g_{\vert Y \cap S_\varepsilon}$ if $\lambda(q)>0$ (resp. $\lambda(q)<0$).
The point $q \in \{g \not= 0 \}$ is an outwards-pointing (resp. inwards-pointing) critical point for $g_{\vert Y \cap S_\varepsilon}$ if and only if $g(q)> 0$ (resp. $g(q)<0$).
Let us assume that $\lambda (q) >0$. By the Curve Selection Lemma, there exists a smooth subanalytic curve $p:[0,\nu[ \rightarrow \overline{Y}$ passing through $q$ such that $p(0)=0$ and for $t\not= 0$, $p(t)$ is a critical point of $g_{\vert Y \cap S_{\Vert p(t) \Vert}}$ with $\lambda(p(t)) >0$. Therefore we have: $$(g \circ p)'(t) =\langle \nabla g _{\vert Y}(p(t)), p'(t) \rangle= \lambda(p(t)) \langle \nabla \rho _{\vert Y}(p(t)), p'(t) \rangle= \lambda(p(t)) (\rho \circ p)'(t).$$ But $(\rho \circ p)'>0$ for otherwise $(\rho \circ p)' \le 0$ and $\rho \circ p$ would be decreasing. Since $\rho (p(t))$ tends to $0$ as $t$ tends to $0$, this would imply that $\rho \circ p(t) \le 0$, which is impossible. Hence we can conclude that $(g \circ p)'>0$ and $g \circ p$ is strictly increasing. Since $g \circ p(t)$ tends to $0$ as $t$ tends to $0$, we see that $g \circ p (t) >0$ for $t>0$. Similarly if $\lambda (q) <0$ then $g(q)<0$. $\hfill \Box$
Basic results on Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$
====================================================
In this section we consider $F=(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0),$ $1\leq k \leq n-1,$ an analytic mapping. Let us consider $l \in \{1,\ldots, k\}$ and $I= \{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}$ an $l$-tuple of pairwise distinct elements of $ \{1,\ldots,k\}$ and let us denote by $f_I$ the mapping $(f_{i_1},\ldots,f_{i_l}) :
(\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^l,0)$. Suppose that $F$ satisfies Milnor condition $(a)$ at the origin. Then, we have $$\Sigma_{f_I} \subset \Sigma_F \subset F^{-1}(0) \subset f_{I}^{-1}(0),$$ and so by definition the map $f_I$ also satisfies Milnor’s condition (a) at the origin.
It is clear that $\Sigma_{f_I,\rho} \subset \Sigma_{F,\rho}.$ We will show below that if $F$ satisfies Milnor’s condition $(b)$ at the origin, then any mapping $f_I$ also satisfies Milnor’s condition $(b)$ at the origin.
\[lemmaCondb\] Assume that $F$ satisfies Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$ at the origin. Then, for $l \in \{1,\ldots, k\}$ and $I= \{i_1,\ldots,i_l\} \subset \{1,\ldots,k\}$, the maps $f_I : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^l,0)$ satisfies Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$.
If a map $f_I$ does not satisfy condition (b), then $0$ is not isolated in $f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \overline{\Sigma_{f_I,\rho} \setminus f_I^{-1}(0)}$. This implies that there exists a sequence of points $(y_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ tending to the origin such that $f_I(y_n)=0$ and $y_n$ belongs to $\overline{\Sigma_{f_I,\rho} \setminus f_I^{-1}(0)}$.
If $y_n$ belongs to $\overline{\Sigma_{f_I,\rho} \setminus f_I^{-1}(0)}$, there exists a sequence of points $(y_n^k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ tending to $y_n$ such that $f_I(y_n^k) \not= 0$ and the gradients $\nabla \rho,\nabla f_{i_1}, \ldots,\nabla f_{i_l}$ are linearly dependent at the points $y_n^k$. Hence the gradients $\nabla \rho,\nabla f_{i_1}, \ldots,\nabla f_{i_l}$ are also linearly dependent at $y_n$. But, since in a neighborhood of the origin $\rho$ has no critical point on $f_I^{-1}(0) \setminus \Sigma_{f_I}$ by Lemma 3.1, we see that $y_n$ belongs to $\Sigma_{f_I}$ if $n$ is big enough and so, $y_n$ belongs to $V$ because $\Sigma_{f_I} \subset \Sigma_F \subset V$.
On the other hand, the points $y_n^k$’s belong to $\Sigma_{F,\rho} \setminus V$ as well, so $y_n$ lies in $\overline{\Sigma_{F,\rho} \setminus V }$ and therefore $0$ is not isolated in $V \cap \overline{\Sigma_{F,\rho} \setminus V}$.
There exists $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that, for all $l \in \{1,\ldots, k\}$ and $I= \{i_1,\ldots,i_l\} \subset \{1,\ldots,k\}$, the maps $f_I : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^l,0)$ have $\epsilon_{0}$ as a Milnor’s radius.
Critical points on the boundary of the Milnor fibre
===================================================
From now on, we consider an analytic mapping $F:(f_1,\ldots,f_k) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$ with a Milnor’s radius $\epsilon >0$, $V=F^{-1}(0)$, the mapping $\phi=(f_1,\ldots,f_{k-1})$ and $g=f_k$. By Lemma \[lemmaCondb\], these two maps also satisfy Milnor’s conditions (a) and (b).
In this section we will study the behaviour of the critical points of the function $g$ restricted to the boundary of the Milnor fibre of the mapping $\phi$.
The next lemma is inspired by [@Sz1], pages 411–412.
\[LemSigma\] There exist a positive constant $C$ and an integer $N$ such that $\Vert F(x) \Vert \ge C \Vert x \Vert^N$ for every $x \in \Sigma_{F,\rho} \setminus V$ sufficiently close to the origin.
Let $$\Gamma = \left\{ (x,r,y) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^k \ \vert \ \rho(x)=r, x \in \Sigma_{F,\rho} \hbox{ and } y=F(x) \right\},$$ and let $\pi : \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{k} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^k$ be the projection on the last $k+1$ components. Since $\pi_{\vert \Gamma}$ is proper, then $Z=\pi(\Gamma)$ is a closed semi-analytic set. Let us write $Z_1= \mathbb{R} \times \{0\} \subset \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^k$ and let $Z_2$ be the closure of $Z \setminus Z_1$. Then $0$ is isolated in $Z_1 \cap Z_2$. If it is not the case, this means that there is a sequence of points $z_i=(r_i,0)$ in $Z_1$ tending to $0$ such that $z_i$ belongs to $Z_2$. Hence for each $i$, there is a sequence of points $(z_i^j)_{j \in \mathbb{N}}$ in $Z \setminus Z_1$ tending to $z_i$. Let us write $z_i^j=(r_i^j,y_i^j)$. Since $z_i^j$ is in $Z \setminus Z_1$, this implies that there exists $x_i^j$ in $\Sigma_{F,\rho}$ such that $F(x_i^j)=y_i^j$. Taking a subsequence if necessary, we can assume that $(x_i^j)$ tends to a point $x_i$ which belongs to $V$ because $F(x_i^j)=y_i^j$ tends to $0$ and such that $\rho(x_i)=r_i$ because $r_i^j=\rho(x_i^j)$ tends to $r_i$. But since $r_i$ tends to $0$, this implies that $0$ is not isolated in $V \cap \overline{\Sigma_{F,\rho} \setminus V}$, which contradicts Milnor’s condition (b).
By the Łojasiewicz inequality, there exist a constant $C >0$ and an integer $N >0$ such that $$\Vert y \Vert \ge C r ^N,$$ for $(r,y) \in Z_2$ sufficiently close to the origin. So if $x \in \Sigma_{F,\rho}$ and $F(x) \not= 0$, then $\Vert F(x) \Vert \ge C \rho (x) ^N$ if $\Vert x \Vert$ is small enough.
As a consequence, we see that for $\epsilon >0$ small enough, there exists $\delta_\epsilon >0$ such that if $0 < \Vert \delta \Vert < \delta_\epsilon$, then $F^{-1}(\delta)$ intersects $S_\epsilon$ transversally.
The lemma above can the generalized by changing the square of the distance function to the origin with any subanalytic function $\rho$ smooth, positive and proper, such that locally $\rho^{-1}(0)=0.$
\[CorCriticPtsBound\] For $\epsilon >0$ small enough, there exists $\delta_\epsilon >0$ such that if $0 < \Vert \delta \Vert < \delta_\epsilon$, then the critical points of $g_{\vert \phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap S_\epsilon}$ lie in $\{ \vert g \vert \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}C \epsilon^N \}$.
Applying the above lemma and consequence to the mapping $\phi=(f_1,\ldots,f_{k-1})$, we see that there exist a constant $D>0$ and an integer $M >0$ such that $$\Vert \phi (x) \Vert \ge D \Vert x \Vert^M,$$ for $x \in \Sigma_{\phi,\rho} \setminus \phi^{-1}(0)$ sufficiently close to the origin. Let us fix $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small so that $S_\epsilon$ intersects $\phi^{-1}(0) \setminus \Sigma_\phi$ transversally. If $\delta \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}$ is such that $0< \Vert \delta \Vert \le \frac{D}{2} \epsilon^M$, then $S_\epsilon$ intersects the fibre $\phi^{-1}(\delta)$ transversally by the above inequality. Let us choose $\delta \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}$ such that $0< \Vert \delta \Vert \le \hbox{Min}\{ \frac{D}{2} \epsilon^M, \frac{C}{2} \epsilon^N \}$. If $x$ is a critical point $g_{\vert \phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap S_\epsilon}$ then $x$ belongs to $\Sigma_{F,\rho} \setminus V$ and so $\Vert F(x) \Vert \ge C \epsilon^N$. This implies that $$g(x)^2 \ge C^2 \epsilon^{2N} - \Vert \phi \Vert^2 \ge C^2\epsilon^{2N} -\frac{C^2}{4} \epsilon^{2N},$$ and so $\vert g(x) \vert \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}C \epsilon^{N}$.
Now we can return to our map $F:(\phi,g) : (\mathbb{R}^n,0)\rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^k,0)$. Let us choose $\epsilon$ and $\delta \in \mathbb{R}^{k-1}$ such that $0 < \Vert \delta \Vert \ll \epsilon \ll 1$ and the critical points of $g_{\vert \phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap S_\epsilon}$ lie in $\{ \vert g \vert \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}C \epsilon^N \}$.
The critical points of $g_{\vert \phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap S_\epsilon}$ in $\{g \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}C \epsilon^N \}$ are outwards-pointing and the critical points of $g_{\vert \phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap S_\epsilon}$ in $\{g \le
- \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}C \epsilon^N\}$ are inwards-pointing.
Let us prove the statement about the critical points in $\{g \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}C \epsilon^N \}$. Let us remark first that such a critical point is not a critical point of $g_{\vert \phi^{-1}(\delta)}$ because $\Sigma_{\phi,g} \subset \phi^{-1}(0) \cap g^{-1}(0)$ in a neighborhood of the origin. Therefore if the statement is not verified, then this means that we can find a sequence of points $(q_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ in $S_\epsilon \cap \{g \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}C \epsilon^N \}$ such that $\phi(q_n)$ tends to $0$ and $q_n$ is an inwards-pointing critical point of $g_{\vert \phi^{-1}(\phi(q_n)) \cap S_\epsilon}$. Taking a subsequence if necessary, this produces a point $q$ in $\phi^{-1}(0) \cap S_\epsilon$ such that $g(q) \ge \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}C \epsilon^N$ and $q$ is a critical point of $g$ restricted to $\phi ^{-1}(0) \setminus \Sigma_{\phi} \cap S_\epsilon$, because $$\Sigma_{\phi} \subset \Sigma_F \subset F^{-1}(0) \subset g^{-1}(0).$$ Futhermore as the limit of a sequence of inwards-pointing critical points, $q$ is either inwards-pointing, which is impossible by the previous lemma, or is a critical point of $g$ restricted to $\phi^{-1}(0) \setminus \Sigma_\phi$, which is also impossible by Lemma \[PtsCrit\].
Topology of the Milnor fibre
============================
We keep the notations of the previous section. We denote by $M_F$ the Milnor fibre of the mapping $F$ and by $M_\phi$ the Milnor fibre of $\phi$. Here we need to assume that $k \ge 3$ so that the Milnor fibre of $\phi$ is well-defined.
\[Milnor’s conjecture, [@Mi], page 100\] \[Milnorconjec\] The fibre $M_\phi$ is homeomorphic to $M_F \times [-1,1] $.
[*Proof*]{}. Let us choose $\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}$ and $\delta \in \mathbb{R}^k$ such that:
1. $0< \Vert \delta \Vert \ll \epsilon \ll 1$,
2. $M_\phi$ is homeomorphic to $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon$,
3. $M_F$ is homeomorphic to $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap g^{-1}(0) \cap B_\epsilon$,
4. the critical points of $g$ restricted to $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap S_\epsilon$ lie in $\{g \not= 0\}$, are outwards-pointing in $\{g > 0\}$ and inwards-pointing in $\{ g < 0 \}$.
Note that $g_{\vert \phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap \mathring{B_\epsilon}}$ has no critical points because $\Sigma_{\phi,g} \subset \phi^{-1}(0) \cap g^{-1}(0)$. Then by Morse theory for manifolds with boundary (see [@H]), $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \cap \{ g \ge 0 \}$ is homeomorphic to $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \cap \{ g = 0 \} \times [0,1]$ and $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \cap \{ g \le 0 \}$ is homeomorphic to $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \cap \{ g = 0 \} \times [-1,0]$. Therefore $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon$ is homeomorphic to $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \cap \{ g = 0 \} \times [-1,1]$ because it is homeomorphic to the gluing of $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \cap \{ g \ge 0 \}$ and $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \cap \{ g \le 0 \}$ along $\phi^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon \cap \{ g = 0 \}$. $\hfill \Box$
Under the above conditions we have $\chi(M_F)=\chi(M_\phi)$.
Proceeding by induction on the number of components of the mapping, we can easily prove the following corollary.
\[CharFib1\] Let $l \in \{2,\ldots,k\}$ and let $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}$ be an $l$-tuple of pairwise distinct elements of $ \{1,\ldots,k\}$. Then we have $\chi(M_{f_I})=\chi(M_F)$.
It remains to consider the fibres of the function $f_j : (\mathbb{R}^n,0) \rightarrow (\mathbb{R},0)$. Here such a function admits two Milnor fibres : $M^+_{f_{\{j\}}}= f_j^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon$ and $M^-_{f_{\{j\}}}= f_j^{-1}(-\delta) \cap B_\epsilon$, where $0 < \delta \ll \epsilon \ll 1$.
Let us write for instance $f=f_1$ and $g=f_2$. Using the same argument as above, we see that $M^+_f$ is homeomorphic to $M_{(f,g)}\times [-1,1]$ and that $M^-_f$ is also homeomorphic $M_{(f,g)} \times [-1,1]$.
\[CharFib2\] For every $j \in \{1,\ldots,k \}$, we have $\chi(M^+_{f_{\{j\}}})=\chi(M^-_{f_{\{j\}}})=\chi(M_F)$.
Topology of the links
=====================
In this section we give several relations between the Euler characteristics of the links of $f_I^{-1}(0)$ and the Euler characteristic of the Milnor fibre of $F$.
Let us choose $l \in \{1,\ldots,k \}$ and an $l$-tuple $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}$ of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$. We write $J=\{i_1,\ldots,i_{l-1}\}$ and $g=f_{i_l}$. We also denote by $\mathcal{L}_I$ (resp. $\mathcal{L}_J$) the link of the zero-set of $f_I$ (resp. $f_J$). If $l=1$ then $J= \emptyset$ and we put $f_J=0$.
\[CharL1\] We have: $$\chi(\mathcal{L}_J)-\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)=(-1)^{n-l} 2 \chi(M_F).$$
Let us write $V_J=f_J^{-1}(0)$. By a deformation argument due to Milnor, $V_J \cap g^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon$ is homeomorphic to $V_J \cap \{ g \ge \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon$ and $V_J \cap g^{-1}(-\delta) \cap B_\epsilon$ is homeomorphic to $V_J \cap \{ g \le -\delta \} \cap S_\epsilon$ for $0 < \delta \ll \epsilon \ll 1$. By the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, we can write: $$\chi(V_J \cap S_\epsilon) = \chi (V_J \cap S_\epsilon \cap \{ g \ge \delta \} )+\chi (V_J \cap S_\epsilon \cap \{ g \le -\delta \} )+$$ $$\chi (V_J \cap S_\epsilon \cap \{ -\delta \le g \le \delta \} ) -\chi(V_J \cap S_\epsilon \cap \{ g = \delta \} )-\chi(V_J \cap S_\epsilon \cap \{ g = -\delta \} ).$$ By the above remark and Corollaries \[CharFib1\] and \[CharFib2\], the first two terms of the right-hand side of this equality are equal to $\chi(M_F)$. The third term is equal to $\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)$ because by Durfee’s result \[Dur\], $\mathcal{L}_I$ is a retract by deformation of $V_J \cap S_\epsilon \cap \{ -\delta \le g \le \delta \} $. Furthermore, if $n-l$ is even then the two last Euler characteristics are equal to $0$ because $V_J \cap S_\epsilon \cap \{ g = \delta \} $ and $V_J \cap S_\epsilon \cap \{ g =- \delta \} $ are odd-dimensional compact manifolds. If $n-l$ is odd, they are equal to $2\chi(M_F)$ because they are boundaries of odd-dimensional Milnor fibres of $f_I$.
Let $j \in \{1,\ldots,k\}$. If $n$ is even, then we have $\chi(\mathcal{L}_{\{j\}})= 2 \chi(M_F)$ and if $n$ is odd, then we have $\chi(\mathcal{L}_{\{j\}})=2-2\chi(M_F)$.
We apply the previous proposition to the case $l=1$. In this case, if $n$ is even then $\chi(\mathcal{L}_J)=0$ and if $n$ is odd then $\chi(\mathcal{L}_J)=2$. $\hfill \Box$
Let $l\in \{3,\ldots,k \}$ and let $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\} \subset \{1,\ldots,k\}$. Let $K$ be an $(l-2)$-tuple of pairwise distincts elements of $I$. Then we have: $\chi(\mathcal{L}_K)= \chi(\mathcal{L}_J)$.
Let $J$ be an $(l-1)$-tuple built form adding to $K$ one element of $I \setminus K$. By the previous proposition, we see that $\chi(\mathcal{L}_J)-\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)=\chi(\mathcal{L}_J)-\chi(\mathcal{L}_K)$.
So, in order to express the Euler characteristics of all the links $\mathcal{L}_I$, we just need to compute the Euler characteristic of a link $\mathcal{L}_I$ where $\# I=2$. Let us set $I=\{1,2\}$. By Proposition \[CharL1\], we find that $$\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)=\chi(\mathcal{L}_{\{1\}})-(-1)^n 2\chi(M_F).$$ So if $n$ is even, we see that $\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)=0$ and if $n$ is odd, we see that $\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)=2$. We can summarize all these results in the following theorem.
\[CharLink\] Let $l\in \{1,\ldots,k \}$ and let $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}$ be an $l$-tuple of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$. If $n$ is even, then we have: $$\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)= 2\chi(M_F) \hbox{ if } l \hbox{ is odd and }\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)=0 \hbox{ if } l \hbox{ is even}.$$ If $n$ is odd, then we have: $$\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)=2- 2\chi(M_F) \hbox{ if } l \hbox{ is odd and }\chi(\mathcal{L}_I)=2 \hbox{ if } l \hbox{ is even}.$$
$\hfill \Box$
Topology of related semi-analytic sets
======================================
In this section, we establish formulas for the Euler characteristics of several semi-analytic sets defined from the components of the map $F$. We are interested first in the sets of the form $$f_I ^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_s} \epsilon_s 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon,$$ where $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l \}$ is an $l$-tuple of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k \}$, $l+s \le k$, $\delta$ is a sufficiently small regular value of $f_I$, $j_1,\ldots,j_s$ are pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k\} \setminus I$ and for $i \in \{1,\ldots, s \}$, $\epsilon_i \in \{\le,\ge \}$.
\[CharSemi1\] We have: $$\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_s} \epsilon_s 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) = \chi (M_F).$$
We prove the result by induction on $s$. Let us state the induction hypothesis IH($s$) properly.
0,2cm
Let $s \in \{1,\ldots,k \}$. For any $l \in \{1, \ldots, k \}$ such that $l+s \le k$, for any $l$-tuple $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}$ of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k \}$, for any $s$-tuple $\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}$ of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k \} \setminus I$, we have $$\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_s} \epsilon_s 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) = \chi (M_F),$$ where $\delta$ is a sufficiently small regular value of $f_I$ and for $i \in \{1,\ldots, s \}$, $\epsilon_i \in \{\le,\ge \}$.
0,2cm
Let us prove IH(1). By the same argument of Theorem \[Milnorconjec\], we can apply Morse theory for manifolds with boundary to $f_{j_1}$ restricted to $f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon$, to find that $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{ f_{j_1} \ge 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) -
\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{ f_{j_1} = 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) =0$$ and $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{ f_{j_1} \le 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) -
\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{ f_{j_1} = 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) =0.$$ Now by Corollary \[CharFib1\] and Corollary \[CharFib2\] we get the result.
Let us assume that IH($s-1$) is satisfied and let us prove IH($s$). By Morse theory for manifold with corners (see [@Du3]) applied to $f_{j_s}$ restricted to $f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon$, we find that $$\displaylines{
\qquad \chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} \ge 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) - \hfill \cr
\hfill \chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) =0, \qquad \cr}$$ and $$\displaylines{
\qquad \chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} \le 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) - \hfill \cr
\hfill \chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) =0. \qquad \cr}$$ But, by the induction hypothesis IH($s-1$), we know that $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(\delta) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = 0 \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) = \chi(M_F).$$
Now we look at the sets of the form $$f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon,$$ where $\delta$ is a sufficiently small regular value of $f_{j_s}$.
We have: $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon\right) =$$ $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = -\delta \} \cap S_\epsilon\right) .$$
We prove the result by induction on $s$. Let us state the induction hypothesis IH($s$) properly.
0,2cm
Let $s \in \{1,\ldots,k \}$. For any $l \in \{1, \ldots, k \}$ such that $l+s \le k$, for any $l$-tuple $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}$ of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k \}$, for any $s$-tuple $\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}$ of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k \} \setminus I$, we have $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon\right) =$$ $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = -\delta \} \cap S_\epsilon\right),$$ where $\delta$ is a sufficiently small regular value of $f_{j_s}$ and for $i \in \{1,\ldots, s-1 \}$, $\epsilon_i \in \{\le,\ge \}$.
0,2cm
Let us prove first IH(1). This is easy because $f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1}=\delta\} \cap S_\epsilon$ is the boundary of the manifold $f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1}=\delta\} \cap B_\epsilon$ and so its Euler characteristic is $0$ if dim$f_I^{-1}(0)$ is odd and it is $2 \chi(M_F)$ if dim$f_I^{-1}(0)$ is even.
Let us assume that IH($1$), $\ldots$, IH($s-1$) are satisfied and let us prove IH($s$). If dim$f_I^{-1}(0)$ is odd then dim$f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon $ is also odd. But $f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon $ is an odd-dimensional manifold with corners so, after rounding the corners, we can write $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon \right)=$$ $$\frac{1}{2} \chi \Big( \partial \left(f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon \right) \Big).$$ By the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, we see that the Euler characteristic of the right-hand side is a linear combination, with coefficients equal to $\pm 1$, of the Euler characteristics of sets of the form: $$f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \nu_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \nu_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon,$$ where $\nu_i \in \{\le,=,\ge \}$ for $i=1,\ldots,s-1$ and at least one of the $\nu_i$’s is the sign $=$. Hence we can apply the induction hypothesis to obtain the result.
If dim$f_I^{-1}(0)$ is even then dim$f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon $ is also even. But $f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap B_\epsilon $ is an odd-dimensional manifold with corners so, after rounding the corners, we can write $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap B_\epsilon \right)=$$ $$\frac{1}{2} \chi \Big( \partial \left(f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap B_\epsilon \right) \Big).$$ We know by the previous proposition that the left-hand side of this equality does not depend on the sign of $\delta$. Let us examine the Euler characteristic of the right-hand side. By the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, it is equal to a linear combination, with coefficients equal to $\pm 1$, of the Euler characteristic of $$f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon ,$$ the Euler characteristics of sets of the type: $$f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \nu_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \nu_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap B_\epsilon,$$ where $\nu_i \in \{\le,=,\ge \}$ for $i=1,\ldots,s-1$, and the Euler characteristics of sets of the type: $$f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \nu_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \nu_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon,$$ where $\nu_i \in \{\le,=,\ge \}$ for $i=1,\ldots,s-1$ and at least one of the $\nu_i$’s is the sign $=$. Since the Euler characteristics of the sets of the first type do not depend on the sign of $\delta$ by the previous proposition, and those of the sets of the second type do not neither by the induction hypothesis, we get the result. $\hfill \Box$
Now we study the links of the sets of the form $$f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_s} \epsilon_s 0 \} ,$$ where $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l \} \subset \{1,\ldots,k \}$, $l+s \le k$, $j_1,\ldots,j_s$ are pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k\} \setminus I$ and for $i \in \{1,\ldots, s \}$, $\epsilon_i \in \{\le,\ge \}$.
We have: $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_s} \epsilon_s 0 \} \right)= \chi(M_F),$$ if $n$ is even and $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_s} \epsilon_s 0 \} \right) =2- \chi(M_F),$$ if $n$ is odd.
We prove the result by induction on $s$. Let us state the induction hypothesis IH($s$) properly.
0,2cm
Let $s \in \{1,\ldots,k \}$. For any $l \in \{1, \ldots, k \}$ such that $l+s \le k$, for any $l$-tuple $I=\{i_1,\ldots,i_l\}$ of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k \}$, for any $s$-tuple $\{j_1,\ldots,j_s\}$ of pairwise distinct elements of $\{1,\ldots,k \} \setminus I$, we have $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_s} \epsilon_s 0 \} \right)= \chi(M_F),$$ if $n$ is even and $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_s} \epsilon_s 0 \} \right)=2- \chi(M_F),$$ if $n$ is odd, where for $i \in \{1,\ldots, s \}$, $\epsilon_i \in \{\le,\ge \}$.
0,2cm
Let us prove first IH(1). We have the following equality: $$\displaylines{
\qquad \chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \geq 0 \} \right)=
\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \ge \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon \right) + \hfill \cr
\hfill \chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{ 0 \le f_{j_1} \le \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon \right) -
\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} = \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon \right) , \qquad \cr
}$$ where $0< \delta \ll \epsilon \ll 1$. As already explained above, by a deformation argument due to Milnor, $f_I^{-1}(0) \cap f_{j_1}^{-1}(\delta) \cap B_\epsilon$ is homeomorphic to $f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \ge \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon$. So the first term of the right-hand side is equal to $\chi(M_{F})$. By Durfee’s result, $ f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{ 0 \le f_{j_1} \le \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon$ retracts by deformation to $ f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{ f_{j_1} =0 \}\cap S_\epsilon$ and so the second term is equal to $\chi(\mathcal{L}_{I \cup \{ j_{1}\}}).$ Similarly we have $$\chi(\mathcal{L}_{I}\cap \{f_{j_1}\leq 0\})=\chi(M_{F})+\chi(\mathcal{L}_{I \cup \{ j_{1}\}})-\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} = -\delta \}\cap S_\epsilon \right).$$ Therefore we can conclude by the previous lemma that $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \geq 0 \} \right)=\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \leq 0 \} \right).$$ Applying the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, we can write: $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \right) =\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \geq 0 \} \right)+
\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \leq 0 \} \right)
-\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} = 0 \} \right).$$ It is easy to conclude using Theorem \[CharLink\].
Let us assume that IH($1$),$\ldots$, IH($s-1$) are satisfied and let us prove IH($s$). We have the following equality: $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots,f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} \geq 0 \} \right)=$$ $$\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} \ge \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon \right) +$$ $$\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , 0 \le f_{j_s} \le \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon \right) -$$ $$\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap\{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} = \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon \right) ,$$ where $0< \delta \ll \epsilon \ll 1$. By an adaptation of Milnor’s deformation argument, we see that $$f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap B_\epsilon,$$ is homeomorphic to $$f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} \ge \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon.$$ So the first term of the right-hand side is equal to $\chi(M_{F})$ by Proposition \[CharSemi1\]. By Durfee’s result, $$f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , 0 \le f_{j_s} \le \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon,$$ retracts by deformation to $$f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} =0 \}\cap S_\epsilon,$$ and so the second term is equal to $\chi(\mathcal{L}_{I\cup \{j_s\}}\cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 \})$. Applying the previous lemma as for IH(1), we can conclude that $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots,f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} \geq 0 \} \right)=$$ $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots,f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} \leq 0 \} \right).$$ Applying the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, we can write: $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 \} \right)=$$ $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} \ge 0 \} \right)+$$ $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} \le 0 \} \right)-$$ $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I}\cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} = 0 \} \right).$$ It is easy to conclude using the induction hypothesis IH($s-1$).
If $s \ge 2$ then we have: $$\chi \left( f_I^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0, f_{j_s} = \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon\right) = \chi(M_F).$$
We use the following equality already mentioned above: $$\chi \left( \mathcal{L}_{I} \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} \ge 0 \} \right)=$$ $$\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} \ge \delta \} \cap S_\epsilon \right) +$$ $$\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap \{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , 0 \le f_{j_s} \le \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon \right) -$$ $$\chi \left( f_I ^{-1}(0) \cap\{f_{j_1} \epsilon_1 0, \ldots, f_{j_{s-1}} \epsilon_{s-1} 0 , f_{j_s} = \delta \}\cap S_\epsilon \right) ,$$ where $0< \delta \ll \epsilon \ll 1$. The term of the left-hand side and the second term of the right-hand side are equal by the previous theorem and the first term of the left-hand side is equal to $\chi(M_F)$, as already explained in the proof of the previous theorem.
Applications
============
In [@Sz2] Z. Szafraniec proved interesting formulae relating the Euler number of the link of a weighted homogeneous real polynomial function $f:\mathbb{R}^{n} \to \mathbb{R}$, such that $df(0)=0,$ with the topological degrees of mappings which are explicitly constructed in terms of $f.$ Let us remind the main steps and results.
Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{n} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a weighted homogeneous real polynomial function of type $(d_{1},\cdots,d_{n};d),$ with $df(0)=0,$ and denote by $L=\{x\in S^{n-1}; f(x)=0\}$ the link of $\{f=0\}.$
Let $p$ be the smallest positive integer such that $2p>d$ and each $d_{i}$ divides $p.$ Also denote by $a_{i}=\displaystyle{\frac{p}{d_{i}}}$ and
$$\omega=\frac{x_{1}^{2a_{1}}}{2a_{1}}+\cdots+\frac{x_{n}^{2a_{n}}}{2a_{n}}.$$
Now consider $g_{1}=f-\omega$ and $g_{2}=-f-\omega.$
Let $I_{i}=(\frac{\partial g_{i}}{\partial x_{1}},\cdots,\frac{\partial g_{i}}{\partial x_{n}})$ be the ideal generated by the partial derivatives of $g_{i}$, for each $i=1,2,$ in $\mathbb{R}[[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]].$ Then, $$\dim_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\mathbb{R}[[x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}]]}{I_{i}}<\infty .$$
In the case where $f$ is homogeneous, i.e., the weight $d_{i}=1$ for all $i=1,\cdots, n$, the author observed that the integer $p=[\frac{d}{2}]+1$ and $$\displaystyle{\omega=(x_{1}^{2p}+\cdots + x_{n}^{2p})/2p}.$$
Now consider the mappings
$$H_{i}=\nabla g_{i}:(\mathbb{R}^{n},0)\to (\mathbb{R}^{n},0),$$
for $i=1,2.$ By the lemma above, we have that $0\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is isolated in $H_{i}^{-1}(0),$ and so $\deg_{0} H_{i}$ is well defined, for each $i=1,2.$
The next result relates the topological degrees of the mappings $H_{i}$ with the Euler number of the link $L=f^{-1}(0)\cap S^{n-1}.$
\[[@Sz2], Theorem 5, page 244\]
$$\chi(L)=2-(\deg_{0} H_{1} +\deg_{0} H_{2}+\chi(S^{n-1})).$$
If the degree of homogeneity $d$ is odd, then is possible to do an involution on the sphere $S^{n-1}$ and in this case we have that $\deg_{0} H_{1} =\deg_{0} H_{2} $ and the result above becomes:
\[[@Sz2],Corollary 6, page 244\]
If $d$ is odd then
$$\chi(L)=2(1-\deg_{0} H_{1} )-\chi(S^{n-1}).$$
In what follow we will use Szafraniec’s formulae and our previous formulae to compute some examples.
Consider $f: (\mathbb{C}^{3},0)\to (\mathbb{C},0),$ $f(x,y,z)=x^{2}z+y^{2}.$ It follows from example \[R1\] that Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$ are clearly satisfied. In this case we can apply Sakamoto’s formula [@Sa] to get that the Milnor fiber $M_{f}$ have the homotopy type of the $2-$dimensional sphere $S^{2},$ and so $\chi(M_{f})=2.$
Let $g=\Re(f):(\mathbb{R}^{6},0)\to (\mathbb{R},0)$ be the function given by the real part of $f.$ Observe that, since the $\dim (\Sigma_g)>0,$ then the link is not a manifold, therefore we can not find easily the Euler number of the link. Applying our Theorem \[CharLink\], we have that $\chi(\mathcal{L}_g)=2\chi(M_{f})=4,$ where $\mathcal{L}_g:=g^{-1}(0)\cap S_{\epsilon}^{5}$ is the link of real function $g.$
Denote $x=x_{1}+ix_{2},~ y=y_{1}+iy_{2}$ and $z=z_{1}+iz_{2}.$ Therefore, the real part $g=z_{1}(x_{1}^{2}-x_{2}^{2})-2z_{2}x_{1}x_{2}+y_{1}^{2}-y_{2}^{2}$ is a weighted-homogeneous polynomial function of type $(2,2,3,3,2,2;6),$ and so we can apply Szafraniec’s formula described above as follows:
It is easy to see that $p=6,$ $a_{1}=a_{2}=a_{5}=a_{6}=3,$ $a_{3}=a_{4}=2$ and $$\omega =\frac{x_{1}^{6}}{6}+\frac{x_{2}^{6}}{6}+\frac{y_{1}^{4}}{4}+\frac{y_{2}^{4}}{4}+\frac{z_{1}^{6}}{6}+\frac{z_{2}^{6}}{6}.$$
It follows from $(3)$ above that the mappings
$H_{1}=(2x_{1}z_{1}-2z_{2}x_{2}-x_{1}^{5}, -2x_{2}z_{1}-2x_{1}z_{2}-x_{2}^{5}, 2y_{1}-y_{1}^{3},-2y_{2}-y_{2}^{3},x_{1}^{2}-x_{2}^{2}-z_{1}^{5},-2x_{1}x_{2}-z_{2}^{5}),$
$H_{2}=(-2x_{1}z_{1}+2z_{2}x_{2}-x_{1}^{5}, 2x_{2}z_{1}+2x_{1}z_{2}-x_{2}^{5}, -2y_{1}-y_{1}^{3},2y_{2}-y_{2}^{3},-x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}-z_{1}^{5},2x_{1}x_{2}-z_{2}^{5}).$
Now, computations shows that $\deg_{0} H_{j} =-1,~ j=1,2$ and by Szafraniec’s formula $(6)$ we have that
$$\chi(\mathcal{L}_{g})=2-(-1-1+0)=4,$$ and so, both results coincide.
Let $f=(P,Q): (\mathbb{R}^{3},0)\to (\mathbb{R}^{2},0)$ $f(x,y,z)=(zx^2+zy^2+y^3,x).$ It is easy to see that $\Sigma_f=\{(0,0,z); z\in \mathbb{R}\},$ $\Sigma_f\subset V,$ and so Milnor’s condition $(a)$ holds.
On the one hand we have that $Q=x$ and since its link is diffeomorphic to $S^{1}$ then $\chi(\mathcal{L_{Q}})=0.$
On the other hand, since $P=zx^2+zy^2+y^3$ is homogeneous of degree $d=3,$ then $p=2,$ $g_{1}=zx^2+zy^2+y^3-\omega ,$ where $\omega=\frac{x^{4}}{4}+\frac{y^{4}}{4}+\frac{z^{4}}{4}$ and $$H_{1}=(2xz-x^3,3y^2+2yz-y^3,x^2+y^2-z^3).$$
It is easy to see that $\deg_{0} H_{1} =-1$ and by formula $(7)$ above we have $\chi(\mathcal{L}_{P})=2.$ Therefore, Milnor’s condition $(b)$ cannot be satisfied.
The next example comes from [@TYA], Example 5.1, Section 5. Applying a Thom-Sebastiani type Theorem as explained in Section 5 of cited paper, it is possible to produce examples in all odd dimension.
Let $f=(P,Q): (\mathbb{R}^{5},0)\to (\mathbb{R}^{2},0),$ $f(x,y,z,u,v)=(y^{4}-z^2x^2-x^4+u^2-v^2,xy+2uv).$ It is easy to see that $\Sigma_{f}\subseteq V.$ It was proved in [@TYA] that Milnor’s condition $(b)$ follows as an application of the Curve Selection Lemma.
Calculations shows that $\deg_{0} {H_{i}} =1,$ for $i=1,2.$ So, $\chi(L_{Q})=-2,$ $\chi(M_{f})=2$ and $\chi(\partial M_{f})=4.$ Therefore, we can claim that the boundary of the Milnor fiber is not connected, since it contains at least two disjoint copies of $S^2.$
Let $f_{1},\cdots , f_{s}:U\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}\to \mathbb{R}$ be analytic functions with $f_{1}(0)=\cdots f_{s}(0)=0$ and let $f(x)=f_{1}(x)^2+\cdots +f_{s}(x)^2.$ The following equality of analytic sets holds $$\{x\in U;~ f_{1}(x)=\cdots =f_{s}(x)=0\}=\{x\in U;~ f(x)=0\}.$$
In [@Sz1] the author considered the function $g(x)=f(x)-c(x_{1}^{2}+\cdots +x_{n}^{2})^{k},$ where $c>0$ and $k$ an integer, and showed that for $k$ large enough the function $g$ has an isolated singular point at the origin. Moreover, he proved that for all small radius $\epsilon $, the following Poincaré-Hopf type formula holds true: $$\chi(\mathcal{L}_{f})=\chi(\{x\in S_{\epsilon}^{n-1}; ~ f(x)=0\})=1-\deg_{0} \nabla g.$$
Therefore, connecting this result with our previous formulae, we can conclude that for a given analytic mapping satisfying Milnor’s conditions $(a)$ and $(b)$ the Euler-Poincaré number of the Milnor fiber also satisfies a Poincaré-Hopf type formula.
[99]{}
Araújo dos Santos, D. Drebelbis, N. Dutertre, [*Topology of the real Milnor fiber for isolated singularities*]{}, Contemporary Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, [**v. 569**]{}, p. 67-75, 2012.
K. Aoki, T. Fukuda, T. Nishimura, [*On the number of branches of the zero locus of a map germ $({\bf R}^n,0) \rightarrow ({\bf R}^{n-1},0)$*]{}, Topology and Computer Science: Proceedings of the Symposium held in honor of S. Kinoshita, H. Noguchi and T. Homma on the occasion of their sixtieth birhtdays, (1987), 347–363.
K. Aoki, T. Fukuda, T. Nishimura, [*An algebraic formula for the topological types of one parameter bifurcation diagrams*]{}, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis [**108**]{} (1989), 247–265.
K. Aoki, T.Fukuda, W.Z. Sun, [*On the number of branches of a plane curve germ*]{}, Kodai Math. J. [**9**]{} (1986), 179–187.
R. Araújo dos Santos, M. Tibar, [*Real map germs and higher open book structures*]{}, Geom. Dedicata [**147**]{} (2010), 177-185. J. Cisneros-Molina, J. Seade, J. Snoussi, [*Milnor fibrations and the concept of d-regularity for analytic map germs*]{}. Contemporary Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, [**v. 569**]{}, p. 01–28, 2012.
A. Durfee, [*Neighborhoods of algebraic sets.*]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 276 (1983), [**no. 2**]{}, 517–-530.
N. Dutertre, [*Degree formulas for a topological invariant of bifurcations of function germs*]{}, Kodai Math. J. [**23**]{}, no. 3 (2000), 442–461.
N. Dutertre, [*On the Milnor fibre of a real map-germ*]{}, Hokkaido Mathematical Journal [**31**]{} (2002), 301–319.
N. Dutertre, [*On the Euler characteristic of semi-analytic and semi-algebraic sets* ]{}, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. (2003), [**135**]{}, 527–538.
N. Dutertre, [*On the Euler characteristics of real Milnor fibres of partially parallelizable maps of $(\mathbb{R}^{n},0) \to (\mathbb{R}^2,0)$*]{}, Kodai Math. J. [**32**]{}, no. 2 (2009), 324–351.
T. Fukui, A. Khovanskii, [*Mapping degree and Euler characteristic*]{}, Kodai Math. J. [**29**]{}, no. 1 (2006), 144–162.
T. Fukui, [*An algebraic formula for a topological invariant of bifurcation of 1-parameter family of function-germs*]{}, Stratifications, singularities, and differential equations, II (Marseille, 1990; Honolulu, HI, 1990), Travaux en cours [**55**]{} (1997), 45–54.
T. Fukui, [*Mapping degree formula for 2-parameter bifurcation of function-germs*]{}, Topology [**32**]{} (1993), 567–571.
H. Hamm [*Morse theory on singular spaces and Lefschetz theorems*]{}, Singularities (Warsaw, 1985), Banach Center Publ., 20, PWN, Warsaw, 1988, 223–-237.
A. Jacquemard, [*On the fiber of the compound of a real analytic function by a projection*]{}, Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana, serie 8, volume [**2-B**]{} (1999), n. 2, p. 263-278.
D. Massey, [*Real Analytic Milnor Fibrations and a Strong Łojasiewicz Inequality,*]{} Real and complex singularities, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., [**380**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2010) 268–-292.
S. Łojasiewicz, [*Ensembles semi–analytiques*]{}, Inst. Hautes Études Sci., Bures-sur-Yvette, 1965.
H. Hamm, L. D. Trãng, [*Un théorème de Zariski du type de Lefschetz*]{}, Ann. Sci. Ecol. Norm. Sup. (3) [**6**]{} (1973), 317–355.
G.M. Khimshiashvili, [*On the local degree of a smooth map*]{}, Soobshch. Akad. Nauk Gruz. SSR [**85**]{} (1977), 309–311.
J. Milnor, [*Singular points of complex hypersurfaces*]{}, Ann. of Math. Studies, No. 61, Princeton University Press (1968).
M. Tibar, C. Ying, R. Araújo dos Santos, [*Singular open book structures from real mappings*]{}, arXiv:1011.1757v2. (Accepted for publication in Central European Journal of Mathematics, 2013.)
K. Sakamoto, [*Milnor fiberings and their characteristic maps*]{} Manifolds—Tokyo 1973 (Proc. Internat. Conf., Tokyo, 1973), pp. 145–150. Univ. Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1975.
Z. Szafraniec, [*On the Euler Characteristic of analytic and algebraic sets*]{}, Topology, 25, (4) 1986, 411–414.
Z. Szafraniec, [*Topological invariants of weighted homogeneous polynomial*]{}, Glasgow Math. Journal, 33, 1991, 241–245.
Z. Szafraniec, [*On the number of branches of a $1-$dimensional semi-analytic set*]{}, Kodai Math. J., 11, 1988, 78–85.
[^1]: Mathematics Subject Classification (2010) : 14P25, 58K15, 58K65
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R. A. L. Almeida'
- 'S. O. Ferreira'
- 'I. R. B. Ribeiro'
- 'T. J. Oliveira'
title: 'Temperature effect on $(2+1)$ experimental Kardar-Parisi-Zhang growth'
---
Thin films are the basis of the optoelectronic industry. Commonly, patterned/mounded interfaces are observed due to growth instabilities [@evansrev] or polycrystallinity, where a complex growth involving intra- and inter-grain dynamics arise. It is well-known that size, texture and spatial distribution of these structures affect several thin-film properties that are crucial for applications in solar cells [@solarcell], spintronic devices [@spin], contact technology [@contact] and many others.
[At a coarse-grained level, the evolution of thin films and other growing interfaces is also a subject of broad interest, since they exhibit scaling invariance and universality]{} [@barabasi; @Krugrev]. For instance, the kinetic roughening of flame fronts [@Marco], turbulent phases in liquid crystals [@Takeuchi], colloidal particles deposited at the edges of evaporating drops [@Yunker], silica [@Cuerno], CdTe [@Renan] and oligomer films [@HHExper] have been shown to belong to the celebrated Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) [@KPZ] universality class (UC). Thus, despite their distinct microscopic nature, the interface of all these systems evolve asymptotically according to the KPZ equation [@KPZ]: $$\frac{\partial h (\textbf{x},t)}{\partial t} = \nu \nabla^{2} h + \frac{\lambda}{2} (\nabla h)^{2} + \eta(\textbf{x},t),
\label{eqKPZ}$$ where $h(\textbf{x},t)$ is the height at substrate position $\textbf{x}$ and time $t$, and $\nu$, $\lambda$ and $\eta$ account, respectively, for surface tension, interfacial velocity excess and white noise.
Since the design of thin films with specific properties requires control of their growth, a natural question raises up: *How do the growth parameters affect the local and long-wavelength dynamics of the system?* In fact, the effects of parameters such as substrate temperature [@Ferreira], molecular flux [@Hamouda] and electric potential [@Huo] have already been studied. However, the (roughness) dynamic scaling analysis (DSA) performed there did not lead to any conclusion about the UC of those systems, possibly due to corrections to scaling/transient effects.
{width="17.0cm"}
In this Letter, we answer that question regarding the effect of deposition temperature ($T$) on the growth of CdTe thin films, a very important material for the fabrication of detectors (of $\gamma$- and X-rays) [@Ferreira], solar cells [@CLi], ultra-fast optical sensors [@Saba] and others [@Manna]. The structure and morphology of films, grown by Hot Wall Epitaxy (HWE) at different $T$, have been characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). A complex mound evolution is observed and has been explained in terms of diffusion barriers at grain boundaries, as confirmed by Monte Carlo simulations. Although transient/crossover effects in the DSA have also been found here, through the study of several distributions, we prove that long-wavelength dynamics of the CdTe surfaces belong to the KPZ class in a broad range of $T$. The $T$-dependence of the parameters in Eq. \[eqKPZ\] is also unveiled.
Experimental methods
====================
CdTe (5N) was evaporated on Si(001) substrates by HWE, a well-controlled and highly reproducible growth technique [@Otero; @Suela]. The experimental HWE setup is described in detail in Ref. [@Suela]. Substrate cleaning and growth conditions are the same reported in [@Renan], however, temperatures $T=150$, $200$ and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ are also considered here. The HWE technique has been chosen because the growth apparatus is much simpler and the running costs are lower than those for Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE). The growth rate was determined ex-situ measuring the sample thickness with a ContourGT-K (Bruker) optical profiler. Surface topographies were measured in air using a Ntegra Prima (NT-MDT) SPM in contact mode with Si tips. Images of $10\mu m \times 10\mu m$ ($1024 \times 1024$ pixels) were carried out for 3-10 distinct regions near the film center. Crystallinity and texture features were investigated by X-ray diffraction (XRD) using a Bruker D8-Discover diffractometer.
Local dynamic
=============
Figures \[fig1\]a-d show typical AFM images for CdTe films grown at $T=200$ and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ for 120 and 240 min. The grained/mounded morphology expected for polycrystalline surfaces is observed, where for $T = 200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ conical grains with well-defined boundaries dominate the surface at short times (Fig. \[fig1\]a). For the largest time available (Fig. \[fig1\]b) one sees the presence of some coalesced/packed grains[^1] carrying a multi-peaked form. There is a plenty of these structures at surfaces grown at $T = 300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ since short growth times (Fig \[fig1\]c), and they keep growing to give place to large mounds separated by deep valleys (Fig \[fig1\]d). These features are highlighted in Figs. \[fig1\]e and \[fig1\]f, where cross sections of characteristic superficial structures are shown. The polycrystalline environment is confirmed by the appearance of several peaks in the $\theta-2\theta$ XRD spectra. It is presented in Fig. \[fig1\]g for $T=250\, ^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, and similar spectra are found for all investigated $T$. Additionally, a strong (111) $T$-independent texture is revealed (see inset of Fig. \[fig1\]g), pointing out that (111) grains grow faster than the others and, upon [coalescence/packing]{}, cover the neighboring non-(111) ones. Previous studies suggest that this CdTe texture is also independent of the substrate [@Igor].
Figures \[fig2\]a and \[fig2\]b show the local roughness \[$w_{loc}(l,t)$ - defined as the rms height fluctuation inside a box of lateral size $l$\] versus $l$ for $T=200$ and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, respectively. Solid lines indicate linear fits used to extract the local exponent $\alpha_{1}$, defined by $w_{loc} \sim l^{\alpha_1}$ [@tiago3]. One notices that this exponent is measured for $l\lesssim 0.1 \mu$m, so that it characterizes the intra-mound morphology. As demonstrated in Ref. [@tiago3], $\alpha_1$ decreases, as sharper are the mound shapes, from $\alpha_1 \approx 0.90$ (for rounded mounds) [down to]{} $\alpha_1 \approx 0.50$. Therefore, the exponents depicted in the inset of Fig. \[fig2\]a indicate that, for a given $T$, the top of mounds becomes more rounded as time evolves. The same is seen when the time is fixed and $T$ increases, as corroborated in Figs. \[fig1\]a-f. [Unfortunately, a crossover to the truly roughness exponent [@tiago3] is not observed in the local roughness (Figs. \[fig2\]a-b).]{}
![Local roughness $w_{loc}$ versus box size $l$ for (a) $T = 200$ and (b) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Solid lines indicate linear fits used to extract the local exponent $\alpha_{1}$. In (a) and (b) insets show $\alpha_{1}$ and $\langle (\nabla h)^{2} \rangle$ against time, respectively, [for $T = 150\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (blue triangles), $200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (green diamonds) and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (red circles)]{}.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"} ![Local roughness $w_{loc}$ versus box size $l$ for (a) $T = 200$ and (b) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Solid lines indicate linear fits used to extract the local exponent $\alpha_{1}$. In (a) and (b) insets show $\alpha_{1}$ and $\langle (\nabla h)^{2} \rangle$ against time, respectively, [for $T = 150\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (blue triangles), $200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (green diamonds) and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (red circles)]{}.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"}
One may notice in Fig. \[fig2\]a, at short-length scales ($l\lesssim 0.1 \mu$m), $w_{loc}$ increasing in time for $t\leqslant 120$ min. This is the hallmark of anomalous scaling [@Anom], but this “anomaly” is transient, since at large $t$ one sees $w_{loc}$ decreasing in time, leading to the standard Family-Vicsek scaling [@FVS]. A similar behavior was found in CdTe films grown at $T = 250\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ [@Renan]. The time evolution of $w_{loc}$ at short-length scales is directly related to the spatially averaged squared local slopes $\left\langle (\nabla h)^2 \right\rangle$ at interface (see the inset of Fig. \[fig2\]b).
The origin of these results can be understood as follows. Initially, CdTe grains evolve in the Volmer-Weber growth mode [@Sukarno], and [as higher is $T$ larger are their widths]{} [@evansrev] (Fig. \[fig1\]). Moreover, one found that the grain aspect ratio ($r \equiv$ height/width) also increases with $T$ at short times, possibly due to an unbalance between up- and downward diffusion at grain edges. As the initially isolated grains enlarge laterally, they collide forming grain boundaries (GBs), where defects are formed. [These defects give rise to an additional energy barrier $E_{GB}$ to diffuse toward these sites [@Tello_Gonzales], as also suggested recently in the growth of CdTe/CdS films [@Kwon]. At low $T$, a small number of molecules overcomes this barrier and most of them aggregates inside the grain where they have arrived. This compels the grain height to increase faster than its width, leading $r$ and $\left\langle (\nabla h)^2 \right\rangle$ to increase (Figs. \[fig1\]e and \[fig2\]b). As time evolves, aggregations at GBs induces a relaxation, which diminishes the number of *superficial* defects [@Sivananthan] and, consequently, the inter-grain diffusion becomes more active, since the $E_{GB}$ barrier disappear in those relaxed places. Thence, the coalescence/packing of grains becomes more operative and small grains give place to larger width structures, so that $r$ and $\left\langle (\nabla h)^2 \right\rangle$ start to decrease, exactly as observed for $T=200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (Fig. \[fig2\]b). For higher $T$, where the surface diffusion is more active, the relaxation process happens earlier as well as the decreasing in $r$ and $\left\langle (\nabla h)^2 \right\rangle$ (Figs. \[fig1\]f, \[fig2\]b and Ref. [@Renan]).]{}
![(a) Height profiles for $T=150$ (top) and $200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (bottom) for $t=10$, 100 and 1000, and shifted by $k=10$, 80 and 960, respectively. The vertical lines indicate the location of the initial GBs. (b) Average squared local slope $\langle (\nabla h)^{2} \rangle$ versus time.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3a.eps "fig:"){height="3.50cm"} ![(a) Height profiles for $T=150$ (top) and $200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (bottom) for $t=10$, 100 and 1000, and shifted by $k=10$, 80 and 960, respectively. The vertical lines indicate the location of the initial GBs. (b) Average squared local slope $\langle (\nabla h)^{2} \rangle$ versus time.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3b.eps "fig:"){height="3.50cm"}
The reliability of the above reasoning is illustrated in a [very simplified]{} one-dimensional atomistic growth model. Since our interest is the coalescence process, the growth starts on a periodic array of pyramidal grains with the same width $\zeta$ and height $H$, for simplicity. A randomly deposited particle diffuses at surface until reaches a site $i$ satisfying the constraint $|h_i - h_{i\pm 1}| \leq 1$, where it permanently aggregates. Therefore, inside the grain, aggregation follows the conservative RSOS (restricted solid-on-solid) rule [@CRSOS]. However, at the GBs there is an energy barrier $E_{GB}$, so that a particle diffuses toward them with probability $P_{D}=e^{-E_{GB}/k_{B} T}$. Once a particle *aggregates* at a given GB $i$, the barrier $E_{GB}$ at $i$ becomes null with probability $P_{R}=e^{-E_{R}/k_{B} T}$, in order to mimic the relaxation process. Figure \[fig3\]a shows typical surface evolutions for $T = 150$ and $200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{
C}$, with $E_{GB}=0.10$ eV, $E_{R}=0.30$ eV, $\zeta=64$ and $H=8$, 16 and 24 for $T=150$, 200 and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, respectively. For $T=150\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ one observes grains with almost fixed widths and increasing heights. A similar behavior is found at short times for $T=200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ but, for long $t$, large mounds (formed by coalesced grains) appears. The same occurs for higher $T$. This qualitative agreement with the experiment is corroborated by the evolution of $\langle (\nabla h)^{2} \rangle$, displayed in Fig. \[fig3\]b. Comparing these results with the experimental ones (inset of Fig. \[fig2\]b), one can confirm that the interplay of GBs barrier relaxation and initial conditions (initial $r$ increasing with $T$), in fact, explains the CdTe/Si(001) local evolution. [Despite this agreement, we remark that this model does not captures all aspects of the microscopic dynamics of the system as well as of the complex packing of polycrystalline grains.]{}
Coarse-grained dynamic
======================
Figure \[fig4\]a presents the global roughness \[$W(t) \equiv w_{loc}(l=L)$\] versus time, which is expected to scale as $W \sim t^{\beta}$ [@barabasi; @Krugrev]. From the linear fits in Fig. \[fig4\]a, one obtains $\beta = 0.51(4)$, $0.41(5)$ and $0.21(5)$ for $T=150$, $200$ and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, respectively. This last value is consistent with the KPZ one ($\beta_{KPZ} \approx 0.24$), as was also found for $T=250\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ [@Renan]. In turn, for $T=150\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, the value is consistent with an uncorrelated growth (where $\beta=1/2$ [@barabasi; @Krugrev]), whereas for $T=200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ the exponent does not correspond to any known UC, possibly due to crossover effects. Indeed, for short times, one finds an initial slope $\beta_{eff} \approx 1/2$ and a tendency of $\beta_{eff}$ to decrease in time.
![(a) Global roughness $W$ and (b) first zero of SSCF $\left\langle M\right\rangle $ versus time. The lines indicate linear fits used to extract the exponents $\beta$ \[in (a)\] and $1/z$ \[in (b)\].[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"} ![(a) Global roughness $W$ and (b) first zero of SSCF $\left\langle M\right\rangle $ versus time. The lines indicate linear fits used to extract the exponents $\beta$ \[in (a)\] and $1/z$ \[in (b)\].[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4b.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"}
From the first zero of the slope-slope correlation function (SSCF) $\Gamma(l,t) \equiv \left\langle \nabla h (\textbf{x},t) \nabla h (\textbf{x}+\textbf{l},t) \right\rangle$ one may estimate the average grain width $\left\langle M \right\rangle $ [@Siniscalco]. This quantity is expected to be of the same order of the correlation length $\xi(t)$, which scales as $\xi \sim t^{1/z}$, where $z$ is the dynamic exponent [@Krugrev]. For all $T$ analyzed here, $\Gamma(l,t)$ presented an oscillatory behavior similar to that found in Ref. [@Renan] for $T=250\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. The values of $\left\langle M(t) \right\rangle$ extracted from those plots are depicted in Fig. \[fig4\]b. For $T = 150\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, one finds $\xi \sim \left\langle M \right\rangle \approx const$, confirming that the growth is uncorrelated. A similar behavior is found for $T = 200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ at short times. In contrast, for large $t$, a finite $z$ arises, namely $z=1.8(5)$, which agree with the KPZ value ($z_{KPZ} \approx 1.62$) within the error bar. Finally, for $T= 300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, linear fits at short and long times yields $z \approx 3.0$ and $z \approx 1.3$, respectively. However, in this case one can not ensure that $\xi \sim \left\langle M \right\rangle$, because small grains at the top of the multi-peaked mounds (see Fig. \[fig1\]f) can make $\left\langle M \right\rangle$ smaller than $\xi$. This deposes against the reliability of a large $z$. Anyway, one notice that $\beta=0.21(5)$ and $z\approx 3.0$ are consistent with the Villain-Lai-Das Sarma (VLDS) class [@VLDS], while a small $z$ suggests KPZ growth. Thus, at this point, based only on the DSA, one can not decide what is the UC of the films grown at $T = 200$ and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$.
Beyond the scaling exponents, height distributions (HDs)[@Takeuchi; @Yunker; @HDsteor; @Halpin; @tiago2d], squared local roughness distributions (SLRDs) [@SLRDs; @Paiva], maximal relative height distributions (MRHDs) [@MRHDs] are also expected to be universal. [Indeed, the universality of these distributions, in $(2+1)$ KPZ class, has been experimentally demonstrated, by us, in the growth of CdTe/Si(001) at $T = 250\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ [@Renan]]{}. More recently, Halpin-Healy and Palasantzas have applied the same method to confirm KPZ growth in oligomer films [@HHExper]. We remark that SLRDs and MRHDs are built by measuring the squared roughness ($w^2$) and the relative maximal height $m = h_{max} - \left\langle h \right\rangle $ into boxes of lateral size $l$ spanning the whole surface. The size $l$ must be larger than the pixel size and $l \ll \xi$[@Paiva].
![Rescaled HDs for films grown at (a) $T = 150$, (b) $200$ and (c) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Rescaled SLRDs for films grown at (d) $T=200$ and (e) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. (f) Rescaled MRHDs for large deposition times. Here, $\sigma_{X} \equiv \sqrt{\left\langle X^2\right\rangle - \left\langle X \right\rangle^2 }$. Insets display the same data of main plots in linear scale.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5a.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"} ![Rescaled HDs for films grown at (a) $T = 150$, (b) $200$ and (c) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Rescaled SLRDs for films grown at (d) $T=200$ and (e) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. (f) Rescaled MRHDs for large deposition times. Here, $\sigma_{X} \equiv \sqrt{\left\langle X^2\right\rangle - \left\langle X \right\rangle^2 }$. Insets display the same data of main plots in linear scale.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5b.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"} ![Rescaled HDs for films grown at (a) $T = 150$, (b) $200$ and (c) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Rescaled SLRDs for films grown at (d) $T=200$ and (e) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. (f) Rescaled MRHDs for large deposition times. Here, $\sigma_{X} \equiv \sqrt{\left\langle X^2\right\rangle - \left\langle X \right\rangle^2 }$. Insets display the same data of main plots in linear scale.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5c.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"} ![Rescaled HDs for films grown at (a) $T = 150$, (b) $200$ and (c) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Rescaled SLRDs for films grown at (d) $T=200$ and (e) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. (f) Rescaled MRHDs for large deposition times. Here, $\sigma_{X} \equiv \sqrt{\left\langle X^2\right\rangle - \left\langle X \right\rangle^2 }$. Insets display the same data of main plots in linear scale.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5d.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"} ![Rescaled HDs for films grown at (a) $T = 150$, (b) $200$ and (c) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Rescaled SLRDs for films grown at (d) $T=200$ and (e) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. (f) Rescaled MRHDs for large deposition times. Here, $\sigma_{X} \equiv \sqrt{\left\langle X^2\right\rangle - \left\langle X \right\rangle^2 }$. Insets display the same data of main plots in linear scale.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5e.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"} ![Rescaled HDs for films grown at (a) $T = 150$, (b) $200$ and (c) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. Rescaled SLRDs for films grown at (d) $T=200$ and (e) $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$. (f) Rescaled MRHDs for large deposition times. Here, $\sigma_{X} \equiv \sqrt{\left\langle X^2\right\rangle - \left\langle X \right\rangle^2 }$. Insets display the same data of main plots in linear scale.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5f.eps "fig:"){width="4.20cm"}
Figures \[fig5\]a-c show the HDs for all $T$ studied. When $T=150\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, experimental HDs are well-described by a Gaussian, as expected for an uncorrelated growth. For $T=200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, at short times, the HDs are also close to a Gaussian but, for large $t$, a nice collapse with the KPZ distribution is found. This agreement is confirmed by the skewness $S = 0.43(5)$ and kurtosis $K = 0.5(2)$ of the HDs, very close to the KPZ values $S=0.42(1)$ and $K=0.34(2)$ [@Halpin; @tiago2d]. These results give further evidence of a random-to-KPZ crossover, a subject of wide theoretical interest (see [@Juvenil] and references therein). Finally, for $T=300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ one still finds a reasonable agreement between the experimental HDs and the KPZ one, but now with a heavier left tail than the right one, yielding a negative skewness $S = -0.2(2)$, with kurtosis $K = 0.3(2)$. These values are consistent with KPZ class (with $\lambda < 0$ in Eq. \[eqKPZ\]) within the error bars. Moreover, the HDs in Fig. \[fig5\]c discard VLDS as the possible asymptotic UC.
[The experimental SLRDs for $T=200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ (Fig. \[fig5\]d) also deviate from the KPZ distribution at short times, but have a nice agreement for long $t$, giving a final confirmation of a crossover towards KPZ.]{} For higher $T$, the SLRDs exhibit a nice collapse with the KPZ one (see Fig. \[fig5\]e). We must remark that the stretched exponential decay in SLRDs right tail is a hallmark of the KPZ class and contrasts with the Gaussian decay of the VLDS distribution. Finally, the MRHDs for $T=200$ and $300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ are presented in Fig. \[fig5\]f providing additional proof that [CdTe grows according to KPZ equation]{}.
The relation between local and coarse-grained dynamics can be understood as follows. For $T=150\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, the low diffusion [and the energy barrier at GBs prevents coalescence/packing of grains and, thus, the propagation of correlations at interface]{}, so that inter-grain fluctuations evolve uncorrelated. This also happens at short times, for $T=200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, but the relaxation [process at GBs gives rise to an asymptotic correlated growth]{}. For higher $T$, where diffusion is more operative, these processes start early as well as the KPZ scaling. In terms of KPZ equation (Eq. \[eqKPZ\]), the random growth at low $T$ implies $\nu \approx 0$ and $\lambda \approx 0$. For $T=200\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, one expects $\lambda>0$, but small, so that growth is dominated by noise initially and by non-linear effects asymptotically. The absence of a crossover when $T=250\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ [@Renan] indicates a larger $\lambda>0$. Thus, $\lambda(T)$ seems to be a positive increasing function in this range of $T$. [As discussed in Ref. [@Renan], the possible origin of this KPZ growth is the complex coalescence/packing dynamics of the polycrystalline grains, where some grains cover their neighbors. Due to shape constraints, they do not necessarily fills all available space in its neighborhood, producing a positive velocity excess ($\lambda>0$) in the growth, similar to the lateral aggregation in ballistic deposition [@barabasi]. This process is more operative as higher is $T$, due to the larger inter-grain diffusion, so larger should be $\lambda$.]{} Otherwise, for $T=300\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$, the negative skewed HDs reveals $\lambda<0$, which is typical of KPZ systems where there exists deposition refuse as, for example, in the RSOS model [@RSOS]. Therefore, a possible explanation for $\lambda<0$ is that the sticking coefficient is smaller in regions with very large slopes at surface. Indeed, one sees in Fig. \[fig2\]b that $\left \langle (\nabla h)^2 \right\rangle$ for $T=300\, ^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ is [larger than]{} for lower $T$. This can explain why this effect appears only at high $T$ [@Cuerno; @Zhao]. Anyway, it is astonishing that so contrasting KPZ mechanisms can emerge in CdTe growth and indicate the possibility of [control and even]{} turn off the non-linearity (i.e., to make $\lambda = 0$) by only adjusting $T$.
Final remarks
=============
We finish stressing that the detailed morphological analysis performed here is *imperative* to determine the UC of the system. Since the complex mound evolution gives rise to finite-size corrections, crossover effects/transient anomalous scaling, [it is not possible to drawn any]{} conclusion about the asymptotic growth dynamic based only on the traditional study of the scaling exponents. This [should explain]{} why reliable experimental evidences of KPZ and other classes are so rare. Notwithstanding, we [show]{} that HDs, SLRDs and MRHDs are less susceptible to the above effects and have allowed us to determine, conclusively, that CdTe surface fluctuations for films grown at $T \in [200, 300 \,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}]$ evolve according to the KPZ equation. Therefore, rather than a complementary analysis, the study of distributions is a crucial tool to unveil the growth dynamics. We believe that this findings will motivate future works in the same vein, as well as the application of these methods in previously studied systems.
This work was supported by FAPEMIG, CAPES and CNPq (Brazilian agencies).
[0]{}
J. W. Evans, P. A. Thiel, and M. C. Bartelt, Surf. Sci. Rep. [**61**]{}, 1 (2006).
M. Ledinsky *et al.*, , App. Phys. Lett. **105**, 111106, (2014). A. Aqeel, I. J. Vera-Marun, B. J. van Wees and T. T. M. Palstra, App. Phys. Lett. **116**, 153705, (2014).
G. Fisichella, G. Greco, F. Roccaforte and F. Giannazzo, App. Phys. Lett. **105**, 063117, (2014).
A.-L. Barabasi and H. E. Stanley, *Fractal Concepts in Surface Growth* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995).
J. Krug, Adv. in Phys. **46**, 139 (1997).
J. Maunuksela *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 1515 (1997). K. A. Takeuchi, M. Sano, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 230601 (2010); K. A. Takeuchi, M. Sano, T. Sasamoto and H. Spohn, Sci. Rep. **1**, 34 (2011).
P. J. Yunker *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 035501 (2013). F. Ojeda, R. Cuerno, R. Salvarezza, and L. Vázquez, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 3125 (2000).
R. A. L. Almeida, S. O. Ferreira, T. J. Oliveira, and F. D. A. Aarao Reis, Phys. Rev. B **89**, 045309 (2014).
T. Halpin-Healy, and G. Palasantzas, Europhys. Lett. 105, 50001 (2014).
M. Kardar, G. Parisi, and Y.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. **56**, 889 (1986).
S. O. Ferreira *et al.*, Appl. Phys. Lett. **88**, 244102 (2006); F. S. Nascimento *et al.*, Europhy. Lett. **94**, 68002 (2011). A. B. H. Hamouda, A. Pimpinelli, and R. J. Phaneuf, Surf. Sci. [**602**]{}, 2819 (2008). S. Huo, W. Schwarzacher, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 256 (2001); M. C. Lafouresse, P. J. Heard and W. Schwarzacher, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 236101 (2007).
C. Li *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **112**, 156103 (2014). M. Saba *et al.*, Nature (London) **414**, 731 (2001).
L. Manna *et al.*, Nature mat. **2**, 382 (2003). A. L. -Otero, Thin Solid Films **49.1**, 3-57 (1978). J. Suela *et al.*, J. Appl. Phys. **107**, 064305 (2010). I. R. B. Ribeiro *et al.*, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. **40**, 4610 (2007). T. J. Oliveira and F. D. A. Aarao Reis, J. Appl. Phys. **101**, 063507 (2007); Phys. Rev. E **83**, 041608 (2011). J. M. López, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 4594 (1999); J. J. Ramasco, J. M. López, M. A. Rodríguez, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 2199 (2000). F. Family and T. Vicsek, J. Phys. A **18**, L75 (1985). S. O. Ferreira *et al.*, J. Appl. Phys. **93**, 1195 (2003). J. S. Tello, A. F. Bower, E. Chason, and B. W. Sheldon, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 216104 (2007); A. González-González, C. Polop, E. Vasco, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 056101 (2013). D. Kwon *et al.*, J. Appl. Phys. **116**, 183501 (2014). L. A. Almeida *et al.*, J. Elect. Mat. **25**, 1402 (1996). Y. Kim, D. K. Park, and J. M. Kim, J. Phys. A **27**, L533 (1994); F. D. A. A. Reis, Phys. Rev. E **70**, 031607 (2004). D. Siniscalco, M. Edely, J.-F. Bardeau, and N. Delorme, Langmuir **29**, 717 (2013). J. Villain, J. Phys. I **1**, 19 (1991); Z.-W. Lai and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 2348 (1991). For reviews on theorectical developments in the KPZ class see, e. g., T. Kriecherbauer and J. Krug, J. Phys. A 43, 403001 (2010); I. Corwin, Random Matrices Theory Appl. 1, 1130001 (2012). T. Halpin-Healy, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 170602 (2012); Phys. Rev. E **88**, 042118 (2013). T. J. Oliveira, S. G. Alves and S. C. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. E **87**, 040102(R) (2013). G. Foltin, K. Oerding, Z. Rácz, R. L. Workman, and R. K. P. Zia, Phys. Rev. E **50**, R639 (1994); Z. Rácz and M. Plischke, Phys. Rev. E **50**, 3530 (1994); F. D. A. Aarao Reis, Phys. Rev. E **72**, 032601 (2005).
T. Paiva and F. D. A. A. Reis, Surf. Sci. **601**, 419 (2007). S. Raychaudhuri, *et. al*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 136101 (2001); S. N. Majumdar and A. Comtet, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 225501 (2004); D.-S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 150601 (2005); T. J. Oliveira and F. D. A. Aarao Reis, Phys. Rev. E **77**, 041605 (2008). J. S. Oliveira Filho, T. J. Oliveira, and J. A. Redinz, Physica A **392**, 2479 (2013). J. M. Kim and J. M. Kosterlitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **62**, 2289 (1989). Y.-P. Zhao, J. T. Drotar, G.-C. Wang, and T.-M. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 136102 (2001).
[^1]: [The large structures (mounds) can be formed by both coalescence of grains with the same crystallographic orientation and packing of grains with different orientations.]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note we study the application of generalized fractional operators to a particular class of nonstandard Lagrangians. These are typical of dissipative systems and the corresponding Euler–Lagrange and Hamilton equations are analyzed. The dependence of the equation of motion on the generalized kernel permits to obtain a wide range of different configurations of motion. Some examples are discussed and analyzed.'
author:
- |
Giorgio S. Taverna$^1$\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Delfim F. M. Torres$^2$[^1]\
[[email protected]]{}
date: |
$^1$Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma La Sapienza,\
Piazzale A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy\
$^2$Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA), Department of Mathematics,\
University of Aveiro, 3810–193 Aveiro, Portugal
title: |
Generalized fractional operators\
for nonstandard Lagrangians[^2]
---
[**Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)**]{}: 26A33; 49K05; 70H05.
[**Keywords**]{}: generalized fractional operators; generalized fractional calculus of variations; nonstandard Lagrangians; dissipative systems; Euler–Lagrange and Hamilton equations.
Introduction
============
Fractional calculus plays an important role in the study of different problems in physics, engineering, finance, and many other branches of science [@kil]. Its formulation dates back to the $19$th century, but its applications are, surprisingly, very recent. One of the most successful results of fractional calculus concerns the description of anomalous diffusion [@mel] and a promising research topic is the fractional variational calculus [@book:frac]. Close to the fractional variational principle, is the fractional action-like variational approach (FALVA), where the Lagrangian (eventually containing fractional derivative terms) is weighted by a power law function [@MyID:85; @elna]. Recent works posed the attention on the application of a generalized kernel in the action [@MyID:226; @odz; @FVC_Sev; @GreenThm; @NoetherGen]. For a survey see [@Tat:Del:survey:FVC]. In this note we follow this approach, applied to nonstandard Lagrangians. Such kind of Lagrangians cannot be described by a simple difference between kinetic and potential energies, and are typical to dissipative systems [@duffy]. The text is organized as follows: in Section \[sec:prelim\] we review the necessary notions and results from generalized fractional calculus. Our results appear in Section \[sec:Gen:FEL\], where we obtain and discuss the generalized Euler–Lagrange equations to nonstandard Lagrangians, considering different kernels. Our results extend those of [@El-Nabulsi:2013; @mus]. We end with Section \[sec:conc\] of conclusion.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
In this section we briefly review the main notions regarding generalized fractional operators. For details and for proofs on the generalized fractional calculus of variations we refer the reader to [@MyID:226; @odz; @NoetherGen]. Let us consider a function $l(\tau)$ and another function $k_{\alpha}(t,\tau)$, called the kernel, eventually depending on $\alpha$. Throughout the text we assume, if not differently specified, that
- $0<\alpha<1$;
- $ t \in [a,b]$;
- $\tau \in (a,t)$.
Following [@MR2595959; @odz], we make use of the following definition.
\[FractionallAction\] The generalized fractional operator $S_{P}^{\alpha}$ is given by $$\label{eq:SG}
S_{P}^\alpha[l](t)=p \int_{a}^{t} k_\alpha (t,\tau) l(\tau)d\tau
+q\int_{t}^{b} k_\alpha (\tau,t)l(\tau)d\tau,$$ where $p$ and $q$ are two real numbers, $P=\left \langle a,t,b,p,q \right \rangle$, and $k_\alpha(t,\tau)$ is the kernel.
It is worth noting that if $P=\left \langle a,t,b,1,0 \right \rangle$ and $$k_\alpha(t,\tau)= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}(t-\tau)^{\alpha -1},$$ where $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function, then reduces to $$S_{P}^\alpha[l](t)= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
\int_{a}^{t}(t-\tau)^{\alpha -1} l(\tau) d\tau.$$ In case $l$ is a Lagrangian, this kind of operator is used to derive the fractional Euler–Lagrange equations, constituting the so-called fractional action-like variational approach (FALVA) [@MyID:85; @elna]. In this case, $S_{P}^\alpha$ is the left Riemann–Liouville fractional integral $_{a}I_t^\alpha$ [@gor]: $$\label{eq:RL}
_{a}I_{t}^\alpha[f](t)
=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
\int_{a}^{t} (t-\tau)^{\alpha -1} f(\tau) \,d\tau.$$
The following theorem is essential to obtain the Euler–Lagrange equations in case of generalized kernels.
\[Integration by parts\] Let us consider $k_\alpha$ to be a square-integrable function in $\Delta= [a,b]\times[a,b]$, $l,m \in L_2 ([a,b])$, and $P=\left \langle a,t,b,p,q \right \rangle$. Then $S_{P}^\alpha$ satisfies the following integration by parts formula: $$\label{eq:PARTS}
\int_{a}^{b} m(t) S_{P}^\alpha [l](t) dt
=\int_{a}^{b}l(t) S_{\hat{P}}^\alpha[m](t) dt ,$$ where $\hat{P}=\left \langle a,t,b,q,p \right \rangle$.
If $k_{\alpha}$ satisfies the property $k_{\alpha}(t,\tau)=k_{\alpha}(t-\tau)$, as is the case for the Riemann–Liouville fractional integral $_{a}I_{t}^\alpha$ , then the integration by parts formula holds for two functions $l(t)$ and $m(t)$ under hypotheses as stated in the following theorem.
\[TeoremKernelParts\] If $k_{\alpha}(t,\tau)=k_{\alpha}{ (t-\tau)}$, $l \in L_1 ([a,b])$ and $m \in C([a,b])$, then operator $S_{P}^{\alpha}$ satisfies the integration by parts formula .
Main Results {#sec:Gen:FEL}
============
We investigate Euler–Lagrange equations for actions involving generalized kernels.
\[Fractional action\] The generalized fractional action $\mathcal{A}(x)$ is given by $$\label{eq:FAF}
\mathcal{A}(x)=S_{P_1}^\alpha[L](b)=\int_{a}^{b}
k_\alpha (b,\tau) L(\tau,x(\tau),\dot{x}{(\tau)}) \,d\tau$$ with boundary conditions $$\label{eq:BC}
x(a)=x_a , \quad x(b)=x_b,$$ where $P_1=\left \langle a,b,b,1,0 \right \rangle$ and $L(\tau,x(\tau),\dot{x}{(\tau)})$ is the Lagrangian.
We consider the problem of finding a function $x$ that minimizes the functional $\mathcal{A}(\cdot)$ subject to boundary conditions . As a corollary of [@odz Theorem 4.2], we obtain the following result.
\[Eulero-Lagrange\] Let $x$ be a solution to the problem of finding a function $x$ that minimizes the functional $\mathcal{A}$ subject to boundary conditions . If $k_{\alpha}(b,\tau)$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[Integration by parts\] or Theorem \[TeoremKernelParts\], together with
- $L \in C^1([a,b] \times \mathbb{R}^2 ;\mathbb{R})$,
- $k_{\alpha}(b,\tau)$, $\partial_3 L \in AC([a,b])$,
- $k_{\alpha}(b,\tau)$, $\partial_2 L \in C([a,b])$,
where $\partial_{i}$ is the partial derivative with respect to the $i$th argument of $L$, then the following generalized fractional Euler–Lagrange equations hold: $$\label{eq:EL}
{\partial_2 L}(\tau,x(\tau),\dot{x}(\tau))-\frac {d}{d\tau}\partial_3 L(\tau,x(\tau),\dot{x}(\tau))
=\frac{dk_{\alpha} (b,\tau) }{d\tau}\frac{\partial_3 L(\tau,x(\tau),\dot{x}(\tau))}{k_\alpha (b,\tau)}$$ for all $\tau \in [a,b]$.
Nonstandard Lagrangians
-----------------------
When a Lagrangian is expressed as the difference between kinetic and potential energy, it is called a *standard Lagrangian*. If it is not possible to discriminate the two contributions of energy, then the Lagrangian is said to be a *nonstandard Lagrangian* [@bas]. An interesting purpose is to find equations of motion able to describe dissipative dynamical systems by a nonstandard Lagrangian. An equation of motion of form $$\label{eq:EM}
\ddot{x}(\tau)+A(\tau)\dot{x}(\tau)+B(\tau)x(\tau)=0,$$ where $\dot{x}(\tau)=\frac{dx(\tau)}{d\tau}$ and $A(\tau)$ and $B(\tau)$ are arbitrary, but continuous, differentiable and integrable functions, is typical of unforced dissipative systems. As shown by [@mus], equation can be derived from a nonstandard Lagrangian with time-dependent coefficients: $$\label{eq:NSL}
L(\tau,x(\tau),\dot{x}(\tau))= \frac{1}{r(\tau)\dot{x}(\tau) +s(\tau)x(\tau)},$$ where $r(\tau)$ and $s(\tau)$ are continuous and at least twice differentiable functions. The coefficients $A(\tau)$ and $B(\tau)$ are related to $r(\tau)$ and $s(\tau)$ by the solution of a nonlinear second-order Riccati equation [@mus]. We next obtain, and discuss, the generalized fractional Euler–Lagrange equations for the nonstandard Lagrangian with time-dependent coefficients .
Let us take the Lagrangian and insert it in . We obtain the equation of motion $$\label{eq:MG}
\ddot{x} + \frac{\dot{x}}{2}\biggl[\frac{3s}{r}+\frac{\dot{r}}{r}
-\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}\biggr] + {x}\biggl[\frac{s^2}{2r^2}
-\frac{\dot{r} s}{2r^2}+\frac{\dot{s}}{r}
-\frac{s}{2r}\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}\biggr]=0,$$ where $\dot{r}(\tau)=\frac{dr(\tau)}{d\tau}$, $\dot{s}(\tau)=\frac{ds(\tau)}{d\tau}$ and $\dot{k}_{\alpha}(b,\tau)=\frac{dk_{\alpha}(b,\tau)}{d\tau}$. This equation is different from the classical: the fractional version consists in the presence of the term $-\frac{\dot{x}}{2} \bigl[\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha} \bigr]
-x\bigl[\frac{s}{2r}\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}\bigr]$ [@mus]. In contrast, our equation of motion consists of a friction term and a harmonic term, both time depending. We note that in case $r$ and $s$ are constant in time, the equation of motion reduces to $$\label{eq:MGC}
\ddot{x} + \frac{\dot{x}}{2}\biggl[\frac{3s}{r}-\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}\biggr]
+ {x}\biggl[\frac{s^2}{2r^2}-\frac{s}{2r}\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}\biggr]=0.$$ It is worth noting that if $\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}=\frac{3s}{r}$, then we get the equation of an undamped oscillator. Nevertheless, this leads to a nonphysical solution, corresponding to a negative coefficient multiplying $x$. Thus, at least for constant $r$ and $s$, this kind of Lagrangian describes exclusively dissipative systems. To get the equation of a damped harmonic oscillator, that is, with coefficients multiplying $x$ and $\dot{x}$ both positive, it is convenient to consider the sign of the ratio $\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}$. It is easy to show that if $\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}>0$, then the following condition holds: $$0<\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{ k_\alpha}<\frac{3s}{r}$$ for all $\tau \in [a,b]$. This poses serious limitations in the behavior of the kernel. In case $\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}<0$, physical solutions are obtained only if $\frac{s}{r}>0$ for all $\tau \in [a,b]$. The case $\frac{\dot{k}_\alpha}{k_\alpha}=0$ refers to the classical Euler–Lagrange equations.
Hamilton formalism
------------------
Let us consider the Hamilton formalism for a nonstandard Lagrangian $L$ as in , with $r$ and $s$ constant in time and $\frac{s}{r} > 0$. The Hamiltonian is defined by $$H(\tau,x(\tau),p(\tau))=p(\tau) \dot{x}(\tau)-L(\tau,x(\tau),\dot{x}(\tau)),$$ where $p(\tau)= \partial_3 L(\tau,x(\tau),\dot{x}(\tau))$. Being $$dH={\partial_1 H}\ d\tau +{\partial_2 H}\ dx+{\partial_3 H}\ dp,$$ where $\partial_{i}$ is the partial derivative with respect to the $i$th argument of $H$, we have $$dH=-{\partial_1 L}\ d\tau-{\partial_2 L}\ dx+\dot{x}\ dp$$ and $$\label{eq:HAM2}
{\partial_1 H}={\partial_1 L}, \quad
{\partial_2 H}=-{\partial_2 L}, \quad
{\partial_3 H}=\dot{x}.$$ At this point, the Hamilton equations follow. The momentum $p$ is $$\label{eq:P}
p= \partial_3 L = -\frac{r}{(r\dot{x}+sx)^2}$$ and the Hamiltonian $H$ $$\label{eq:H}
H=-\frac{sxp}{r}.$$ Thus, can be written as $${\partial_3 H}=-\frac{sx}{r}, \quad
{\partial_2 H}=-\frac{sp}{r}, \quad
{\partial_1 H}=-\frac{s(\dot{x}p+x\dot{p})}{r}.$$ Making use of and , the Hamilton equations for $\dot{p}=\partial p / \partial\tau$ and $\dot{x}$ are $$\label{eq:PG}
\begin{split}
\dot{p}&=-{\partial_2 H}-\frac{\dot{k}_{\alpha}}{{k}_{\alpha}}p
=\frac{sp}{r}-\frac{\dot{k}_{\alpha}}{{k}_{\alpha}}p,\\
\dot{x}&={\partial_3 H}=-\frac{sx}{r}.
\end{split}$$
It is interesting to note that the Hamiltonian is written in a much simpler form than the Lagrangian and if $r=s>0$, for all $\tau \in [a,b]$, then the sign of $H$ depends exclusively on $x$ ($H>0$ if $ x>0$, $H<0$ otherwise). Moreover, it is easy to show that differentiation $p$ in time and then developing it in the third member of , as in , it is possible to obtain , that is, the equivalence between Euler–Lagrange and Hamilton equations is proven.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
In this brief note we discussed the application of the recent generalized fractional calculus of variations [@MyID:226; @odz] to Euler–Lagrange equations of nonstandard Lagrangians. The presence of the generalized kernel in the equation of motion modulates the time dependence of the friction coefficient and of the spring equation, also in case of Lagrangians with constant parameters $r$ and $s$. In this case, the Hamiltonian has a sign depending on the momentum $p$ and the coordinate $x$ in a very simple way. This “comfortable” Hamiltonian and the role of the kernel in the Hamilton equations, can be useful to understand the complex dynamics of dissipative systems. The Euler–Lagrange equations show a perfect equivalence with the corresponding Hamilton equations, supporting the procedure suggested in this work. Moreover, the memory effect in the equation generated by the kernel can avoid insertion of *ad hoc* time dependent coefficients in the Lagrangian, in order to explain different kinds of time-dependent dissipative systems.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors are grateful to Roberto Garra for putting them in touch, and to an anonymous reviewer for valuable comments. The second author was supported by project PEst-OE/MAT/UI4106/2014 through CIDMA and FCT.
[xx]{}
A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava and J. J. Trujillo, Theory and applications of fractional differential equations, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006.
R. Metzler and J. Klafter, The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: a fractional dynamics approach, Phys. Rep. [**339**]{} (2000), no. 1, 77 pp. DOI: 10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00070-3
A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Introduction to the fractional calculus of variations, Imp. Coll. Press, London, 2012.
R. A. El-Nabulsi and D. F. M. Torres, Necessary optimality conditions for fractional action-like integrals of variational calculus with Riemann-Liouville derivatives of order $\left(\alpha,\beta\right)$, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. [**30**]{} (2007), no. 15, 1931–1939. DOI: 10.1002/mma.879 [arXiv:math-ph/0702099]{}
R. A. El-Nabulsi and D. F. M. Torres, Fractional actionlike variational problems, J. Math. Phys. [**49**]{} (2008), no. 5, 053521, 7 pp. DOI: 10.1063/1.2929662 [arXiv:0804.4500]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Generalized fractional calculus with applications to the calculus of variations, Comput. Math. Appl. [**64**]{} (2012), no. 10, 3351–3366. DOI: 10.1016/j.camwa.2012.01.073 [arXiv:1201.5747]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Fractional calculus of variations in terms of a generalized fractional integral with applications to physics, Abstr. Appl. Anal. [**2012**]{} (2012), Art. ID 871912, 24 pp. DOI: 10.1155/2012/871912 [arXiv:1203.1961]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Fractional calculus of variations of several independent variables, European Phys. J. [**222**]{} (2013), no. 8, 1813–1826. DOI: 10.1140/epjst/e2013-01966-0 [arXiv:1308.4585]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, Green’s theorem for generalized fractional derivatives, Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. [**16**]{} (2013), no. 1, 64–75. DOI: 10.2478/s13540-013-0005-z [arXiv:1205.4851]{}
T. Odzijewicz, A. B. Malinowska and D. F. M. Torres, A generalized fractional calculus of variations, Control Cybernet. [**42**]{} (2013), no. 2, 443–458. [arXiv:1304.5282]{}
T. Odzijewicz and D. F. M. Torres, The generalized fractional calculus of variations, Southeast Asian Bull. Math. [**38**]{} (2014), no. 1, in press. [arXiv:1401.7291]{}
D. G. Duffy, Solutions of Partial Differential Equations, Blue Ridge Summit, TAB Professional and Reference Books, 1985.
R. A. El-Nabulsi, Non-standard fractional Lagrangians, Nonlinear Dynamics [**74**]{} (2013), no. 1-2, 381–394. DOI: 10.1007/s11071-013-0977-6
Z. E. Musielak, General conditions for the existence of non-standard Lagrangians for dissipative dynamical systems, Chaos Solitons and Fractals [**42**]{} (2009), no. 15, 2645–2652. DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2009.03.171
O. P. Agrawal, Generalized variational problems and Euler-Lagrange equations, Comput. Math. Appl. [**59**]{} (2010), no. 5, 1852–1864. DOI: 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.08.029
R. Gorenflo and F. Mainardi, Fractional calculus: integral and differential equations of fractional order. In: Fractals and fractional calculus in continuum mechanics (Udine, 1996), 223–276, Springer, Vienna.
J. L. Basdevant, Variational Principles in Physics, Springer, New York, 2007.
[^1]: Corresponding author. Tel: +351 234370668; Fax: +351 234370066; Email: [email protected]
[^2]: This is a preprint of a paper whose final and definite form will appear in *Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences*, ISSN 0170-4214. Paper submitted 31/Jan/2014; revised 23/Apr/2014; accepted for publication 25/Apr/2014.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'M.P. Garcia del Moral'
- 'C. Las Heras'
- 'P. Leon'
- 'J.M. Pena'
- 'A. Restuccia'
title: 'Fluxes, Twisted tori, Monodromy and $U(1)$ Supermembranes'
---
Introduction
============
Flux compactifications has provided a new arena to explore String theory realizations with very good results towards the recovering of phenomenological properties at low energies. They are topological quantities associated to the quantization condition of closed field strength p-forms over compact p-cycles. They may modify the string theory compactifications in many ways, for example in the amount of supersymmetry preserved, by providing a mechanism for perturbative moduli stabilization, generating susy/soft breaking terms, a hierarchy of scales between gravitational and gauge forces, as well as deforming the geometry associated to the compactified manifold. It has also been showed that string compactifications with fluxes may generate gauged supergravities as Effective Field Theory (EFT).
String/ F-theory compactifications on twisted torus have been proved to provide very fruitful scenarios to obtain at low energies gauged supergravities [@Hull4; @DallAgata; @DallAgata2; @Trigiante; @Kaloper; @Hull5; @ReidEdwards; @Grana; @Shelton; @DAuria] since its proposal, in [@Schwarz5], as a mechanism for nontrivial reducing 11D supergravity to lower dimensions. In those works it was established the relation between $11D$ Supergravity reductions, by Sherk-Schwarz reductions [@Schwarz5; @Bergshoeff5; @Lowe; @ReidEdwards2], and geometric fluxes, also call torsion [@Andrianopoli], or by more general fluxes described via embedding tensor mechanism [@Samtleben; @Melgarejo]. String compactifications on twisted tori can be described in two complementary ways [@Jonke]: as a group manifold [@Hull6; @Hull9] (a nilmanifold [@Jonke; @Thangavelu; @Shi]) or as T-duals of tori with constant NS 3-form flux [@Kachru]. The twisted torus seen as fiber bundles is associated to nontrivial torus bundles with monodromy over torus. In the particular case of twisted $T^3$ it can be described either as nontrivial $U(1)$ principal bundles over a torus [@Pope; @Shape] or as a 2-torus bundle over a circle with monodromy in $SL(2,Z)$ [@Kaloper].
Recently in the context of the Supermembrane theory,ie. the M2-brane theory, as part of M-theory, the relevance of flux compactification in the quantum behaviour of the theory has been emphasize [@mpgm6]. However other implications have not been reported. A way to obtain nine dimensional type II gauged supergravities as an Effective Field Theory (EFT) at low energies has been from F-theory compactified on a 3-twisted torus ([@Hull9]) or from M-theory [@Hull8]. In this paper we will show that the supermembrane with constant fluxes $C_{\pm}$ compactified on $M_9\times T^2$ can be understood as a Supermembrane compactificatified on a twisted tori, providing new hints of its connection [@mpgm2],[@mpgm7] with type II gauged supergravities in nine dimensions [@Bergshoeff5],[@Melgarejo].
The M2-brane formulated on a twisted torus bundle considers the twisted torus $\mathcal{T}_W^3$ to contain two of it dimensions associated to the 2-torus target space and the third one to the fiber of the nontrivial $U(1)$ principal bundle associated to a central charge on the worldvolume. Geometrically it can be considered as an emergent internal dimension that will play no dynamical role. The $U(1)$ principal bundle associated to the nontrivial flux on the target can be pullback by an immersion map defined in terms of the harmonic 1-forms on the base torus $\Sigma$. It turns out that this map is a diffeomorphism between the torus $\Sigma$ and the flat torus $T^2$ on the target space. Hence the $U(1)$ principal bundle on $T^2$ can be pullback to a $U(1)$ principal bundle on $\Sigma$ and viceversa. This bundle has a $U(1)$ connection 1-form on $\Sigma$ whose curvature has an associated Chern number characterizing a central charge on the supersymmetric algebra of the Supermembrane. We discuss the explicit relation between the geometry associated to the flux condition on the target and the central charge on the base torus $\Sigma$. It was shown in [@mpgm6] the equivalence between both geometrical structures. Moreover, we complement this result with the construction of the supersymmetric algebra of the Supermembrane with constant fluxes $C_{\pm}$. We make explicit the supersymmetric algebra following the lines of [@dwhn]. We discuss the decoupling of the zero modes for this case and end up with in the non zero mode algebra with the Hamiltonian of the Supermembrane with central charges. We discuss the amount of supersymmetry preserved by the flux or central charge condition. Besides the $U(1)$ geometrical structure which we explicitly discuss, the Supermembrane theory is invariant under area preserving diffeomorphisms APD connected to the identity. In fact, the Hamiltonian of the Supermembrane is subject to a first class constraint which generates that symmetry of the theory. In two dimensions the area preserving diffeomorphism group coincides with the symplectomorphism group preserving a symplectic 2-form, which in our construction of the Supermembrane with central charges is the induced symplectic 2-form arising from the pullback of the canonical symplectic 2-form on the target torus $T^2$ by the diffeomorphism between the two tori. In the presence of a central charge on the worldvolume, the formulation of the Supermembrane introduces an explicit dependence on the homology basis on $\Sigma$ as well as on the harmonic 1-form basis on $\Sigma$ and on the three parameters characterizing $T^2$, in particular the Teichmuller $\tau$ associated to the period of the normalized holomorphic 1-form. It is then relevant to analyse the dependence of the Supermembrane theory on the non-connected to the identity symplectomorphisms.
We will show that, the hamiltonian of the M2-brane with fluxes is invariant under the full group of symplectomorphisms and under $U(1)$ gauge symmetry associated to the fluxes or equivalently to the central charge on the worldvolume. The Hamiltonian can be expressed either in terms of a symplectic connection and its curvature or in terms of a $U(1)$ connection and its curvature, a remarkable property. All these aspects can be of relevant for realistic compactifications.
Moreover, we will discuss the compatibility between both geometrical structures the symplectic one and the $U(1)$ principal bundle and the relation of these geometrical structures with the formulation of the Supermembrane on a twisted torus bundle with monodromy generated by a representation of the fundamental group of $\Sigma$ acting on $H_1(T^2)$, the first homology group of $T^2$, which can be identified with the natural action of $SL(2,Z)$ on $\mathcal{Z}^2$. The main point to be shown is the consistency of the transitions on the symplectic group under the monodromy and the transitions on the $U(1)$ line bundle. The formulation of the Supermembrane in terms of the geometrical objects of a twisted torus bundle will then follow directly. If that is so, the classification of inequivalent classes of M2-brane torus bundles already known [@mpgm2; @mpgm7] and related to gauge supergravities in [@Bergshoeff5; @Melgarejo] can be enriched by the associated monopole structure [@Restuccia2] which can be relevant for applications of the M2-brane phenomenology. Finally, a remarkable property of M2-branes on a twisted torus bundle is that the quantum spectrum of their regularized Hamiltonian is discrete. This follows from the presence of a nontrivial central charge condition [@Restuccia] that render the spectrum purely discrete with finite multiplicity [@Boulton]. The same results occurs for the M2-brane with nontrivial constant fluxes $C_{\pm}$ on the target [@mpgm6].
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2. we summarize the formulation of the M2-brane on a $M_9\times T^2$ target space in the presence of constant fluxes $C_{\pm}$ and its relation with the so-called central charge condition. In section 3. we obtain the algebra of supercharges of the supermembrane with fluxes and analyze the behaviour of zero and non-zero modes.We also discuss the amount of supersymmetry preserved by the nonzero algebra of supercharges. In section 4 we discuss the symplectomorphims transformations connected and non connected to the identity under which the Hamiltonian is invariant. In section 5. we obtain the gauge and global $U(1)$ symmetries of the Hamiltonian associated to symplectomorphism transformations. We also obtain a symplectic gauge symmetry realized on the Hamiltonian. We obtain two different formulations of the Hamiltonian depending on which gauge symmetry we want to make manifest. In section 6. we obtain a geometrical interpretation of the M2-brane formulated on a twisted torus bundle. We discuss its consistency. In section 7 we present a discussion and our conclusions.
M2-brane with constant $C_{\pm}$ fluxes
========================================
In this section we review former results found in [@mpgm6] where it was shown that a M2-brane with $C_{\pm}$ fluxes can be interpreted as a M2-brane in a background with central charges. The supersymmetric action of the M2-brane on a generic 11D noncompact background was found by [@Bergshoeff]. In the following we will consider a flat background metric $G_{\mu \nu} =\eta_{\mu \nu}$ in the presence of some constant components of the three-form $C_3$. The embedding coordinates in the superspace formalism are $(X^{\mu}(\xi),\theta^{\alpha}(\xi))$ with $\xi^r $ the worldvolume coordinates and where $\mu, \nu, \lambda $ and $\alpha, \beta,$ are bosonic and fermionic target space indices, respectively and $r,s,t$ denote worldvolume indices. In this background the action of the supermembrane takes the following form $$\small
\begin{aligned}
\label{ec1}
S= & - T \int d^3 \xi \{ \sqrt{-g}+\varepsilon^{rst}\bar{\theta}\Gamma_{\mu \nu}\partial_t \theta \left[ \frac{1}{2}\partial_r X^\mu (\partial_s X^\nu\right. + \bar{\theta}\Gamma^\nu \partial_s\theta) + \\
& + \frac{1}{6}\bar{\theta}\Gamma^\mu \partial_r \theta \bar{\theta}\Gamma^\nu \partial_s \theta ] +\frac{1}{6}\varepsilon^{rst}\partial_r X^\mu \partial_s X^{\nu} \partial_t X^\rho C_{\rho \nu \mu} \} \, ,
\end{aligned}$$ This background corresponds to the asymptotic limit of a $D=11$ supergravity solution generated by an M2-brane acting as a source [@Duff4; @Stelle]. We notice that the last term in (\[ec1\]) becomes non trivial because the maps $X^\mu$ may have a nontrivial wrapping on the compact torus of the target space. We now consider the supermembrane action in the Light Cone Gauge (LCG) on a $M_{11}$ target space with constant gauge field $C_{{{\mu}}{{\nu}}{{\lambda}}} $ closely following the definitions in [@deWit]. The supersymmetric action is [@mpgm6], $$\small
S = T\int d^3 \xi \{ - \sqrt{\bar{g}\Delta}-\varepsilon^{uv}\partial_uX^a \bar{\theta} \Gamma^- \Gamma_a \partial_v \theta + C_+ +\partial_{\tau} X^- C_- +\partial_{\tau} X^a C_a+C_{+-} \}$$ with $$\small
\begin{aligned}
& C_a = -\varepsilon^{uv}\partial_uX^- \partial_vX^b C_{-ab} +\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{uv}\partial_uX^b \partial_vX^c C_{abc} \, , \\
& C_{\pm} = \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon^{uv}\partial_uX^a \partial_vX^b C_{\pm ab} \,, \qquad C_{+-} = \varepsilon^{uv}\partial_uX^- \partial_vX^a C_{+-a} \,,
\end{aligned}$$ $a,b,c=1,...,9$ are target space transverse coordinates indices, and $u,v=1,2$ are indices for worldvolume spacelike coordinates $(\sigma^1,\sigma^2)$. It is possible to fix the variation of some components of the 3-form by virtue of its gauge invariance. In particular it is possible to fix $C_{+-a}=0$ and $C_{- ab}=constant.$ The action contains nonphysical degrees of freedom $X^{-}$ that must be eliminated. In [@mpgm6] the dependence on $X^-$ was eliminated by performing a canonical transformation on the configuration variables. On the new variables the Hamiltonian of the compactified theory on $M_9 \times T^2$ target space is the following one: $$\small\small
\label{hamiltonian-fluxes}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{H} = T\int_{\Sigma} d^2\sigma \{ \frac{\sqrt{w}}{\hat{P}_{-}^0} \, \left[ \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{P_m}{\sqrt{w}} \right)^2 + \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{P_i}{\sqrt{w}} \right)^2 + \frac{1}{4} \left\{ X^i, X^j \right\} ^2 + \frac{1}{2} \left\{ X^i, X^m \right\}^2 \right. \\
\left. + \frac{1}{4} \left\{ X^m, X^n \right\} ^2 \right] +\sqrt{w} \left[ \bar{\theta}\Gamma^-\Gamma_m\left\lbrace X^m,\theta\right\rbrace +\bar{\theta}\Gamma^-\Gamma_i\left\lbrace X^i,\theta\right\rbrace\right] -C_+ \} \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where the $X^m, m=3,\dots,9$ denote the transverse maps from the foliated worldvolume $\Sigma$ to $M_9$ and $X^i, i,j=1,2$ the maps from $\Sigma$ to $T^2$ and the Lie bracket is defined as $\{A,B\}=\frac{\epsilon_{uv}}{\sqrt{w}}\partial_uA\partial_v B$. In the compactified case, in contrast to the noncompact one, the last term in (\[hamiltonian-fluxes\]) for constant bosonic 3-form is a total derivative of a multivalued function, therefore its integral is not necessarily zero. This Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian-fluxes\]) is subject to the local and global constraints associated to the area preserving diffeomorphisms (APD) connected to the identity $$\small
\label{constraintdos}
d(P_i dX^i + P_m dX^m+\overline{\theta}\Gamma^{-}d\theta)=0 \,, \qquad
\oint_{{\mathcal{C}}_s} (P_i dX^i + P_m dX^m+\overline{\theta}\Gamma^{-}d\theta)=0 \,.$$ Classically the dynamics of this Hamiltonian contains string-like spikes which render the quantum spectrum of the theory continuous.
When the following flux condition is imposed on the target space $M_9 \times T^2$ associated to the nontrivial integral values of the two form $\widetilde{F} = \frac{1}{2}C_{\pm ij}d\widetilde{X}^i\wedge d\widetilde{X}^j$ $$\small
\label{flux condition}
\int_{T^2}{\widetilde{F}}
= k_{\pm} \in \mathbb{Z}/\{0\} \,,$$ with $d\widetilde{X}^i, i=1,2$ the harmonic one-forms of the $T^2$ and we impose that the maps $X^i$ from the worldvolume to the compact sector of the target are identified with $\widetilde{X}^i$, then the spectrum of the Supermembrane becomes discrete. This flux condition is equivalent to the existence of an $U(1)$ principle bundle over $T^2$ and of a 1-form connection on it, whose curvature is $\widehat{F}$. In particular, the pullback of (\[flux condition\]) by the embedding maps describes the central charge condition over the supermembrane worldvolume. In [@mpgm6] we proved that : $$\small
\label{fluxcondition2}
\int_{T^2}\widetilde{F}=\int_{\Sigma}\widehat{F} = \int_{\Sigma} \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}dX^i \wedge dX^j = n ,\quad n\in \mathbb{Z}/\{0\} \,,$$ where $X^i$ are the maps from $\Sigma$ to the $T^2$ on the target, and for $k_{\pm}=n$ (and $C_{\pm ij}=\epsilon_{ij}$). Then, there is a one to one correspondence between the supermembrane where $\widehat{F}$ is the curvature on the world volume associated to irreducible winding of the membrane, and the supermembrane on a background with a flux condition on $T^2$ generated by ${C_{\pm}}$. The irreducible wrapping condition, when the area of the $T^2$ has been normalized to one, is $$\label{cc}
\int_{\Sigma} dX^i\wedge dX^j = \epsilon^{ij}n, \quad n\in \mathbb{Z}/\{0\} \,,$$ is a nontrivial 2-form flux condition over the worldvolume that generalizes the Dirac monopole construction to Riemann surfaces of arbitrary genus $g\ge 1$ [@Restuccia2] applied to the supermembrane theory [@Restuccia]. The invariance under area preserving diffeomorphisms is preserved. The central charge condition implies a restriction on the allowed maps $X^{i}$ to the compactified sector of the target space, such that the associated one-form decomposes into a harmonic one form $dX^i_h$ with integer coefficients (winding numbers) and an exact one $dA^i$ which represents the new dynamical degrees of freedom, $$\small
\label{hodgedecomposition}
dX^i(\sigma^1, \sigma^2, \tau)= dX^i_h(\sigma^1, \sigma^2)+dA^i(\sigma^1, \sigma^2,\tau)$$
The Hamiltonian formulation of the $D=11$ Supermembrane with irreducible winding (or nontrivial central charge) was found in [@Ovalle3] $$\small
\begin{aligned}
\label{hamiltonianirred10}
H&=\int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w}\Big[\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{P_m}{\sqrt{w}}\Big)^2+\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{P_i}{\sqrt{w}}\Big)^2 + \frac{1}{4}\left\{X^m,X^m\right\}^2 + \frac{1}{2}(\mathcal{D}_iX^m)^2+\frac{1}{4}(\mathcal{F}_{ij})^2 \Big] \\
&+ \int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w}\Big[\Lambda\Big(\mathcal{D}_i\big(\frac{P_i}{\sqrt{w}}\big)+\left\{X^m,\frac{P_m}{\sqrt{w}}\right\} \Big)\Big] +(n^2Area_{T^2}^2)\\
&+ \int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w}\Big[-\bar{\theta}\Gamma_-\Gamma_i\mathcal{D}_i\theta-\bar{\theta}\Gamma_-\Gamma_m\left\{X^m,\theta\right\}+\Lambda\left\{\bar{\theta}\Gamma_-,\theta\right\}\Big]\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where there is a symplectic covariant derivative and symplectic curvature defined $$\label{symplecticfields}
%\small
\mathcal{D}_iX^m = D_iX^m+\left\{ A_i,X^m\right\}, \qquad \mathcal{F}_{ij}= D_iA_j-D_jA_i+\left\{ A_i,A_j\right\},$$ with $D_i$ a covariant derivative defined in terms of the moduli of the torus [@mpgm2], $$D_i\bullet=2\pi R _i m_i^k \theta_{kj} \frac{\epsilon^{uv}}{\sqrt{w}}\partial_u\hat{X}^j\partial_v\bullet= \left\{ {X}_h^j,\bullet \right\}\delta_{ij} \,,$$
Classicaly the Hamiltonian does not contain string-like spikes [@mpgm]. At a quantum level it has the remarkable property of having a supersymmetric discrete spectrum with finite multiplicity, [@Boulton]. Since the Hamiltonian of both theories, given by (\[hamiltonianirred10\]), differ at most in a constant, arising from the flux term associated to ${C_{+}}$ in the Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonian-fluxes\]), the spectrum of the supermembrane with fluxes generated by ${C_{\pm}}$ has also discrete spectrum with finite multiplicity.
The effect of the ${C_{\pm}}$ background also produces a discrete shift in some components of the momentum of the supermembrane, and in the Hamiltonian density. Comparing with the original configuration variables $(X^a,P_a)$ and considering the total momentum of the supermembrane, we have [@mpgm6] $$\small
%\label{flux condition}
P^0_{-}=\int_{\Sigma}(\hat{P}_{-}+C_{-}) d\sigma^1 \wedge d\sigma^2 = \hat{P}^0_{-}+ k_-\,,$$ $$\small
%\label{flux condition}
P^0_{+}=\int_{\Sigma}(\hat{P}_{+}+C_{+}) d\sigma^1 \wedge d\sigma^2 =H + k_+\,.$$ In the rest of the paper we will present new results characterizing other physical and geometrical aspects of the supermembrane formulated on a $M_9\times T^2$ background with constant fluxes $C_{\pm}$.
Supercharges algebra of the M2-brane with constant $C_{\pm}$ fluxes
===================================================================
In this section we obtain the algebra of the M2-brane charges in the presence of constant flux background. The algebra of supercharges of the M2-brane with nontrivial flux is an algebra with central charges. The M2-brane algebra in noncompact 11D in the LCG was formerly worked out in [@dwhn]. In our construction we will closely follow its notation. The supercharges for the supermembrane in $M_{9} \times T^2$ formulated in the LCG can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
Q^+ & = & \int d^2\sigma (2P^m\Gamma_m + 2P^i\Gamma_i + \sqrt{w}\{X^m,X^n\}\Gamma_{mn} \nonumber \\ & + & 2\sqrt{w}\{X^m,X^i\}\Gamma_{mi}+\sqrt{w}\{X^i,X^j\}\Gamma_{ij})\theta, \\
Q^- & = & 2\Gamma^-\theta_0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using the definitions of the zero modes $$\begin{aligned}
P_0^m = \int_\Sigma d^2\sigma P^m, \quad P^i_{KK}\equiv P_0^i = \int_\Sigma d^2\sigma P^i %
%\end{aligned}$$ $$\hat{X}_0^m = \int_\Sigma d^2 \sigma \sqrt{w(\sigma)}\hat{X}^m, \quad \hat{X}_0^i = \int_\Sigma d^2 \sigma \sqrt{w(\sigma)}\hat{X}^i, \quad \hat{\theta_0} = \int_\Sigma d^2 \sigma \sqrt{w(\sigma)} \hat{\theta},$$ where we denote $P^i_{KK}$ the zero mode momentum contribution associated with the compact directions in order to emphasize that these also represent the KK modes and therefore are constants. We can see, that $Q^-$ is already a zero mode contribution and on the other hand the $Q^+$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn 3.5}
Q^+ &=& \int d^2\sigma (2P'^m\Gamma_m + 2P'^i\Gamma_i + \sqrt{w}\{X'^m,X'^n\}\Gamma_{mn} \nonumber \\ &+& 2\sqrt{w}\{X'^m,X'^i\}\Gamma_{mi}+\sqrt{w}\{X'^i,X'^j\}\Gamma_{ij})\theta' \nonumber \\ & + & 2P_0^m \Gamma_m \theta_0 + 2P_{KK}^i \Gamma_i \theta_0 + \left(\int d^2\sigma \sqrt{w}\{X'^i,X'^j\}\right)\Gamma_{ij}\theta_0, \label{q+}\end{aligned}$$ where the primes indicates that we are excluding the zero mode contributions. Due to the last term in this equation we can see that in general there will not be a decoupling of the zero modes in the $Q^+$, unless this term is a constant. If we impose the flux condition (\[fluxcondition2\]) over the form $C_{\pm}$ it corresponds to the M2-brane in the LCG compactified on a $M_9\times T^2$ target space subject to the irreducible wrapping condition (\[cc\]). That is, all configurations must satisfy that the bracket on the later term of (\[eqn 3.5\]) is proportional to $n$. It implies the existence of a central charge contribution $n$ in the supersymmetric algebra. We can replace this integral by its constant expression. In fact its Poisson bracket with any functional is zero, since its Poisson bracket with $P^{'i}$ is zero. In the following we will specify the flux units $(k_+,k_-)=(k_+,n)$ being $n$ the integer associated to the central charge. The equation (\[q+\]) takes then the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\small
Q^+ & = & \int d^2\sigma (2P'^m\Gamma_m + 2P'^i\Gamma_i \sqrt{w}\{X'^m,X'^n\}\Gamma_{mn}+2\sqrt{w}\{X'^m,X'^i\}\Gamma_{mi} \nonumber \\ &+& \sqrt{w}\{X'^i,X'^j\}\Gamma_{ij})\theta' +[2P_0^m \Gamma_m + 2P_{KK}^i \Gamma_i + \epsilon^{ij}n\Gamma_{ij}]\theta_0, \label{q+2}\end{aligned}$$ in which the zero mode contributions can now be separated. Then we can decouple the zero mode contribution to the charges $$\begin{aligned}
Q^- = Q^-_0 & = & 2\Gamma^-\theta_0, \\
Q^+_0 & = & 2P_0^m \Gamma_m \theta_0 + 2P_{KK}^i \Gamma_i \theta_0 + \epsilon^{ij}n\Gamma_{ij}\theta_0.\end{aligned}$$ Now we can compute the algebra of the zero modes to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
((Q^-_0)^\alpha,(Q_0^-)_\beta)_{DB} & = & -2(\Gamma^-)^\alpha_\beta \\
((Q^+_0)^\alpha,(Q_0^-)_\beta)_{DB} & = &-(\Gamma_m\Gamma^+\Gamma^-)^\alpha_\beta P_0^m -(\Gamma_i\Gamma^+\Gamma^-)^\alpha_\beta P_{KK}^i \nonumber \\ &-& \frac{1}{2}(\Gamma_{ij}\Gamma^+\Gamma^-)^\alpha_\beta \epsilon^{ij}n \\
((Q^+_0)^\alpha,(Q_0^+)_\beta)_{DB} & = & [(P_0)^2 + (P_{KK})^2 ](\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta + 2(\Gamma^+\Gamma^i)^\alpha_\beta P^j_{KK}\epsilon_{ij}n \nonumber \\ & + & (\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta n^2\end{aligned}$$ The complete algebra of the zero modes supercharges is $$\begin{aligned}
(Q_0^\alpha, Q_{0\beta})_{D.B} & = &
[(P_0)^2+(P_{KK})^2+n^2] (\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta-2(\Gamma_m)^\alpha_\beta P_0^m \nonumber \\ & + &2(\Gamma^+ \Gamma^i)^\alpha_\beta P^j_{KK}\epsilon_{ij}n-(\Gamma_{ij})^\alpha_\beta \epsilon^{ij}n-2 (\Gamma_i)^\alpha_\beta P_{KK}^i \nonumber \\ & - & 2(\Gamma^-)^\alpha_\beta .\end{aligned}$$ The algebra of the supercharges without the zero mode contributions is $$\begin{aligned}
((Q'^+)^\alpha,(Q'^+)_\beta)_{D.B} &=& (\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta (\mathcal{M}^2-n^2)-2(\Gamma_m\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta \int \sqrt{w}\varphi'X'^m \nonumber \\ & - & 2(\Gamma_i\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta \int \sqrt{w}\varphi'X'^i + (\Gamma_i\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta \int d^2\sigma \partial_uS'^{ui} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{M}^2$ is the mass operator and $\varphi$ is the first class constraint associated to the symplectomorphisms, or equivalently area preserving diffeomorphisms APD, the residual symmetry in the LCG, $$\varphi'=\{(\sqrt{w})^{-1}P',X'\}+\{\Bar{\theta}'\Gamma^-,\theta'\}=0$$ and the integrand of the surface term is $$S'^{ui}=\epsilon^{uv}X'^i\left(\frac{2}{\sqrt{w}}P'_m\partial_v X'^m + \frac{2}{\sqrt{w}}P'_j\partial_v X'^j + \Bar{\theta}'\Gamma^-\partial_v\theta'\right)$$ By analyzing in more detail we can observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Sigma d^2\sigma \partial_uS'^{ui} & = & \int d^2\sigma 2X'^i\varphi' \nonumber \\ & + & 2\int_\Sigma dX'^i \wedge \left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{w}}P'_md X'^m+\frac{1}{\sqrt{w}}P'_jdX'^j+\bar{\theta}'\Gamma^-d\theta'\right) , \nonumber \\ && \end{aligned}$$ which can be rewritten as $$\int_\Sigma d^2\sigma \partial_uS'^{ui} = \int d^2\sigma 2X'^i\varphi' + 2\oint_{C_u} dX'^i \phi_v \epsilon^{uv} + 2(P_{KK})_j\epsilon^{ij}n\,,$$ where we are denoting $\phi_v$ the global APD first class constraint, $$\phi_v = \oint_{C_v}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{w}}P_md X^m+\frac{1}{\sqrt{w}}P_jdX^j+\bar{\theta}\Gamma^-d\theta \right)=0 \,.$$ The maps from the basis to the $T^2$ on the target in order to be well defined must satisfy condition $$\oint_{C_u} dX'^i= M^i_u \,.$$ Finally the superalgebra of supersymmetric charges for the nonzero modes is $$\begin{aligned}
(Q'^\alpha,Q'_\beta)_{D.B} &=&(\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta (\mathcal{M}^2+2k_+) -2(\Gamma_m\Gamma^+)^\alpha_\beta \int \sqrt{w}\varphi'X'^m \nonumber \\ & + & 2(\Gamma_i\Gamma^+)(M^i_u \epsilon^{uv}\phi_v+ 2(P_{KK})_j\epsilon^{ij}n) \,,
\label{anzm}\end{aligned}$$ where we have just made explicit the role of the central charge brackets.
In this construction there exists a minimal embedding state associated to the fluxes, a 1/2 BPS state. Also there is a quantized nontrivial Kaluza Klein momentum associated to 1/2 BPS states, that contributes to the multiplet. The M2-brane with fluxes can have $1/4$ or $1/2$ of the supersymmetry preserved, depending if the Kaluza Klein modes are turned on, or not, respectively. This is in agreement with the analysis of the $N=2$ superalgebra in ([@AbouZeid]).
M2-brane with fluxes: symplectomorphism transformations
=======================================================
In this section we characterize the symmetries of the theory by a study on the area preserving diffeomorphisms APD which in two dimensions are equivalent to symplectomorphims. We consider the symplectomorphims connected and not connected to the identity. We find new results in which the constant harmonic map $X_h^r(\sigma^1,\sigma^2)$ and the single-valued map $A^r$ play a distinguish role. We will show that their transformations under symplectomorphisms make explicit hidden symmetries of the Hamiltonian $H$ that we will explore in the following section. The Hamiltonian of the Supermembrane with central charges formulated in the LCG besides its invariance under symplectomorphisms is invariant under two discrete symmetries associated to the monodromy of the fiber denoted formerly by the authors [@mpgm7] as $S_{U}$ duality[^1] and the base respectively contained in $SL(2,Z)$, the group of isotopy classes of symplectomorphims. One of the discrete group symmetries $SL(2,Z)$ is associated to the change in the basis of harmonic one-forms of the worldvolume torus of the M2-brane. Hence they will be relevant in the definition of symplectomorphims connected to the identity $Symp_0(\Sigma)$ and not connected to the identity, ${Symp}_G(\Sigma)$, respectively. It was shown in [@dwhn; @dwmn] that the $Symp_0(\Sigma)$ group is a symmetry of supermembrane theory when the target space is a $11D$ Minkowski spacetime. It can also be shown, we will explicitly do it in the following sections, that M2-brane theory with central charges is invariant under the different isotopy classes of area preserving diffeomorphism, in particular under $Symp_0(\Sigma)$. As each symplectomorphism over the torus is isotopic equivalent to a linear symplectomorphism, the changing from different isotopy classes is given by a matrix $S\in Sp(2,Z)\approx SL(2,Z) $ relating the linear diffeomorphisms [@mpgm2]. See [@Kahn] for a rigorous proof. We are going to analyze the action of ${Symp}_0(T^2)$ and ${Symp}_G(T^2)$ separately.
$Symp_0(\Sigma)$ Transformations
---------------------------------
The supermembrane theory is invariant under symplectomorphisms connected to the identity [@dwmn], the infinitesimal parameter $\xi$ defines a closed one-form $d(\xi_v d\sigma^v)=0$ which locally can be expressed $$\xi_{v}=\partial_v\xi \,,$$ with $\xi$ being either a function globally defined and whose associated $d\xi$ is an exact one-form or a function not globally defined whose associated $d\xi$ is a closed but not exact one-form, that is a harmonic one-form. Any functional $O$ of the canonical variables transform locally under ${Symp}_0(T^2)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{operator}
\delta O = \left\lbrace O, <d\xi\wedge \Big(\frac{P_a}{\sqrt{w}}dX^a+\theta\Gamma^-d\theta\Big)>\right\rbrace_{PB} \,.\end{aligned}$$ In the above expression, $$\begin{aligned}
<d\xi\wedge \frac{P_a}{\sqrt{w}}dX^a> \equiv \int_\Sigma \left(d\xi\wedge \frac{P_a}{\sqrt{w}}dX^a\right)\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, under symplectomorphism connected to the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\xi} X^a = \left\lbrace \xi, X^a\right\rbrace , \quad
\delta_{\xi} P_a = \sqrt{w}\left\lbrace \xi, \frac{P_a}{\sqrt{w}}\right\rbrace , \quad
\delta_{\xi} \theta = \left\lbrace \xi, \theta\right\rbrace\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ runs over the compact and non-compact indices, $a=(i,m)$ with $i=1,2$ and $m=3,\dots,9$.
Using the Hodge decomposition previously introduced in (\[hodgedecomposition\]), the transformation of the maps under symplectomorphisms are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn 4.5}
\delta_{\xi} X^i = \delta X_h^i + \delta A^i = \left\lbrace \xi, X^i\right\rbrace \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $dX^i_h$ are the harmonic one-forms and $dA^i$ the exact ones. We can consider all different possible transformations for the harmonic and exact classes. In this transformation one may not necessarily preserve the harmonicity property. That is, under diffeomorphisms the harmonic one-forms in one coordinate system transform to harmonic one-forms in the new coordinate system, however we are considering here transformation of the geometrical objects on the same coordinate system which will be symmetries of the theory but not necessarily corresponding to diffeomorphisms.
In one case we will consider the cohomological class $d[X^i_h]$ and we define an equivalence class $[X^i_h]$. Since we are interested to introduce a $U(1)$ gauge symmetry, we are not interested in the pure harmonic one-forms but on the $[X^i_h]$ class of maps which has an associated unique curvature $\widehat{F}$. In other case we will preserve the symplectic structure of the theory under the transformation (\[eqn 4.5\]).
In the following we will consider all different cases, with $\xi$ to be a general parameter not necessarily globally defined, although the associated differential will always be well defined.
- First case: $$\label{eqn 4.6}
\delta [X_h^i] = \left\lbrace \xi, [X_h^i] \right\rbrace, \quad \text{and} \quad \delta A^i = \left\lbrace \xi, A^i \right\rbrace \,.$$ We will construct a $U(1)$ connection one-form associated to the harmonic one-form $d X^i_h$ with curvature $\widehat{F}$. The class $[X^i_h]$ is defined as follows: all the maps are obtained by a symplectic deformation of $X^i_h$ preserving ${\widehat{F}}$. The infinitesimal deformation is given by $\delta X_h^i = \left\lbrace \mu, X_h^i
\right\rbrace$ where $\mu$ is an infinitesimal parameter. We will show that the (\[eqn 4.6\]) preserves the equivalence class. The one form connection describes the realization over the worldvolume of the monopole connection associated to the $U(1)$ principal fiber bundle induced by the constant fluxes $\widehat{F}$. Associated to $A^i$ we will also introduce a one-form connection on a trivial $U(1)$ principal bundle which carries the dynamical degrees of freedom.
- Second case: $$\label{secondcasesec4}
\delta X_h^i = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \delta A^i = \left\lbrace \xi, X^i \right\rbrace$$ In this second case the complete transformation acts only on the exact part of the embedding map $A$ leaving invariant the harmonic sector. This transformation is associated to a symplectic connection $A$ that carries the dynamical degrees of freedom. This transformation law and the symplectic connection has been extensively discussed in [@Ovalle3].
- Third case: $$\delta [X_h^i] = \left\lbrace \xi, [X^i] \right\rbrace \quad \text{and} \quad \delta A^i = 0.$$ In this third case the symplectic transformation is completely associated to the harmonic sector. We did not find any new connection, expressed in terms of the maps defining the supermembrane, associated to this transformation. We will not discuss it any longer.
The full group of symplectomorphism transformations
---------------------------------------------------
We consider in this section the full group of symplectomorphisms including the ones which are not connected to the identity. As we mentioned before, in real dimension 2 the group of symplectomorphisms coincides with the group of diffeomorphisms fixing a given volume form, APD. In higher dimensions both groups have very different topological properties. For any dimension the full group of diffeomorphisms of a smooth manifold is homotopy equivalent to the volume preserving diffeomorphisms, VPD. Consequently, this also occurs with the full group of diffeomorphisms and the symplectomorphisms in two dimensions.
The Supermembrane formulation in this work is in terms of a compact torus $\Sigma$ on the worldvolume and a flat torus $T^2$ on the compactified sector of the target space. The maps from $\Sigma$ to $T^2$ are scalar fields under symplectomorphisms connected to the identity on $\Sigma$ with values on $T^2$. We will now discuss the transformation law under symplectomorphisms not connected to the identity.
$T^2$ is characterized by its moduli: the Teichmmüller parameter $\tau$, $Im \tau > 0$ and a real $R$ radius. The maps to the compactified sector of the target space are defined as
$$\label{ec1notas}
%
p \in \Sigma \, \to \, \int_{p_o}^{p} dX^i \, \in \, \mathbb{C} \,, \text{the complex plane}\,; \quad i=1,2\,.$$
where $$\label{ec2notas}
\oint_{\mathcal{C}_j} d \left(X^1 + iX^2 \right)= 2 \pi R \left(l_j + m_j \tau \right) \, \in \mathcal{L} \,.$$ $\mathcal{C}_j $ is a basis of homology on $\Sigma$, $j=1,2$, $l_j, m_j $ are integers (the winding numbers) and $\mathcal{L}$ is a lattice on the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$, $T^2 \equiv \mathbb{C}/ {\mathcal{L}}$. Associated to a given basis of homology there is a basis of harmonic 1-forms $\omega^i$, $i=1,2$, normalized by $$%
\oint_{\mathcal{C}_j} \omega^i = \delta^i_j \,.$$ The harmonic 1-forms are closed $d\omega^i=0$ and coclosed $d* \omega^i=0$. Locally any closed 1-form can be expressed as $$\omega^i = d \widehat{X}^i \,, \quad i=1,2 \,,$$ then $d * d\hat{X}^i=0$, $i=1,2$. In terms of the local coordinates $z= \sigma^1 + i \sigma^2$ on $\Sigma$ we have
$$\sum_a \partial_a^2\widehat{X}^i =0 \,, \quad i=1,2;a=1,2 \,.$$
The most general closed 1-forms on $\Sigma$ can be expressed, using the Hodge decomposition in harmonic and exact 1-forms $dA^i$, as $$\label{ec4nuevasnotas}
d X^i = M^i_j d \hat{X}^j + dA^i \,,$$ $A^i$, $i=1,2$, are then single valued functions on $\Sigma$. From (\[ec2notas\]) and (\[ec4nuevasnotas\]) we obtain $$\label{ec15notas}
d \left(X^1 + iX^2 \right)= 2 \pi R \left(l_j + m_j \tau \right) d \hat{X}^j + d\left(A^1 + iA^2\right)\,\, .$$
Under the full group of symplectomorphisms, the 1-forms $dX^m$ remain invariant. We will obtain the transformation law for $dX^i$, $i=1,2$. Under a symplectomorphism connected to the identity on $\Sigma$, the homology basis $\mathcal{C}_j$ and the harmonic basis $d\hat{X}^i$ remain invariant. Under symplectomorphisms not connected to the identity, the homology basis transforms by the action of $SL(2,Z)$ and the harmonic basis by a corresponding $SL(2)$ transformation $$\label{ec5notas}
d \hat{X}^i \, \to S^i_k d \hat{X}^k \,, \quad \, \mathcal{C}_j \, \to (S^{-1})^l_j \, \mathcal{C}_l \,, \quad \textrm{with} \quad S \in SL(2,Z) \,.$$ We notice that the map $$\label{bijection}
\int_{P_o}^{P} d \hat{X}^i \, : \, \Sigma \rightarrow T^2= \mathbb{C}/ {\mathcal{L}}$$ is an immersion, since $d \hat{X}^1 \wedge d \hat{X}^2$ is nondegenerate. Moreover, it is a bijection since it is surjective and the tori $\Sigma$ and $T^2$ are compact. We can then pullback and pushforward the symplectic structures on $T^2$ and $\Sigma$ by the bijection (\[bijection\]). We will consider, from now on, the symplectomorphisms on $\Sigma$ and $T^2$ always related by (\[bijection\]). A symplectomorphism connected or nonconnected to the identity on $T^2$ induces a symplectomorphism connected or non connected to the identity on $\Sigma$ and viceversa. The flat torus $T^2$ is defined by the parameters $R$ and $\tau$. Under symplectomorphisms connected to the identity on $T^2$, $R$ and $\tau$ remain invariant. The corresponding symplectomorphism on $\Sigma$ leaves invariant the homology basis as well as the normalized basis of harmonics. The 1-forms $d{X}^i$, $i=1,2$ remain invariant and so does $d{X}^m$ [@mpgm3] and $$%
\sqrt{w} \equiv \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{ij} \partial_u \hat{X}^i \partial_v \hat{X}^j \epsilon^{uv} \,.$$ The map (\[ec1notas\]), (\[ec2notas\]) is then invariant and consequently the Hamiltonian also is invariant. So the map (\[ec1notas\]) y (\[ec2notas\]) can be elevated to a map from $\Sigma$ to the flat torus $T^2$ modulo symplectomorphisms connected to the identity. On $\Sigma$ the realization of the symplectomorphisms connected to the identity is generated by the first class constraint on the supermembrane Hamiltonian. We may also consider the action of symplectomorphisms non-connected to the identity. In this case [@mpgm2; @mpgm3] $$\label{tautransformation}
{\tau} \rightarrow \frac{{{a}{\tau}}+{{b}} }{{{c}}{\tau}+{{d}}} \, \qquad, \, \left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ c & d \end{array}\right) \in SL(2,{Z})$$ hence $$\label{ec12notas}
Im \tau \, \to \frac{Im \tau }{|c \tau +d|^2}
\, ,$$ and $$\label{ec13notas}
R \to \, R\, |c \tau +d| \, ,$$ since the volume of the $T^2$ is proportional to $R^2 Im\,\tau $ and the transformation is volume preserving (or area preserving in 2 dimensions). The non-connected to the identity transformation on $T^2$ induces via (\[bijection\]) a transformation on $d \hat{X}^i$, $i=1,2$ $$d \hat{X}^i \, \to S^i_j d \hat{X}^j \,, \, \quad S \in SL(2,Z) \,.$$ We then consider the transformation on the winding matrix to be: $$\label{ec14notas}
\begin{pmatrix} m_1 & m_2 \\
l_1 & l_2
\end{pmatrix} \to {\begin{pmatrix} a & c\\
b & d
\end{pmatrix}}^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} m_1 & m_2 \\
l_1 & l_2
\end{pmatrix} S^{-1}\,.$$ The resulting transformation on $d{X}^i$ is $$\label{eqn 4.24}
d X^1 + idX^2 \to d \left(X^1 + iX^2 \right) e^{i\varphi} \, .$$ where $$\label{ec16notas}
\frac{c\tau+d}{|c\tau+d|}= e^{-i\varphi}\, \,.$$ It turns out that the Hamiltonian is invariant under the change (\[eqn 4.24\]), consequently it is invariant under the full symplectomorphism group preserving the canonical symplectic 2-form on $T^2$. The transformations (\[tautransformation\]), (\[ec13notas\]), (\[ec14notas\]), (\[ec16notas\]) play a relevant role in the U-duality invariance of the theory with central charge [@mpgm7]. This result is important since the Supermembrane is then well defined on the class of $T^2$ flat torus modulo the full group of symplectomorphisms. Consequently, one may define a symplectic torus bundle with base manifold $\Sigma$, fiber $T^2$ and structure group the symplectomorphisms [@mpgm3] on $T^2$. In addition the nontrivial central charge introduces a nontrivial $U(1)$ bundle in the geometric structure and we we have to prove consistency of the overall construction. In the previous section we considered infinitesimal symplectomorphism connected to the identity. Let $\beta_0$ be a symplectomorphism not connected to the identity, $\beta_0$ belongs to an isotopy class of symplectomorphisms. Let $\beta_1$ be on the same class. Then there exist a smooth family of symplectomorphisms ${h_t}$ on the same class such that $h_1=\beta_1$ and $h_0=\beta_0$. $\beta_1$ can always be expressed as $\beta_1=\beta_0({\beta_0}^{-1}h_1)$, where ${\beta_0}^{-1}h_t$ is a family of symplectomorphisms connected to the identity, since ${\beta_0}^{-1}h_0=\mathbb{I}$, and ${\beta_0}^{-1}\beta_1$ is then a symplectomorphism connected to the identity. Consequently any symplectomorphism on the same class of $\beta_0$ can be written as a product $\beta_0 f$, where $f$ is connected to the identity. Also $\beta_0 f=g \beta_0$ where g is also connected to the identity. In the case of the symplectomorphisms on a torus, the group generated by the isotopy classes is $\pi_0(G)=SL(2,Z)$, as we have already used. It is the same as the $\pi_0 (\textit{Diff($T^2$)})$[^2] since diffeomorphisms are homotopic to the volume preserving diffeomorphisms, and these ones with the symplectomorphisms on a 2 dimensional surface. We conclude that the infinitesimal transformations in the previous section can be also defined on the isotopy classes not connected to the identity by taking: $$\begin{aligned}
&\textit{First case:} & \hat{X}^{'i}=S^i_j\hat{X}^j + S^i_j \left\lbrace \xi, \hat{X}^j \right\rbrace \, , \quad A^{'i}=A^{i}e^{i\varphi}+\left\lbrace \xi, {A}^i \right\rbrace \, .\\
&\textit{Second case:} & \hat{X}^{'i}=S^{i}_{j}\hat{X}^j\, , \quad A^{'i}=A^{i}e^{i\varphi}+\left\lbrace \xi, {X}^i \right\rbrace \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\lbrace S^{i}_{j} \right\rbrace \in SL(2,Z)$. We have already dismissed the third case. Notice that the transformation of the first class does not preserve the decomposition of the closed one-forms into harmonic and exact one-forms since we are in that case interested in $U(1)$ gauge equivalent classes. The main step now is to construct an $U(1)$ connection 1-form on $\Sigma$ which arises from a connection on a principle $U(1)$ bundle over $\Sigma$ compatible with the symplectic torus bundle.
Symmetries of the M2-brane theory with fluxes
==============================================
In this section we will show the existence of connection one-forms associated to the symmetries described in section 4. In our construction the torus $\Sigma$, the base manifold, and the flat torus $T^2$ on the target space are diffeomorphic. The immersion defined by $\int_{P_o}^{P} dX^i$ from $\Sigma \to T^2$ is also surjective and injective. Hence is a bijective map and since the symplectic two form $d\hat{X}^{'i} \wedge d\hat{X}^j \epsilon_{ij}$ is nondegenerate, it is a diffeomorphism between $\Sigma$ and $T^2$. This is relevant since we can then pullback and pushforward vector bundle from $\Sigma \leftrightarrow T^2$. In particular, the existence of a nontrivial central charge on $\Sigma$ is related to the existence of fluxes on the compactified sector of the target space and viceversa. That is, the nontrivial $U(1)$ principal bundle on $\Sigma$ associated to the central charge can be pushforward to a nontrivial $U(1)$ principal on $T^2$ associated to the flux condition and viceversa. In this section we will introduce
- [A $U(1)$ connection 1-form associated to the central charge on $\Sigma$ or equivalently to the flux condition on the target. It is associated to the non-trivial $U(1)$ principle bundle with base manifold $\Sigma$, and characterized by the Chern number $n$. It is a monopole $U(1)$ connection, we denote it $\widehat{A}$.]{}
- [A $U(1)$ connection 1-form on the same $U(1)$ principle bundle which in addition to the topological structure associated to $\widehat{A}$, it carries the physical degrees of freedom associated to the compactified sector of the Supermembrane. We will denote it $\mathbb{A}$]{}. Its curvature satisfies $$\label{ec1notasseccion5}
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\Sigma} \mathbb{F} = n \,,$$ hence it has the same Chern number as $\widehat{F}=d \widehat{A}$. Consequently, it is a connection 1-form associated to the same nontrivial $U(1)$ principle bundle as $\widehat{A}$.
- [A symplectic 1-form connection $A=A_i d\sigma^i$ on $\Sigma$ associated to a symplectic principle bundle with base $\Sigma$ and structure group $G$, the symplectomorphisms preserving the nondegenerate two form $\sqrt{w} \epsilon_{ij} d\sigma^i \wedge d\sigma^j$. This one is the pullback under the minimal map of the canonical symplectic 1-form on the flat $T^2$ torus on the target space. The curvature 2-form on $\Sigma$, $\mathcal{F}$, satisfies]{} $$\label{ec2notasseccion5}
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\Sigma} {\mathcal{F}} = 0 \,.$$ The connection 1-form $A$ carries the degrees of freedom of the compactified sector of the Supermembrane, but does not provide a monopole topological structure as in the previous cases.
We refer as first case or second case the ones already mentioned on the previous section and defined by two different gauge symmetries:
- [**U(1) Gauge Symmetry**]{}: Let us consider the infinitesimal symplectomorphism transformation previously discussed in (\[eqn 4.6\])
$$\label{ec5notasseccion5}
\delta [X_h^i] = \left\lbrace \xi, [X_h^i] \right\rbrace,\quad\delta A^i = \left\lbrace \xi, A^i \right\rbrace \quad \text{and} \quad i=1,2 \,.$$
In the following we will show the appearance of a gauge connection $\mathbb{A}$ composed by two different one-form connections $\widehat{A}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ that transform differently under the previous symplectomorphism transformation We define $\widehat{A}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}X_h^idX_h^j$. It is not a global 1-form on $\Sigma$ but a connection 1-form on $\Sigma$. In fact, notice that $X_h^i$ is not a singled valued function on $\Sigma$. However, under (\[ec5notasseccion5\]), $\widehat{A}$ transforms as a $U(1)$ gauge vector [@Restuccia] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{transfAtechoeta}
\delta \widehat{A} =d \eta \,, \quad \eta = -\frac{\epsilon^{uv}}{\sqrt{w}}\partial_v\xi \widehat{A}_u -\xi\star \widehat{F} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\star \widehat{F}$ is the Hodge dual of the two form $\widehat{F}=d \widehat{A}$. It satisfies, by definition of $\sqrt{w}$, $\star \widehat{F}=n$. The curvature $\widehat{F}= \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}dX_h^i \wedge d X_h^j$ is a closed 2-form satisfying $$\label{integralflujoT2}
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{T^2} \widehat{F} = n \,,$$ where we have normalized the area of $T^2$ to 1. Consequently $\widehat{F}$ is the curvature of a connection 1-form of a nontrivial $U(1)$ principle bundle characterized by the Chern number $n$. The same results (\[transfAtechoeta\]) and (\[integralflujoT2\]) occur for the variation and curvature associated to each member of the class, where we replace in $\widehat{A}$, $X^i_h$ by the member of the class.
The gauge transformation generated by the infinitesimal transformation (\[eqn 4.6\]) is associated not to the harmonic fields but to the equivalence class constructed from them. One of its elements is $X_h^i$ , $i=1,2$, but the other members are not harmonics, although they give rise to the same curvature $\widehat{F}$, which characterizes the equivalence class.We introduce a new one-form on $\Sigma$, not considered previously that also transforms under (\[eqn 4.6\]), $$\label{ec6notasseccion5}
\mathcal{A}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}(A^idX_h^j-A^jdX_h^i+A^idA^j) \,.$$ We notice that $\mathcal{A}$ is indeed a 1-form on $\Sigma$, it has an associated 2-form $\mathcal{F}^{U(1)}= d \mathcal{A}$ satisfying $$\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\Sigma} \mathcal{F}^{U(1)} = 0 \,,$$ Under the infinitesimal transformation, (\[ec5notasseccion5\]) we obtain $$\delta \mathcal{A} = d \widetilde \eta \, ,$$ $$\widetilde \eta\equiv \left( -\frac{\epsilon^{uv}}{\sqrt\omega} \partial_{v}\xi (\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{{i}{j}}A^i\partial_{u}X_h^j) -\xi * \widehat F \right) \,.$$ It is important to remark that although $\mathcal{A}$ behaves as an exact $U(1)$ connection, physically it is relevant since it carries the information associated to the dynamical degrees of freedom of the theory $A^i(\sigma^1,\sigma^2,\tau)$.
Now it is possible to define the following one-form linear combination $\mathbb{A} \equiv \widehat{A}+ \lambda \mathcal{A}$. It transforms under the complete infinitesimal transformation (\[eqn 4.6\]) as $$\delta \mathbb{A} = d(\eta + \lambda \widetilde \eta) \,\,, \quad \lambda \,\, \text{a real constant} \,,$$ a $U(1)$ connection 1-form with curvature $\mathbb{F}=d\mathbb{A}$ satisfying $$%\label{ec4notasseccion5}
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\Sigma} \mathbb{F} = n \,,$$ hence $\mathbb{A}$ is a connection one form on the same $U(1)$ principle bundle with Chern number $n$. $\mathbb{A}$ besides the topological structure provided by $\widehat{A}$, it carries the physical degrees of freedom associated to $A^i$ the single valued fields describing the maps
.
- [[**Symplectic Gauge Symmetry**]{}: We consider the second class of infinitesimal transformation considered in (\[secondcasesec4\]), $\delta X_h^i = 0$ and $\delta A^i = \mathcal{D}_i \xi$, where $\mathcal{D}_i \equiv \left\lbrace \bullet, X_h^i \right\rbrace + \left\lbrace \bullet, A^i \right\rbrace$ is a covariant derivative which satisfies the Leibnitz rule and preserves the transformation law of its argument under symplectomorphisms. That is, if $\delta X^m = \left\lbrace \xi, X^m \right\rbrace$ then $$\delta \mathcal{D}_i X^m = \left\lbrace \xi, \mathcal{D}_i X^m \right\rbrace \,.$$ The above transformation law corresponds to an infinitesimal symplectomorphism, connected to the identity composed with a transformation within the cohomology class of ${X}^i_h$, under which the harmonic basis is invariant. $A^i$ has the transformation law of a symplectic connection 1-form on $\Sigma$ with curvature $\mathcal{F}_{ij}=D_iA_j-D_jA_i+\{A_i,A_j\}$ [@Ovalle3]. We notice that $\mathcal{F}_{ij}$ is a total derivative, hence $$%\label{ec4notasseccion5}
\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{\Sigma} \mathcal{F} = 0 \,.$$ Although, $A=A_u d\sigma^u$ carries the physical degrees of freedom of the maps to the compact sector on target space, the monopole structure is missing on this bundle. ]{}
A not trivial property of the $U(1)$ curvature $\mathcal{F}^{U(1)}=d\mathcal{A}$ and the symplectic curvature $\mathcal{F}$ is they are the same when expressed in terms of its components fields $\widehat{X},A^i,$ i.e. $$\mathcal{F}^{U(1)}=\mathcal{F}=D_iA_j-D_jA_i+\{A_i,A_j\}$$ This result will be relevant in subsection 5.2.
- [**Global $U(1)$ symmetry**]{} A global symmetry is induced in the Hamiltonian by the infinitesimal symplectomorphims action connected to the identity on the target torus $T^2$: $$\widetilde{X}^i\to \widetilde{X}^i +\xi^i(T^2)$$ , preserving the torus area $\partial_i(\sqrt{W_{T^2}}\xi^i(\widetilde{X}))=0$ where $\widetilde{X}$ represents the $T^2$ coordinates where $$\xi^i=\frac{\epsilon^{ij}}{\sqrt{W_{T^2}}} \partial_j\alpha(\widetilde{X})$$ and $\sqrt{W_{T^2}}=1$.
By using the definition $\widehat{A}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ij}\widehat{X}^id{\widehat{X}}^j$ identifying the harmonic maps $\widehat{X}^i$ with the coordinates of the target 2-torus $\widetilde{X}^i$, imposing that it should act as a one-form connection on $\Sigma$, $$\label{transformationAtecho}
\delta\widehat{A}=\frac{1}{2}d(X^i\partial_i\alpha)) \,,$$ we obtain that the parameter $\alpha=\sum_i\lambda_i\widetilde{X}^i$ with $\lambda_i\in \mathbb{R}$. It is then a global $U(1)$ gauge transformation associated to a constant shift on the harmonic sector, $$\widehat{X}^i\to \widehat{X}^i+\epsilon^{ik}\lambda_k.$$ This is a transformation of the harmonic sector into itself which leaves invariant the Hamiltonian.
Hamiltonian Symmetries
----------------------
The Hamiltonian of the Supermembrane is invariant under the full group of symplectomorphisms. The ones connected to the identity and the non-connected to the identity. The connected ones are generated by the first class constraint, the residual symmetry generator in the LCG. It generates the transformation on the Hamiltonian $H$ $$\delta {H}= \left\lbrace <\xi \phi>, H\right\rbrace_{P.B}\sim 0 \,,$$ which is weakly zero. Besides the Hamiltonian is invariant under the non-connected to the identity symplectomorphisms. In fact, as discuss in section 4.2, the basis of homology transforms under $SL(2,Z)_{\Sigma}$ and so does the normalized basis of harmonic 1-forms. This transformation is pushed-forward to a transformation on the Teichmüller parameter $\tau$ on the target torus $T^2$, together with a transformation of the radius $R$ and the winding matrix, the $S_U$ duality. This last transformation generates a global $U(1)$ on the fields $X^i$, $i=1,2$ (\[ec15notas\]) which leaves invariant the Hamiltonian. Moreover, the Hamiltonian is also invariant under a second $U(1)$ global symmetry (\[transformationAtecho\]) generated by the $Symp_0(T^2)$. The Hamiltonian is invariant under all these transformations. The symplectomorphisms induce a local $U(1)$ transformation which becomes manifest by the presence of a $U(1)$ connection one form on $\Sigma$, denoted $\mathbb{A}$, with curvature $\mathbb{F}$. This connection is associated to a nontrivial $U(1)$ principle bundle which becomes physically relevant because it carries on one side the monopole structure associated to the nontrivial central charge and on the other side the dynamical fields associated to the compact sector of the M2-brane. The symplectomorphims also induce a symplectic connection with symplectic curvature. The Hamiltonian is invariant under both gauge symmetries, the $U(1)$ and the symplectic one. In fact, the invariant Hamiltonian (\[hamiltonianirred10\]) can be written as $$\small
\begin{aligned}
\label{hamiltonianirred1}
H &=\int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w}\Big[\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{P_m}{\sqrt{w}}\Big)^2+\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{P_i}{\sqrt{w}}\Big)^2 + \frac{1}{4}\left\{X^m,X^m\right\}^2 + \frac{1}{2}(\mathcal{D}_iX^m)^2+\frac{1}{4}(\mathcal{F}_{ij})^2 \Big]\\&+\frac{1}{4}\int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w} \widehat{F}_{ij}^2
+\int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w} \int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w}\Big[\Lambda\Big(\mathcal{D}_i\big(\frac{P_i}{\sqrt{w}}\big)+\left\{X^m,\frac{P_m}{\sqrt{w}}\right\} \Big)\Big] +\\
&+ \int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w}\Big[-\bar{\theta}\Gamma_-\Gamma_i\mathcal{D}_i\theta-\bar{\theta}\Gamma_-\Gamma_m\left\{X^m,\theta\right\}+\Lambda\left\{\bar{\theta}\Gamma_-,\theta\right\}\Big]\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where the symplectic curvature $\mathcal{F}$ defined in (\[symplecticfields\]), $\mathcal{F}_{ij}= D_iA_j-D_jA_i+\left\{ A_i,A_j\right\}$, appears explicitly. The Hamiltonian also admits an expression in which the $U(1)$ geometrical structure becomes manifest, showing the coupling to a nontrivial Maxwell density that contains also the flux contribution. This expression is obtained by replacing the curvature terms $\frac{1}{4}(\mathcal{F}_{ij})^2+\frac{1}{4}(\widehat{F}_{ij})^2$ in (\[hamiltonianirred1\]) by $\frac{1}{4}({{\mathbb{F}}_{uv}})^2$,the Maxwell density Lagrangian of the $U(1)$ connection $\mathbb{A}$, that is, $$\small
\begin{aligned}
\label{hamiltonianirred2}
H &=\int_\Sigma d^2\sigma\sqrt{w}\Big[\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{P_m}{\sqrt{w}}\Big)^2+\frac{1}{2}\Big(\frac{P_i}{\sqrt{w}}\Big)^2 + \frac{1}{4}\left\{X^m,X^m\right\}^2 + \frac{1}{2}\{X^i,X^m\}^2+\frac{1}{4}({{\mathbb{F}}_{uv}}{\mathbb{F}}^{uv}) +... \,,
\end{aligned}$$ Both expressions in the Hamiltonian become equal. In fact, $${\mathcal{F}}^{ij}= \left\lbrace X_h^i, A^j \right\rbrace - \left\lbrace X_h^j, A^i \right\rbrace + \left\lbrace A^i, A^j \right\rbrace = \frac{1}{2} {\epsilon}^{ij} \frac{ {\epsilon}^{uv}}{\sqrt{w}} \mathcal{F}_{uv}=\frac{1}{2}{\epsilon}^{ij} \star{\mathcal{F}}\,,$$ where $${\mathcal{F}}_{uv}= {\epsilon}_{ij} (\partial_u X_h^i \partial_v A^j - \partial_u X_h^j \partial_v A^i+\partial_u A^i \partial_v A^j)\,.$$ Also $${\widehat{F}}^{ij}= \left\lbrace X_h^i, X_h^j \right\rbrace = \frac{1}{2} {\epsilon}^{ij} \frac{ {\epsilon}^{uv}}{\sqrt{w}} \widehat{F}_{uv}=\frac{1}{2}{\epsilon}^{ij} \star{\widehat{F}}\,,$$ where $${\widehat{F}}_{uv}= {\epsilon}_{ij} \partial_u X_h^i \partial_v X_h^j \,.$$ Then $\mathbb{F}= d \mathbb{A} = d\widehat{A} + d\mathcal{A}$, see section 5, satisfies $${\mathbb{F}}_{uv}= {\mathcal{F}}_{uv} + {\widehat{F}}_{uv} \quad , \star{\mathbb{F}}= \star{\mathcal{F}} + \star{\widehat{F}} \,,$$ and, using that $\star{\widehat{F}}$ is constant independent of $\sigma$, together with (\[ec2notasseccion5\]) $$\int_\Sigma d\sigma ^1 \wedge d\sigma ^2 \sqrt{w}\frac{1}{4}\Big[(\mathcal{F}^{ij})^2 + (\widehat{F}^{ij})^2 \Big] =\frac{1}{4} \int_\Sigma \mathbb{F} \star \mathbb{F} \,,$$ where $\mathbb{F}=\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{F}_{uv}d\sigma ^u \wedge d\sigma ^v$. That is, the Maxwell action. In this expression it becomes manifest the $U(1)$ dynamical curvature containing nontrivial topological information. We notice that $\mathcal{F}=d\mathcal{A}$ is either a $U(1)$ curvature on a trivial $U(1)$ principle bundle or $\mathcal{F}_{ij}= D_iA_j-D_jA_i+\left\{ A_i,A_j\right\}$ a symplectic curvature of the symplectic connection $A_i$. In this way both geometrical structures become directly related.
Geometrical interpretation: A M2-brane on a twisted torus bundle
================================================================
The central charge condition is associated to the existence of a nontrivial $U(1)$ bundle associated to the presence of monopole configurations over the worldvolume. On the other hand the supermembrane compactified on $M_9\times T^2$ over a toroidal worldvolume can be extended to a formulation on a torus bundle over a torus with the target space geometry being the fiber. It is known that this global description is given in terms of symplectic torus bundles with monodromy in $SL(2,Z)$ classified according to the inequivalent coinvariant classes for a given monodromy. Now we want to determine if there exists a relation between the $U(1)$ and symplectic bundle both of them in terms of the M2-brane fields over the worldvolume. We will show that this relation exists and moreover it becomes manifest when the M2-brne is formulated on symplectic twisted torus bundle. Let us consider the M2-brane global description in terms of the symplectic 2-torus bundle $$\begin{aligned}
T^2 \rightarrow E \rightarrow \Sigma \, ,\hspace{0.5cm} G=Symp(T^2)\end{aligned}$$ where $G$ is the structure group of the fiber. It was shown in [@mpgm3] that the M2-brane bundles have a monodromy defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M} : \Pi_1(\Sigma) \rightarrow \Pi_0 (Symp(T^2)) = SL(2,Z) \,. \end{aligned}$$ Associated to the presence of the central charge condition there exists a $U(1)$ principal bundle fibered over $\Sigma$. $$\begin{aligned}
U(1)\rightarrow E' \rightarrow \Sigma\end{aligned}$$ A particularity of this $U(1)$ fiber is that its connection $\mathbb{A}$ is constructed in terms of the embedding maps of the M2-brane over the 2-torus target space, $X^i(\sigma^1,\sigma^2,\tau): \Sigma\to T^2$, with $i=1,2$ and $\mathbb{A}= \widehat{A} + \mathcal{A}$, see section 5. where $dX^i=dX_h^i+dA^i$ due to the Hodge decomposition. Relevantly the $dX_h^i$ do not have dependence on time, a crucial aspect towards its quantization. It gives rise to a nontrivial connection over the base manifold generalizing the notion of Dirac monopoles to Riemann surfaces of genus equal or larger than one as discussed in [@Restuccia2].
Twisted 3-Torus
---------------
In order to understand if there is a relation between the symplectic structure of the M2-brane and the principal $U(1)$ bundle, let us notice the existence of different twisted torus structures within M2-brane global description. Let us consider a twisted torus on the target. For example, the 2-torus of the target with local coordinates $\widetilde{X}^i, i=1,2$ with a nontrivial flux as described in section 2. If we denote $y$ the coordinate over the $S^1$ related to the principal bundle, we can define $$\begin{aligned}
e^1&=&d\widetilde{X}^1 , \\
e^2&=&d\widetilde{X}^2 , \\
e^3&=&dy + n\widetilde{X}^1d\widetilde{X}^2\end{aligned}$$ such that it satisfies the Maurer Cartan equation. $$\begin{aligned}
de^3=f^3_{12}e^1\wedge e^2\end{aligned}$$ for $f^3_{12}=n$, which is the structure equation related to a twisted torus $\mathbb{T}_W^3$. This geometrical structure can be pullback to the worldvolume torus $\Sigma$. We thus also have a twisted torus on $\Sigma$. Moreover, the twisted torus can be globally understood as a principal $U(1)$ bundle over the $T^2$ (the T-dual of the target torus with a nontrivial flux) or either a $T^2$ fibered over $S^1$ with parabolic monodromy in $SL(2,Z)$, identified by the integer characterizing the quantized flux. Therefore, there is another twisted torus structures within the M2-brane bundle description. That is, a twisted torus constructed from a symplectic torus bundle over a homological one-cycle defined on the base $\Sigma$, the Maurer-Cartan equations are also satisfied.
In the twisted torus we consider, the presence of a $U(1)$ connection one-form constructed from the fields defining the M2-brane will be relevant. Hence we have a twisted torus with a connection one-form which characterizes the $U(1)$ principal bundle. It is important to mention that in this case the structure group is $Symp(T^2)\subset Diff^+(T^2)$ and not $Diff^+(T^2)$ as in the standard twisted torus. It is important to notice that in both cases the monodromy is contained in $SL(2,Z)$ because the isotopy classes of both are isomorphic to $SL(2,Z)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{MPG}&=&\Pi_0(Diff^+(T^2))\approx SL(2,Z) , \\
\mbox{SMPG}&=&\Pi_0(Symp(T^2))\approx SL(2,Z).\end{aligned}$$
The Supermembrane on a twisted torus bundle
-------------------------------------------
In [@mpgm3] we introduce the formulation of the Supermembrane on a symplectic torus bundle: $$\label{ec1notasseccion6.2}
{T}^2 \rightarrow E \rightarrow \Sigma \, ,$$ with structure group the symplectomorphisms preserving the canonical symplectic 2-form on $T^2$. This symplectic structure can be pullback to the symplectomorphisms on $\Sigma$ preserving the symplectic 2-form induced by the diffeomorphism, defined in section 4, $$\label{ec2notasseccion6.2}
\Sigma \, \leftrightarrow \, \mathbb{C}/ {\mathcal{L}} \equiv T^2 \,,$$ $$\label{ec3notasseccion6.2}
p \in \Sigma \, \rightarrow \, \small{(\int_{p_o}^{p} d\widehat{X}^i)} \, / {\mathcal{L}} \in T^2 \,.$$ There is a natural way to introduce the monodromy on the torus bundle as mentioned in 6.2. It is associated to the representations of the fundamental group of $\Sigma$ into the group of isotopy classes of symplectomorphisms on $T^2$, the group $SL(2,Z)$, which acts naturally on the first homology group of $T^2$. It is then relevant for consistency the invariance of the Hamiltonian under the complete group of symplectomorphisms. This is so, because under symplectomorphisms connected to the identity the symplectic connection transforms as $\delta A_i= D_i\xi$ and the curvature as $\delta \mathcal{F}=\{\mathcal{F},\xi\}$. Hence the corresponding variations in the Hamiltonian are total derivatives. Also as discussed in section 4.2 and section 5.1 under symplectomorphisms not connected to the identity the complex maps $X_h^1+iX_h^2$ and $A_1+iA_2$ transform by a multiplicative phase. It turns out that the symplectic connection as well as the terms involving $X_h^i$ in the Hamiltonian are invariant under this transformation. In section 5, we introduced a class of maps, constructed from the harmonic one-forms, related by infinitesimal transformations connected to the identity $$\label{ec4notasseccion6.2}
[\hat{X}^i] \, \rightarrow \, [\hat{X}^i +\{\xi,d\hat{X}^i\} ] \,,$$ each element of the class have associated a $U(1)$ connection one-form $\widehat{A}$ which transforms under (\[ec4notasseccion6.2\]) as $$\label{eqn 6.14}
\widehat{A} \, \rightarrow \, \widehat{A} + d\eta \,.$$ Hence $\widehat{A}$ remains in the same gauge equivalence class. We also introduced a 1-form $\mathcal{A}$ such that under $$\label{ec5notasseccion6.2}
A \, \rightarrow \, A +\{\xi,A \} \,,$$ it transforms as $$\label{eqn 6.16}
\mathcal{A} \, \rightarrow \, \mathcal{A} + d \widetilde{\eta} \,.$$ Moreover, $\mathbb{A}= \widehat{A} + \mathcal{A}$ is a connection one-form on a non-trivial $U(1)$ principal bundle and its Chern number, associated to the integral on $\Sigma$ of its curvature, corresponds to the quantized flux on the target, as shown in section 5.2. The connection carries not only the information of the non-trivial transitions on the $U(1)$ bundle, but also the information of the dynamical fields associated to the compact sector of the supermembrane. In addition to a twisted torus we have a connection on it. We can then define a geometry on the twisted torus preserving the bundle structure and we can couple backgrounds fields to the dynamics of the compact sector of the supermembrane.
The symplectomosphisms connected to the identity induces a $U(1)$ transformation, on the $U(1)$ connection, given by (\[eqn 6.14\]) and (\[eqn 6.16\]), leaving invariant its curvature. Also under symplectomorphisms not-connected to the identity on the $U(1)$ connection remains invariant. Moreover the Hamiltonian can be expressed in terms of a symplectic connection and curvature or equivalently in terms of a $U(1)$ connection and its curvature making manifest the invariance under both group of transformations. We then have two gauge structures, the symplectic one associated to the structure group of the bundle and a $U(1)$ principal bundle associated to the central charge on the base $\Sigma$ or the flux condition on the target, both realized in terms of the physical degrees of freedom of the M2-brane. The main point is that both are compatible. Under the monodromy $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M} : \Pi_{1} (\Sigma) \rightarrow \Pi_0 (Symp(T^2)) = SL(2,Z) \,,\end{aligned}$$ on the symplectic torus bundle the symplectic isotopy classes transforms under $SL(2,Z)$ which induce a transformation of the fields describing the supermembrane, given in section 4, leaving the Hamiltonian invariant. Besides, the Hamiltonian can be re-expressed as in section 5.2 showing also invariance under the induced $U(1)$ transformation. So both geometrical structures are compatible, a non trivial property of the M2-brane theory. This means that the compact sector of the M2-brane can be realized in terms of the geometrical objects naturally defined on a twisted torus bundle $$\label{ec7notasseccion6.2}
\mathbb{T}_W^3\equiv {T}_{U(1)}^2 \rightarrow E' \rightarrow \Sigma \, ,$$ ${T}_{U(1)}^2$ denotes the twisted torus described by a $U(1)$ principle bundle over the flat torus on the target space. That is, the flat torus with a nontrivial flux. This geometric structure is represented by a connection one-form whose pullback to the worldvolume is the connection $\mathbb{A}$ we have introduced. The transition on the torus bundle represented by the monodromy is compatible with the transformation law of the connection, as we have shown.
The relevance of this new geometrical interpretation in terms of a M2-brane twisted torus bundle is that it gives a definitive answer to the inequivalent classes of M2-brane bundles that exist for a M2-brane with central charges when it is compactified on a $M_9\times T^2$ target space. They can be classified by the monodromies of a twisted torus bundle on a torus, which are given by the coinvariants of the monodromy subgroups labelled with the charge of the quantized flux.
Discussion and Conclusions
==========================
The M2-brane compactified on $M_9\times T^2$ with $C_{\pm}$ fluxes is equivalent (modulo a constant shift) to a supermembrane on the same target space subject to a central charge condition associated to an irreducible wrapping condition and consequently the theory exhibits discrete spectrum. The so-called ’central charge’ condition is equivalent to have a nontrivial $U(1)$ principal bundle over the M2-brane worldvolume.
The algebra of supercharges is obtained , and it is shown that the zero modes decouple from the nonzero ones. We also find the amount of supersymmetry preserved by the theory. Since the constant fluxes imply the existence of a nontrivial central charge and there may be non vanishing Kaluza Klein states, -both of them BPS states breaking $1/2$ of supersymmetry-, then there are two possible multiplets: If the Kaluza Klein momentum state is turn on, the theory preserves $1/4$ of the original supersymmetry. If not the theory preserves $1/2$ of it.
Focusing on the M2-brane bundle description where the 2-torus target space is the fiber, with structure group the symplectomorphisms preserving its canonical symplectic two-form, and the worldvolume is the base manifold, where it is a formulation of the M2-brane on a torus bundle with monodromy in $SL(2,Z)$ as realized in [@mpgm7]. In this paper we show that the nontrivial $U(1)$ principal bundle over the base manifold and the 2-torus fiber determine a 3-twisted torus bundle $\mathbb{T}_W^3$ or equivalently a $T^2$ with a connection $U(1)$ that is consistently fibered over the worldvolume base. The $U(1)$ fiber as it is associated to a nontrivial flux condition it should not be interpreted as an extra spacetime dimension. We introduce a connection one-form over the worldvolume. It is a dynamical and topologically nontrivial $U(1)$ gauge field $\mathbb{A}$, compatible with the symplectomorphisms transformations and with the transition on the torus bundle, given in terms of the monodromy.
The M2-brane with central charge realizes as symmmetries of the theory not only symplectomorphims connected with the identity -as it happens when there is no central charge but also those not connected with the identity. We provide the form of such general transformation including both sectors. This symmetry implies that the theory contains an extra $SL(2,Z)$ symmetry as formerly identified in [@mpgm3], that plays a relevant role with respect its $U$-dual invariance as discussed in [@mpgm7]. We find new $U(1)$ symmetries (gauge and global) of the M2-brane worldvolume theory: There is a new dynamically nontrivial $U(1)$ symmetry with gauge connection $\mathbb{A}$ that contains a one-form connection $\widehat{A}$ associated to the constant flux 2-form $\widehat{F}$ curvature, and a dynamical single-valued one $\mathcal{A}$ topologically trivial whose curvature is $\mathcal{F}$. There exists also a symplectic symmetry with connection $A$ whose associated symplectic curvature is also $\mathcal{F}$. Because of this nontrivial property, the Hamiltonian of the Supermembrane with constant fluxes $C_{\pm}$ can exhibit both types of symmetries: it describes a M2-brane with symplectic curvature terms and symplectic covariant derivatives or either a membrane with a topologically nontrivial Maxwell contributions. This result we consider can be of interest for future phenomenological considerations.
Geometrically the M2-brane on $M_9\times T^2$ with constant fluxes possesses three different structures of twisted torus $\mathbb{T}^3_W$ associated to the relation between the different fiber bundles over the worldvolume base manifold: one is associated to the nontrivial $U(1)$ bundle over the base, another is associated to the 2-torus target space over a homological one-cycle of the base with monodromy in $SL(2,Z)$ and a third one is associated to the torus on the target with a nontrivial flux.
We can define a Twisted torus bundle as a torus bundle with a $U(1)$ connection fibered over the base manifold $T^2_{U(1)}\to E\to \Sigma$. The M2-brane is consistently fiber over it. It allows to define the monodromy of the bundle in $SL(2,Z)$. Compactification on twisted torus have been shown to be related to Sherk-Schwarz reduction, metric fluxes and consequently with gauged supergravities at low energies. We provide a concrete realization of this idea from M-theory, considering the Supermembrane theory on a twisted 3-torus as related to 9D type II gauged supergravity. This construction clarifies previous results obtained in [@mpgm3] showing explicitly the relation between the constant fluxes, the central charge condition and the monodromy. It implies the correspondence between the classification of M2-brane inequivalent classes of torus bundles with monodromies in $SL(2,Z)$ and type II gauged supergravities in 9D.
The fact that the non connected identity symplectomorphisms (and not only the orientation preserved diffeomorphims) are the symmetries involved in the definition of the monodromy of the bundle (and respectively in the classification of inequivalent M2-brane fiber bundles) will have an impact in the classification of the $(p,q)$ strings that admit an M2-brane origin [@mpgm9].
Acknowledgements
================
The authors would like to thank to M. Asorey, A. Guarino, F. Marchesano, P. Meessen, A. Uranga and A. Viña, for helpful comments and discussions at different stages of this paper. C.L.H want to also thanks to B. Fiol from Physics Department at Barcelona U. for kind hospitality during the realization of part of this work. M.P.G.M. and P.L. also thank for the to Theoretical Physics Department at Zaragoza U., for kind support and hospitality at initial stages of this research. M.P.G.M also wants to thanks to IFT (CSIC-UAM), Madrid for her research stay -funded by MINEDUC-UA Project code ANT 1856, Antofagasta, Chile - where final part of this research was done. A.R. and M.P.G.M. are partially supported by Projects Fondecyt 1161192 (Chile), C.L.H, P.L. and J.M.P. are supported by the Project ANT1955, ANT1756, ANT1855 and ANT1856 of the U. Antofagasta. P.L want to thanks to CONICYT PFCHA/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2019-21190517 and C.L.H thanks to CONICYT PFCHA/DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2019-21190263. The authors M.P.G.M., J.M.P., C.L.H, and P. L also thank to Semillero funding project SEM18-02 from U. Antofagasta, and to the international ICTP Network NT08 for kind support.
[10]{}
C. M. Hull. . , 21(2):509–516, 2004.
G. Dall’Agata, N. Prezas, H. Samtleben, and M. Trigiante. . , B799:80–109, 2008.
G. Dall’Agata and S. Ferrara. . , B717:223–245, 2005.
M. Trigiante. . , 680:1–175, 2017.
N. Kaloper and R. C. Myers. . , 05:010, 1999. A. Dabholkar and C. Hull. . , 0309, 054, 2003.
R. A. Reid-Edwards. . , 0906, 085, 2009.
M. Grana, R. Minasian, M. Petrini and A. Tomasiello. . , 0705, 031, 2007.
J. Shelton, W. Taylor and B. Wecht. . , 0510, 085, 2005.
R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara and M. Trigiante. . , 732, 389, 2006.
J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz. . , B153:61–88, 1979.
E. Bergshoeff, T. de Wit, U. Gran, R. Linares, and D. Roest. . , 10:061, 2002. D. A. Lowe, H. Nastase and S. Ramgoolam. . , 667, 55, 2003.
R. A. Reid-Edwards, . , 0812, 043, 2008.
L. Andrianopoli, M. A. Lledo, and M. Trigiante. . , 05:051, 2005.
H. Samtleben. . , 25:214002, 2008. J. J. Fernandez-Melgarejo, T. Ortin, and E. Torrente-Lujan. . , 10:068, 2011. A. Chatzistavrakidis and L. Jonke. . , D85:106013, 2012.
C. M. Hull and R. A. Reid-Edwards. . , 57:862–894, 2009.
C. M. Hull and R. A. Reid-Edwards. . , 10:086, 2006. S. Thangavelu. Harmonic analysis on Heisenberg nilmanifolds. 2009. Yi Shi. Partially hyperbolic diffeomorphisms on Heisenberg nilmanifolds and holonomy maps. , 352:743–747, 2014. S. Kachru, M. B. Schulz, P. K. Tripathy, and S. P. Trivedi. . , 03:061, 2003.
I V Lavrinenko, H Lü, and C N Pope. Fibre bundles and generalized dimensional reductions. , 15(8):2239–2256, aug 1998.
J. R. Weeks. . Monographs and textbooks in pure and applied mathematics 249. Marcel Dekker, 2nd ed edition, 2002.
M. P. Garcia Del Moral, C. Las Heras, P. Leon, J. M. Pena, and A. Restuccia. . , B797:134924, 2019.
C. M. Hull. . , 11:027, 1998.
M. P. Garcia del Moral, J. M. Pena, and A. Restuccia. . , 09:063, 2012. M.P. Garcia del Moral, J. M. Pena, and A.Restuccia. . , D100(2):026005, 2019. B. de Wit, J. Hoppe, and H. Nicolai. On the quantum mechanics of supermembranes. , 305(4):545 – 581, 1988. I. Martin and A. Restuccia. . , 39:379–391, 1997. I. Martín, A. Restuccia, and R. Torrealba. On the stability of compactified d = 11 supermembranes: Global aspects of the bosonic sector. , 521(1):117 – 128, 1998. L. Boulton, M.P. García del Moral, and A. Restuccia. Discreteness of the spectrum of the compactified d=11 supermembrane with nontrivial winding. , 671:343 – 358, 2003. E. Bergshoeff, E. Sezgin, and P.K. Townsend. Supermembranes and eleven-dimensional supergravity. , 189(1):75 – 78, 1987. M. J. Duff and K. S. Stelle. . , 253:113–118, 1991. K. S. Stelle. . In [*[High energy physics and cosmology. Proceedings, Summer School, Trieste, Italy, June 10-July 26, 1996]{}*]{}, pages 287–339, 1996.
Bernard de Wit, K. Peeters, and J. Plefka. . , 532:99–123, 1998.
I. Martin, J. Ovalle and A. Restuccia, . , 64, 046001, 2001. M. P. Garcia del Moral and A. Restuccia. . , D66:045023, 2002.
M. Abou-Zeid, B. de Wit, D. Lust, and H. Nicolai. . , B466:144–152, 1999. B. de Wit, U. Marquard, and H. Nicolai. Area-preserving diffeomorphisms and supermembrane Lorentz invariance. , 128: 39–62, 1990. P. J. [Kahn]{}. . , 11: 3555, 2005. ∞ M. P. Garcia del Moral, I. Martin, J. M. Pena and A. Restuccia. . , 09:068, 2011. M. P. Garcia del Moral, C. Las Heras and A. Restuccia. .
[^1]: the S-duality part of the U-duality group for M2-brane theory compactified on a 2-torus.
[^2]: Strictly speaking $\pi_0(Symp(T^2))=\pi_0(Diff^+(T^2))$, but in the case of the 2-torus $Diff(T^2)\approx Diff^+(T^2)$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Mariana Arantes[^1^]{} Flavio Figueiredo[^2^]{} Jussara M. Almeida[^1^]{}\
\
bibliography:
- 'bibs.bib'
subtitle: 'A Measurement Study on User Behavior, Popularity, and Content Properties'
title: 'Understanding Video-Ad Consumption on YouTube'
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10002951.10003260.10003272.10003276</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Information systems Social advertising</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10002951.10003260.10003277.10003281</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Information systems Traffic analysis</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Data Collection and Cleaning {#sec:data}
============================
User Skipping Behavior {#sec:user}
=======================
Video-Ad Popularity {#sec:pop}
===================
Video-Content to Video-Ad Pairs {#sec:match}
===============================
Discussion and Future Work {#sec:conclusions}
==========================
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'D. Wenzel'
- 'M. Nestler'
- 'S. Reuther'
- 'M. Simon'
- 'A. Voigt'
bibliography:
- 'lit.bib'
title: 'Defects in active nematics – algorithms for identification and tracking'
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Over the last years several theoretical and experimental model systems have been developed to study the collective behaviour of active matter. These are systems which extract energy from their surroundings at the single unit level and transform it into mechanical work, see [@Marchettietal_RMP_2013; @Menzel_PR_2015; @Prostetal_NP_2015; @Juelicheretal_RPP_2018] for general reviews. One well-studied unit are rod-shaped particles, which include, for example, elongated bacteria and filamentous particles inside living cells. These active matter systems bear a resemblance to nematic liquid crystals, systems which are characterised by long-range orientational order. Similar nematic ordering has also been found in epithelia tissue, where fairly isotropic living cells align to each other. For both types of these natural materials current developments to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms at work are thus based on established theories for liquid crystals. We refer to [@Doostmohammadietal_NC_2018] for a current review on active nematics. Just like liquid crystals these active materials also show topological defects. These are regions where the nematic order is lost in order to minimize stresses. In 2D, defects are characterized by a topological charge (in the mathematics community also often called the winding number), i.e. the angle by which the orientational direction rotates around the defect, divided by $2\pi$. This quantity is additive, conserved, and determined by the topology of the confinement. Energetically most favourable defects in nematic liquid crystals are $\pm \frac{1}{2}$ defects.
The main difference with liquid crystals, however, lies in the ‘activity’ of the active matter, which leads to the spontaneous generation/annihilation of these topological defects. In contrast with passive systems, where defects annihilate each other, depending on the strength of the activity and the nature of the system activity might even lead to turbulence. It has been proposed that $+ \frac{1}{2}$ defects in active nematics behave as self-propelled particles and its velocity is proportional to activity [@Giomietal_PTRS_2014]. This relation would provide a way to measure activity in such natural materials.
It is becoming evident that these defects also play a biological role. Defects with topological charge $+ \frac{1}{2}$ drive the dynamics and have a strong elastic dipole, while the defects with charge $- \frac{1}{2}$ are moved around passively. The motion of defects not only allows to measure activity, it also provides a good way of distinguishing extensile and contractile materials: for extensile systems $+ \frac{1}{2}$ defects move towards their ‘head’, as has been shown experimentally for microtubule (MT) bundles [@Sanchezetal_N_2012], human bronchial epithelial cells [@Blanch-Mercaderetal_PRL_2018] and Madine–Darby canine kidney (MDCK) cells [@Sawetal_N_2017], whereas for contractile systems they move towards their ‘tail’, which has been observed in experiments on mouse fibroblast cells [@Duclosetal_NP_2017]. In [@Sawetal_N_2017] it was found that near $+ \frac{1}{2}$ defects the rate of apoptosis of MDCK epithelial cells is higher, due to the presence of isotropic compressive stresses. In contrast, the $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects are characterized by tensile stresses and do not trigger apoptosis. In [@Kawaguchietal_N_2017] collective dynamics of cultured murine neural progenitor cells (NPCs) are studied. At high density the cells were capable of forming an aligned pattern. Rapid cell accumulation at $+ \frac{1}{2}$ defects and escape from $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects has been identified.
For all these interpretations a robust identification and tracking of defects in microscopy as well as simulation data is essential. We will here focus on these issues and describe physics based as well as neural network based approaches to identify topological defects. The paper is structured as follows: In Section \[sec2\] we introduce two essential mathematical models for active nematics. One, a hydrodynamic nematic liquid crystal model with added activity, and the other a collective model of active cells, where their interaction leads to nematic ordering. In Section \[sec3\] we focus on $\pm \frac{1}{2}$ topological defects and describe the used algorithms to locate them, to identify the topological charge and to track them over time. In Section \[sec4\] results are shown for various examples and similarities and differences between the two models are highlighted. In section \[sec5\] conclusions are drawn.
Mathematical description {#sec2}
========================
We consider two theoretical model systems which lead to active nematics. Both consider a continuous description but they describe different levels of detail. The first is a coarse-grained model for rod-shaped particles based on a Landau-de Gennes $Q$-tensor theory, e.g. suitable to model MT bundles. The second describes each unit by a phase field variable and is appropriate to model epithelia cells. The interaction between the units leads to shape deformations and cell elongation, from which again a Q-tensor can be computed. The numerical solution of these systems of partial differential equations is based on finite elements and implemented in AMDiS [@Veyetal_CVS_2007; @Witkowskietal_ACM_2015].
Active nematodynamics {#ssec21}
---------------------
The model is known from liquid crystal theory as an extension of the Beris-Edwards model [@Berisetal_Oxford_1994], which is here supplemented with an additional active stress term and reads [@Giomi_PRX_2015] $$\begin{aligned}
\dt\bulkVelocity + \left(\bulkVelocity\cdot\Grad\right)\bulkVelocity &= -\nablaTF\pressTF + \frac{1}{\Re}\vecLaplace\bulkVelocity + \divTF\boldsymbol{\sigma} \\
\divTF\bulkVelocity &= 0\\
\dt\QTF + \left(\bulkVelocity\cdot\Grad\right)\QTF &= \lambda S\DTF + \OmegaTF \QTF - \QTF \OmegaTF + \gamma^{-1}\hTF\end{aligned}$$ with fluid velocity $\bulkVelocity$, pressure $\pressTF$, Landau-de Gennes Q-tensor $\QTF$, order parameter $S$, flow alignment parameter $\lambda$, rotational viscosity $\gamma$, Reynolds number $\Re$, additional stress $\boldsymbol{\sigma} = \activeStress + \berisStress$ with active stress $\activeStress = \alpha \QTF$ and an elastic stress $\berisStress = \QTF\hTF - \hTF\QTF - \lambda\hTF$, the molecular field $\hTF = L \vecLaplace \QTF - a \QTF + b ( \QTF^2 - \frac{1}{3} \trace (\QTF^2) \I) - c \trace (\QTF^2) \QTF$, deformation tensor $\DTF = \frac{1}{2} ( \nablaTF \bulkVelocity + (\nabla \bulkVelocity)^T)$ and vorticity tensor $\OmegaTF = \frac{1}{2} ( \nablaTF \bulkVelocity - (\nabla \bulkVelocity)^T)$, with $\alpha, L, a, b, c \in \R$. The model considers only a one-constant approximation of the Landau-de-Gennes energy (see [@Balletal_MCLC_2010] for more general expressions) and assumes only the simplest possible form of an active stress. We further have neglected the Ericksen stress. Supplemented with initial and boundary conditions the system without activity, $\alpha = 0$, has been analysed and numerically solved in [@Abelsetal_SIAMJMA_2014]. We here adapt this numerical approach and solve the system in a square domain in 2D with periodic boundary conditions. Fig. \[fig1\] shows a time instant of a simulation.
![Active nematodynamics in square domain: (left) Q-tensor field $\mathbf{Q}$, visualized by the nomalized eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue. (right) Streamlines and vorticity $\omega = \operatorname{rot}\bulkVelocity$ of the velocity field $\bulkVelocity$. The used model parameters are $\lambda=0.1$, $S=1.133$, $\gamma=10$, $L=0.025$, $a=128.32$, $b=0$, $c=-200$, $\Re=1$ as well as $\alpha=5$. As in [@Pearceetal_PRL_2019] we have neglected the term including $\berisStress$ in the velocity equation due to the assumption that the active and viscous stresses dominate for the considered parameters.[]{data-label="fig1"}](solution_alc_rods.png){width="\textwidth"}
![Active nematodynamics in square domain: (left) Q-tensor field $\mathbf{Q}$, visualized by the nomalized eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue. (right) Streamlines and vorticity $\omega = \operatorname{rot}\bulkVelocity$ of the velocity field $\bulkVelocity$. The used model parameters are $\lambda=0.1$, $S=1.133$, $\gamma=10$, $L=0.025$, $a=128.32$, $b=0$, $c=-200$, $\Re=1$ as well as $\alpha=5$. As in [@Pearceetal_PRL_2019] we have neglected the term including $\berisStress$ in the velocity equation due to the assumption that the active and viscous stresses dominate for the considered parameters.[]{data-label="fig1"}](solution_alc_vorticity.png){width="\textwidth"}
Multi-phase field model {#ssec22}
-----------------------
For simplicity we consider a modeling approach without hydrodynamics. For hydrodynamic interactions we refer to [@Marthetal_IF_2016]. The model and numerical approaches to solve it have been introduced in [@Marthetal_JRSI_2015; @Wenzeletal_JCP_2019]. Modified versions for active and passive systems can be found in [@Ziebertetal_RSI_2012; @Camleyetal_PNAS_2014; @Loeberetal_SR_2015; @Camleyetal_JPD_2017; @Muelleretal_PRL_2019] and [@Nonomura_PloSONE_2012], respectively. We model each cell by a phase field active polar gel model [@Kruseetal_PRL_2004] and consider a short-range interaction potential between them. The evolution equations read $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\phi_i + v_0\nabla\cdot\big(\phi_i\mathbf{P}_i\big) &= \gamma \Delta \mu_i\,, \\
\mu_i &= \frac{1}{Ca}\Big(\!-\epsilon\Delta\phi_i + \frac{1}{\epsilon}W'(\phi_i)\!\Big) + \frac{1}{Pa}\Big(\!\!-\frac{c}{2}\|\mathbf{P}_i\|^2 - \beta\nabla\cdot\mathbf{P}_i\!\Big) \nonumber\\
& \quad + \frac{1}{In}\Big(\!B'(\phi_i)\sum_{j\neq i}w(d_j) + w'(d_i) d_i^\prime(\phi_i) \sum_{j\neq i}B(\phi_j)\!\Big),\\
\partial_t\mathbf{P}_i + \big(v_0\mathbf{P}_i\cdot\nabla\big)\mathbf{P}_i &= -\frac{1}{\kappa}\mathbf{H}_i\,, \\
\mathbf{H}_i &= \frac{1}{Pa}\Big(\!\!-c\phi_i\mathbf{P}_i + c\|\mathbf{P}_i\|^2\mathbf{P}_i - \Delta\mathbf{P}_i + \beta\nabla\phi_i\!\Big),\end{aligned}$$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n$ phase field variables $\phi_i$ and polarization fields $\mathbf{P}_i$. The parameters $Ca$, $Pa$ and $In$ act as weightings between different energy contributions, a classical Ginzburg-Landau function with double-well potential $W(\phi) = \frac{1}{4}(\phi^2-1)^2$ and interface thickness $\epsilon$, a polar liquid crystal energy of Frank-Oseen type, with $c$ and $\beta$ parameters controlling the deformation of the polarization fields $\mathbf{P}_i$ and the anchoring on the cell interface, respectively, and the interaction term, which considers $B(\phi_i)=\frac{3}{\epsilon \sqrt{2}} W(\phi_i) \approx \delta_{\Gamma_i}$ as an approximation of the surface delta function for the cell boundary $\Gamma_i = \{ \mathbf{x}\in \Omega \;|\; \phi_i(\mathbf{x})= 0 \}$ and an approximation of an interaction potential $w(d_j)=\exp(- d_j^2 / \epsilon^2)$ with signed distance function $d_j(\phi_j) = -\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}\ln((1+\phi_j(\mathbf{x}))/(1-\phi_j(\mathbf{x})))$ with respect to the zero-line (cell boundary $\Gamma_j$) of $\phi_j$. Activity is introduced in the evolution equations by a self-propulsion term, with velocity value $v_0$. For a detailed description of the numerical approach we refer to [@Praetoriusetal_NIC_2017].
In order to analyse emerging nematic properties we define for each phase field variable $\phi_i$ a Q-tensor by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Q}_i = \begin{bmatrix}
Q_{i,11} & Q_{i,12}\\
Q_{i,12} & \!\!-Q_{i,11}
\end{bmatrix} \!&=\! \int \!\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{2} \left((\partial_y \phi_i)^2-(\partial_x \phi_i)^2\right) & \!-(\partial_x \phi_i) (\partial_y \phi_i) \\
-(\partial_x \phi_i) (\partial_y \phi_i) & \!\frac{1}{2} \left((\partial_x \phi_i)^2-(\partial_y \phi_i)^2\right)
\end{bmatrix}d \mathbf{x}\end{aligned}$$ and obtain a continuous Q-tensor field $\mathbf{Q}$ by interpolating between these tensors in the center of mass in each cell. Fig. \[fig2\] shows a time instant of a simulation with $n = 100$ cells.
Identification and tracking {#sec3}
===========================
Topological defects
-------------------
![Multi-phase field in square confinement: (left) Time frame with polarisation fields $\mathbf{P}_i$ and isocontours $\phi_i(\mathbf{x}) = 0$. (middle) Isocontours $\phi_i(\mathbf{x}) = 0$ and normalized eigenvector of $\mathbf{Q}_i$ corresponding to orientation of largest elongation in center of mass of each cell. (right) Interpolated Q-tensor field $\mathbf{Q}$, visualized by the normalized eigenvector corresponding to largest elongation with highlighted orientations in center of mass of each cell.[]{data-label="fig2"}](phasefield_contour_and_p_full.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Multi-phase field in square confinement: (left) Time frame with polarisation fields $\mathbf{P}_i$ and isocontours $\phi_i(\mathbf{x}) = 0$. (middle) Isocontours $\phi_i(\mathbf{x}) = 0$ and normalized eigenvector of $\mathbf{Q}_i$ corresponding to orientation of largest elongation in center of mass of each cell. (right) Interpolated Q-tensor field $\mathbf{Q}$, visualized by the normalized eigenvector corresponding to largest elongation with highlighted orientations in center of mass of each cell.[]{data-label="fig2"}](phasefield_contour_and_elongation.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"} ![Multi-phase field in square confinement: (left) Time frame with polarisation fields $\mathbf{P}_i$ and isocontours $\phi_i(\mathbf{x}) = 0$. (middle) Isocontours $\phi_i(\mathbf{x}) = 0$ and normalized eigenvector of $\mathbf{Q}_i$ corresponding to orientation of largest elongation in center of mass of each cell. (right) Interpolated Q-tensor field $\mathbf{Q}$, visualized by the normalized eigenvector corresponding to largest elongation with highlighted orientations in center of mass of each cell.[]{data-label="fig2"}](phasefield_elongation_and_global.png "fig:"){width="32.00000%"}
Topological defects are characterized as degenerated points of $\mathbf{Q}$ for which $Q_{11} = Q_{12} = 0$. For a nematic liquid crystal in 2D two types of topological defects predominate: comet-like ($+ \frac{1}{2}$) and trefoil-like ($- \frac{1}{2}$). The number associated with the topological defects, the winding number or topological charge, is the change in the orientation around the singular points along a full $2 \pi$ rotation, divided by $2 \pi$: for $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects the orientation field rotates by $+ \pi$ and $- \pi$, respectively, see Fig. \[fig3\].
[.2]{}
![(left) Schematic description of $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects. Locations for half-integer topological defects in the globalized director field from Fig. \[fig1\] (middle) and Fig. \[fig2\] (right), $+\frac{1}{2}$ (green), $-\frac{1}{2}$ (purple).[]{data-label="fig3"}](pencil_plus_half.png "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}\
![(left) Schematic description of $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects. Locations for half-integer topological defects in the globalized director field from Fig. \[fig1\] (middle) and Fig. \[fig2\] (right), $+\frac{1}{2}$ (green), $-\frac{1}{2}$ (purple).[]{data-label="fig3"}](pencil_minus_half.png "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
[.32]{}
![(left) Schematic description of $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects. Locations for half-integer topological defects in the globalized director field from Fig. \[fig1\] (middle) and Fig. \[fig2\] (right), $+\frac{1}{2}$ (green), $-\frac{1}{2}$ (purple).[]{data-label="fig3"}](defect_locations_alc.jpg){width=".98\textwidth"}
[.32]{}
![(left) Schematic description of $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects. Locations for half-integer topological defects in the globalized director field from Fig. \[fig1\] (middle) and Fig. \[fig2\] (right), $+\frac{1}{2}$ (green), $-\frac{1}{2}$ (purple).[]{data-label="fig3"}](defect_locations_phase.jpg){width=".98\textwidth"}
Identification of defects
-------------------------
We consider two approaches to identify the topological charge of the defects. The first is physics based and considers the sign of $\delta = \frac{\partial Q_{11}}{\partial x} \frac{\partial Q_{12}}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial Q_{11}}{\partial y} \frac{\partial Q_{12}}{\partial x}$ to distinguish between $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects. The second treats the task as an image processing problem and uses an artificial neural network (ANN) to identify the defect type. The neural network consists of an input layer with 100 nodes, two hidden layers with 1000 and 200 nodes, respectively, and an output layer with two nodes, one for $+\frac{1}{2}$ and $-\frac{1}{2}$ defects. For every degenerated point of $\mathbf{Q}$, a $10\!\times\!10$ grid, called *kernel*, with the defect located in the center, is computed by interpolation. This kernel data serves as input, see Fig. \[fig:kernel\_interpolation\]. The training data is constructed analytically by specifying boundary conditions for vector fields. We consider 5000 simulated defects for each topological charge. To generate a decent variability, the defect is affected by surrounding defects and noise. Each data is trained within five epochs with a learning rate of $0.05$. Tests on ideal, single affected and multiple combined defect data have been performed leading to identification rates of $96.98\,\%$. More comprehensive network constructions and more extensive training processes would lead to higher precision. Applied to the simulation data, the classification with the ANN yields an identification rate of $99.31\,\%$.
[.2]{}
![(left) Principle eigenvectors with defect in the center and kernel grid for interpolation for $+\frac{1}{2}$ (top) and $-\frac{1}{2}$ (bottom) defects. (right) ANN with kernel grid values as input (100) and defect type as output (2).[]{data-label="fig:kernel_interpolation"}](kernel_interpolation_plus_half "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}\
![(left) Principle eigenvectors with defect in the center and kernel grid for interpolation for $+\frac{1}{2}$ (top) and $-\frac{1}{2}$ (bottom) defects. (right) ANN with kernel grid values as input (100) and defect type as output (2).[]{data-label="fig:kernel_interpolation"}](kernel_interpolation_minus_half "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
[.7]{}
![(left) Principle eigenvectors with defect in the center and kernel grid for interpolation for $+\frac{1}{2}$ (top) and $-\frac{1}{2}$ (bottom) defects. (right) ANN with kernel grid values as input (100) and defect type as output (2).[]{data-label="fig:kernel_interpolation"}](NN.pdf){width=".98\textwidth"}
Tracking of defects
-------------------
With known defect positions and type in each time frame we have to connect them from frame to frame. Dozens of software tools have been developed for this task in the context of particle tracking [@Meijeringetal_ME_2012]. For a comparison of these methods we refer to [@Chenouardetal_NM_2014]. We here use an approach described in [@Sbalzarinietal_JSB_2005]. It involves finding a set of associations between the defect locations in subsequent frames such that a cost functional is minimized. It is based on a particle matching algorithm using a graph theory technique. It allows to consider different defect types and defect appearance and disappearance and is available as a plugin for ImageJ and Fiji (www.imagej.net) [@Schindelinetal_NM_2012].
Results {#sec4}
=======
Simulation data
---------------
Using the described tools for defect identification and tracking, we can statistically examine the velocity distribution of topological defects. We compute these data for both models and compare them with experimental data. However, due to a lack of available data for defects in epithelia tissue, we here compare both with data for MT bundles [@decamp_redner_baskaran_hagan_dogic_2015]. Similar comparisons, with a higher order Landau-de Gennes model have been performed in [@Oza_2016]. As both of our models are written in dimensionless units we first rescale our data based on the reported average velocity of $6.6 \mu m s^{-1}$ in [@Oza_2016]. Figure \[fig:histograms\] shows the comparison for both models for $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects. We observe an excellent agreement of the experimental data with the active nematodynamics model of section \[ssec21\]. The results also show a significant difference in the velocity distribution between $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects. $+ \frac{1}{2}$ defects are significantly faster, which again is in agreement with experimental data and theoretical predictions [@Doostmohammadietal_NC_2018]. This difference is still present in the multi-phase field model of section \[ssec22\], but much less pronounced. The velocity distributions for $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects are almost equal to each other in this model.
![Velocity distribution of topological defects in the active nematodynamic (top) and multi-phase field (bottom) model, both in comparison with experimental data from [@decamp_redner_baskaran_hagan_dogic_2015] for $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects.[]{data-label="fig:histograms"}](histogram_alc.png){width=".7\textwidth"}
![Velocity distribution of topological defects in the active nematodynamic (top) and multi-phase field (bottom) model, both in comparison with experimental data from [@decamp_redner_baskaran_hagan_dogic_2015] for $+ \frac{1}{2}$ and $- \frac{1}{2}$ defects.[]{data-label="fig:histograms"}](histogram_phasefield.png){width=".7\textwidth"}
We can also analyse the direction of defect movement. In the active nematodynamics model $+ \frac{1}{2}$ defects move in the direction of the ’tail’ of the defect, indicating contractile systems. The direction of movement can be tuned by the sign of $\alpha$ in the active stress. For the multi-phase field model, this is less obvious, as the defects are a secondary effect and not directly related to movement. However, also in these systems contractile behavior is most common, which again is in agreement with experimental measurements [@Sawetal_N_2017].
Another example which shows qualitative agreement with experimental data is achieved by considering the multi-phase field model described in Section \[ssec22\] with 100 cells in a square confinement. Within a certain activity range this leads to oscillations in the cell movements. These oscillations are in qualitative agreement with results on microscopy images of human keratinocytes (HaCaT cells) in similar confinements, see [@Peyretetal_BJ_2019]. Figure \[fig:oscillations\] visualizes the trajectories of the centers of mass for some cells and compares them with the experimental data.\
[.45]{} . Both images additionally show the trajectories of the centers of mass for certain cells over some time period, highlighting the sustained oscillations of cells.[]{data-label="fig:oscillations"}](rotations_local.png "fig:"){width=".8\textwidth"}
[.45]{} . Both images additionally show the trajectories of the centers of mass for certain cells over some time period, highlighting the sustained oscillations of cells.[]{data-label="fig:oscillations"}](PeyretEtAl.jpg "fig:"){width=".8\textwidth"}
Experimental data
-----------------
The same methodology to identify, classify and track defects is applicable to experimental data. Instead of the numerical solution it just requires an image processing step to map microscopy images to Q-tensor fields. For epithelia tissue this requires a classical segmentation problem to identify each cell, which than can be represented by a phase field variable, which can be processed as in Sec. \[sec2\]. For filamentous particles, e.g. MT bundles the directional field has to be estimated. This can be done be computing a gradient vector on the gray-scale image for each pixel and appropriately averaging by first doubling the angle and squaring the length to account for the head-tail symmetry. In [@Bazanetal_IEEE_2002] it is shown that this approach is equivalent to a principal component analysis and robustly leads to directional fields $\mathbf{n}$. The Q-tensor field can than be computed by $\mathbf{Q} = S (\mathbf{n} \otimes \mathbf{n} - \frac{1}{2} \mathbf{I})$ with $S$ the scalar order parameter, encoding the degree of alignment with the average direction and $\mathbf{I}$ the identity matrix. Detailed comparisons on defects between experimental and simulation data will be done elsewhere based on the proposed algorithms.
Conclusion {#sec5}
==========
We here provide reliable and robust data analysis tools to identify, classify and track topological defects in simulation and microscopy data. We thereby concentrate on $\pm \frac{1}{2}$ defects in active nematics. However, the tools can easily be adapted to other defects, e.g. $\pm 1$ defects in polar system. We consider both, physics based approaches as well as ANN, to classify the defects. Especially if applied to microscopy data, we see advantages of the ANN approach to deal with noise. Here we only consider simulation data for two prototypical models, an active nematodynamics model, e.g. applicable to model MT bundels, and a multi-phase field model to simulate epithelia cell sheets. Qualitative properties and statistical data on defect velocities are computed and compared with experimental results from the literature. Detailed quantitative comparisons will be done elsewhere.
AV acknowledges financial support from DFG through FOR3013. The work was also supported by the Sino-German Science Center on the occasion of the Chinese-German Workshop on Computational and Applied Mathematics in Kiel 2019. We further acknowledge computing resources provided by JSC under grant HDR06 and ZIH/TU Dresden.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the role of the symmetries in photonic crystals and classify them according to the Cartan-Altland-Zirnbauer scheme. Of particular importance are complex conjugation $C$ and time-reversal $T$, but we identify also other significant symmetries. Borrowing the jargon of the classification theory of topological insulators, we show that $C$ is a “particle-hole-type symmetry” rather than a “time-reversal symmetry” if one consider the Maxwell operator in the first-order formalism where the dynamical Maxwell equations can be rewritten as a Schrödinger equation; The symmetry which implements physical time-reversal is a “chiral-type symmetry”. We justify by an analysis of the band structure why the first-order formalism seems to be more advantageous than the second-order formalism. Moreover, based on the Schrödinger formalism, we introduce a class of effective (tight-binding) models called Maxwell-Harper operators. Some considerations about the breaking of the “particle-hole-type symmetry” in the case of gyrotropic crystals are added at the end of this paper.'
author:
- 'Giuseppe De Nittis & Max Lein'
bibliography:
- '/Users/max/Library/texmf/tex/latex/max/bibliography.bib'
title: |
On the Role of Symmetries\
in the Theory of Photonic Crystals
---
$^{\ast}$ Department Mathematik, Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Cauerstrasse 11, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany\
$^{\ast\ast}$ University of Toronto & Fields Institute, Department of Mathematics 40 St[.]{} George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 2E4, Canada
[**Key words:** photonic crystal, gyrotropic effect, Harper-Maxwell operator, complex electromagnetic fields]{}\
[**PACS 2010:** 41.20.Jb, 42.70.Qs, 78.20.-e]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
Roughly speaking, a photonic crystal (PhC) is to light what a crystalline solid is to an electron. Based on this analogy, experiments have been proposed which realize “quantum-like systems” in PhCs. On the other hand, many well-known effects from solid state physics have been anticipated in PhCs. That is how edge currents in PhCs have been predicted [@Raghu_Haldane:quantum_Hall_effect_photonic_crystals:2008; @Ochiai_Onoda:edge_states_photonic_graphene:2009; @Lu_Joannopoulos_et_al:edge_modes_3d_photonic_crystal:2012] and observed [@Wang_et_al:edge_modes_photonic_crystal:2008; @Wang_et_al:unidirectional_backscattering_photonic_crystal:2009; @Fu_et_al:blockage_edge_modes:2011; @Plotnik_et_al:edge_modes_photonic_graphene:2012; @Rechtsman_Plotnik_et_al:edge_states_photonic_graphene:2013].
However, this correspondence between electrodynamics and quantum mechanics is not one-to-one, and there are aspects where these differences become crucial. A priori there is no way of knowing when it breaks down or even if “analogous” phenomena have the same explanation. For instance, the analogy to the Bloch electron suggests that the existence of topologically protected edge states in PhCs can be explained by the *bulk-edge correspondence* (proved under various levels of generality in [@Hatsugai:Chern_number_edge_states:1993; @Kellendonk_Schulz-Baldes:quantization_edge_currents:2004]). Its validity is still an open problem, and it cannot merely be assumed but eventually needs to be established by a first-principles derivation.
This paper focuses on the role of symmetries, because breaking or imposing the correct symmetries becomes crucial for the observation of topological effects. Our main purpose is to give a complete classification of Maxwell operators $M_w$ according to the Cartan-Altland-Zirnbauer (CAZ) scheme [@Altland_Zirnbauer:superconductors_symmetries:1997; @Schnyder_Ryu_Furusaki_Ludwig:classification_topological_insulators:2008]. This necessitates a reformulation of the Maxwell equations as a first-order, Schrödinger-type equation. The structural similarities between Maxwell operators and massless Dirac operators are crucial for the correct identification of relevant symmetries, chief among them are complex conjugation $C$ and time-reversal $T$. Consequently, we obtain a exhaustive classification of *“photonic topological insulators”* [@Khanikaev_et_al:photonic_topological_insulators:2013; @Rechtsman_Zeuner_et_al:photonic_topological_insulators:2013; @Lin_et_al:topological_photonic_states:2014], including all expected topological invariants for each CAZ class. For instance, this allows us to predict which CAZ classes support non-trivial invariants which are expected to play a crucial role in a first-principles derivation of a photonic bulk-edge correspondence.
More specifically, our main points are:
(1) The dynamical Maxwell equations can be recast in the form of the “Schrödinger equation” , a first-order equation in time. This Schrödinger-type point of view allows one to adapt many techniques initially developed for quantum systems to problems of classical electromagnetism, [e. g. ]{}space-adiabatic perturbation theory [@PST:effective_dynamics_Bloch:2003; @DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013] and the classification of symmetries. While it is true that complex conjugation $C$ leaves the *second-order* formulation of the Maxwell equations invariant, it is *not* a time-reversal symmetry. $C$ does not implement time-reversal and in the parlance of classification theory of topological insulators it acts as a *“particle-hole symmetry”*. The well-known physical time-reversal $T : (\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H}) \mapsto (\mathbf{E},-\mathbf{H})$ classifies as *“chiral symmetry”*; Note that in the second-order formalism, $T$ becomes a trivial symmetry.
(2) Since the Schrödinger equation is a *first*-order equation in time, it is the *first*-order classification of $C$ as “particle-hole symmetry” and $T$ as a “chiral symmetry” which matters for the subsequent analysis. A correct CAZ classification of symmetries is impossible in the second-order formalism: when applying symmetries to the *square* of the Maxwell operator $M_w^2$ one can no longer distinguish “particle-hole” and “time-reversal symmetries” as well as “chiral symmetries” and linear, commuting symmetries from one another. For PhCs with real material weights the Maxwell operator ([cf. ]{}equation ) is of symmetry class D, DIII or BDI rather than AI, so *even in non-gyrotropic media*, Chern numbers (or other topological obstructions) associated to single, isolated bands need not be zero!
(3) Nevertheless, we show the absence of topological effects in PhCs with real weights for an important class of initial conditions, namely *real* fields: the presence of the $C$-symmetry implies that real initial states emerge as linear combinations of conjugate pairs of Bloch functions. Thanks to the $C$-symmetry, the total Chern number associated with a pair of conjugate states is zero because the Chern numbers of symmetrically related bands are equal in magnitude but have opposite sign. However, we do not know whether these arguments necessarily imply the absence of *all* topological effects: Maxwell operators with $C$-symmetry have other ${\mathbb{Z}}$- or ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-valued topological invariants which may be non-zero. Further research is needed.
(4) The study of effective dynamics for real initial states in photonic cyrstals becomes a *bona fide multiband problem* since single bands can never support real states. That is particularly significant for approaches which have derived effective ray optics equations, because effective single band equations do not describe the evolution of real states. Deriving multiband ray optics for real initial states is still an open problem; here, the main obstacle is that real states are, to use a term from quantum mechanics, entangled, and one needs to control intraband terms ([cf. ]{}the discussion in [@DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013 Section 5]).
(5) A derivation of ray optics equations in the standard second-order framework is made more difficult because one is no longer able to distinguish genuine band crossings from “artificial” ones (compare Figures \[Max\_Schroedinger:fig:band\_spectrum\] and \[first\_vs\_second\_order:fig:abs\_band\_spectrum\]). This is because in the second-order formulation outgoing ($\omega_n(k) > 0$) and incoming ($\omega_n(k) < 0$) frequency bands cannot be distinguished, and the presence of any chiral or particle-hole symmetry lead to symmetries of the form $\omega_n(k) \leftrightarrow -\omega_n(\pm k)$. Thus, there are no isolated, non-degenerate bands in the ${\left \lvert \omega \right \rvert}$ band spectrum of the most common photonic crystals with $C$- or $T$-symmetry. Moreover, it is $\omega_n$ rather than ${\lvert \omega_n \vert}$ which enters the ray optics equations.
(6) The CAZ scheme classifies operators in terms of one unitary and/or one antiunitary operator as well as their product. For the Maxwell operator, $C$ and $T$ are not the only choices, and we systematically explore alternate symmetries. In particular, we enumerate the conditions placed on the material weights by the presence of symmetries. Here, it is crucial that we work in the first-order Schrödinger-type framework to identify the nature of each of these symmetries properly. The structural similarity of the Maxwell operator and massless Dirac operators helps to find an exhaustive list of symmetries which are relevant for the purpose of CAZ classification. Hence, we obtain a complete classification of photonic topological insulators (see Table \[symmetries:table:all\_symmetry\_classes\]) and we tabulate the topological invariants for each class (see Table \[symmetry:table:K\_groups\]). At least 5 of the 10 CAZ classes have already been considered in the physics literature.
(7) We propose the *Maxwell-Harper operator* for a conjugate pair of bands as a simple model operator for non-gyrotropic PhCs in analogy to the usual Harper operator. It is a $2 \times 2$ matrix operator and exists even if the bands carry non-zero Chern charge.
In what follows, we will derive and expound on these assertions.
The paper is roughly structured as follows: we will first reformulate the Maxwell equations as a Schrödinger-type equation in Section \[Max\_Schroedinger\], derive the frequency band spectrum, expound on the significance of complex conjugation and introduce the proper time-reversal operation. Then we will juxtapose first- and second-order formalism in Section \[first\_vs\_second\_order\]. The Cartan-Altland-Zirnbauer classification of Maxwell operators is the topic of Section \[symmetry\]. Here, we will explain the nature of $C$ and $T$ in the CAZ framework, explore other symmetries, discuss the CAZ classification of Maxwell operators and finish with a discussion of topological invariants. The Maxwell-Harper operator is introduced in Section \[Maxwell\_Harper\]. We close the paper by a discussion of *gyrotropic* materials where the electric permittivity ${\varepsilon}$ and the magnetic permeability $\mu$ are hermitian matrix-valued functions with non-zero imaginary parts.
The first-order Schrödinger formalism {#Max_Schroedinger}
=====================================
The claim that light and a quantum particles behave similarly is fundamentally a statement about their *dynamics*. So one way to make such a claim rigorous is by reformulating the dynamical Maxwell equations as a Schrödinger-type equation. This first-order Schrödinger-type formalism of electromagnetism allows one to adapt tools developed for analyzing quantum problems; for instance, the authors were able to derive effective dynamics for adiabatically perturbed PhCs [@DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013] by adapting a technique initially developed for adiabatic quantum systems [@PST:effective_dynamics_Bloch:2003; @DeNittis_Lein:Bloch_electron:2009].
The propagation of electromagnetic waves in a linear, three-dimensional medium are governed by the two dynamical Maxwell equations,
\[Max\_Schroedinger:eqn:Maxwell\_dynamical\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}\, \partial_t \mathbf{E}(t,x) &= \nabla \times \mathbf{H}(t,x)
,
\\
\mu \, \partial_t \mathbf{H}(t,x) &= - \nabla \times \mathbf{E}(t,x)
,
\end{aligned}$$
whereas the absence of sources is described by
\[Max\_Schroedinger:eqn:Maxwell\_sources\] $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \cdot {\varepsilon}\mathbf{E}(t,x) &= 0
,
\\
\nabla \cdot \mu \mathbf{H}(t,x) &= 0
.
\end{aligned}$$
The properties of the material enter through the electric permittivity tensor ${\varepsilon}$ and the magnetic permeability tensor $\mu$. While most materials are non-gyrotropic, [i. e. ]{}${\varepsilon}(x)$ and $\mu(x)$ are *real-symmetric*, there are cases when ${\varepsilon}(x)$ and $\mu(x)$ are hermitian with non-zero imaginary part (see [e. g. ]{}[@Yeh_Chao_Lin:Faraday_effect:1999; @Wu_Levy_Fratello_Merzlikin:gyrotropic_photonic_crystals:2010; @Kriegler_Rill_Linden_Wegener:bianisotropic_photonic_metamaterials:2010; @Esposito_Gerace:photonic_crystals_broken_TR_symmetry:2013]). Throughout this paper, we assume that ${\varepsilon}$ and $\mu$ are positive, bounded with bounded inverse. To simplify the notation we shall refer to $w = ({\varepsilon},\mu)$ as *material weights* and use $\overline{w} = (\bar{{\varepsilon}},\bar{\mu})$ to denote the complex conjugate weights.
To the best of our knowledge, the idea to express the dynamical Maxwell equations as a Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{i}}\partial_t \Psi &= M_w \Psi
\label{description:eqn:Schroedinger_Maxwell}\end{aligned}$$ originated in a paper by Birman and Solomyak [@Birman_Solomyak:L2_theory_Maxwell_operator:1987]. Here, the electromagnetic field $\Psi = (\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H})$ plays the role of the wave function and the *Maxwell operator* $$\begin{aligned}
M_w = \left (
\begin{matrix}
0 & + {\mathrm{i}}\, {\varepsilon}^{-1} \, \nabla^{\times} \\
- {\mathrm{i}}\, \mu^{-1} \, \nabla^{\times} & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:Maxwell_operator}\end{aligned}$$ takes the place of the quantum Schrödinger operator $H = \frac{1}{2m} (-{\mathrm{i}}\hbar \nabla)^2 + V$. Throughout the paper we use the short-hand $v^{\times} \mathbf{E} = v \times \mathbf{E}$, [e. g. ]{}$\nabla^{\times} \mathbf{E} = \nabla \times \mathbf{E}$ denotes the curl. The material weights $w = ({\varepsilon},\mu)$ also enter into the definition of the scalar product $$\begin{aligned}
{\bigl \langle \Psi , \Psi' \bigr \rangle}_w &
= {\bigl \langle \mathbf{E} , {\varepsilon}\mathbf{E}' \bigr \rangle} + {\bigl \langle \mathbf{H} , \mu \mathbf{H}' \bigr \rangle}
\notag \\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} {\mathrm{d}}x \, \Bigl ( \mathbf{E}(x) \cdot {\varepsilon}(x) \, \mathbf{E}'(x) + \mathbf{H}(x) \cdot \mu(x) \, \mathbf{H}'(x) \Bigr )
,
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:weighted_scalar_product}\end{aligned}$$ and the corresponding Hilbert space $L^2_w({\mathbb{R}}^3,{\mathbb{C}}^6)$ is $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3,{\mathbb{C}}^6)$ equipped with the weighted scalar product ${\left \langle \, \cdot \, , \cdot \, \right \rangle}_w$. Note that complex conjugation is contained in $v \cdot w := \sum_{j = 1}^3 \overline{v_j} \, w_j$.
This weighted scalar product provides a decomposition of electromagnetic waves into longitudinal and transversal component: a quick computation shows that gradient fields are ${\left \langle \, \cdot \, , \cdot \, \right \rangle}_w$-orthogonal to fields satisfying [@DeNittis_Lein:adiabatic_periodic_Maxwell_PsiDO:2013 Section 3]. Moreover, the Maxwell operator is hermitian, ${\left \langle \Psi , M_w \Psi' \right \rangle}_w = {\left \langle M_w \Psi , \Psi' \right \rangle}_w$, and consequently, the time-evolution ${\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_w}$ is unitary. This leads to the conservation of field energy $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H})
= \frac{1}{2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} {\mathrm{d}}x \, \Bigl ( \mathbf{E}(x) \cdot {\varepsilon}(x) \, \mathbf{E}(x) + \mathbf{H}(x) \cdot \mu(x) \, \mathbf{H}(x) \Bigr )
= \frac{1}{2} \, {\bigl \lVert (\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H}) \bigr \rVert}_w^2
.
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:field_energy}\end{aligned}$$
The frequency band picture {#Max_Schroedinger:band_picture}
--------------------------
The particularity of photonic crystals is that the material weights $({\varepsilon},\mu)$ are periodic with respect to some lattice $\Gamma = \mathrm{span}_{{\mathbb{Z}}} \{ e_1 , e_2 , e_3 \}$ spanned by three (non-unique) fundamental vectors. Now one proceeds as if $M_w$ were a periodic Schrödinger operator: we employ the Bloch-Floquet-Zak transform [@Zak:dynamics_Bloch_electrons:1968; @Kuchment:Floquet_theory:1993] $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{Z}}\Psi)(k,y) &= \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma} {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}k \cdot (y + \gamma)} \, \Psi(y + \gamma)
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:Zak_transform}\end{aligned}$$ to change representation (${\mathcal{Z}}$ maps onto the space-periodic part of Bloch functions). As explained in [@DeNittis_Lein:adiabatic_periodic_Maxwell_PsiDO:2013 Section 3] the operator $M_w$ is unitarily equivalent to a family of Maxwell operators $$\begin{aligned}
M_w(k) &= W \, {\mathrm{Rot}}= \left (
\begin{matrix}
{\varepsilon}^{-1} & 0 \\
0 & \mu^{-1} \\
\end{matrix}
\right ) \,
\left (
\begin{matrix}
0 & - (-{\mathrm{i}}\nabla + k)^{\times} \\
+ (-{\mathrm{i}}\nabla + k)^{\times} & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:fiber_Maxwell}\end{aligned}$$ depending on crystal momentum $k$ where $M_w(k)$ acts on $\Gamma$-periodic electromagnetic fields $\psi = (\psi^E,\psi^H)$. This gives rise to Bloch functions $\varphi_n(k)$ and Bloch frequency bands $\omega_n(k)$,
$$\begin{aligned}
M_w(k) \varphi_n(k) &= \omega_n(k) \, \varphi_n(k)
.
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:eigenvalue_equation}\end{aligned}$$
$M_w(k)$ has a flat band $\omega(k) = 0$ due to unphysical gradient fields; Bloch functions associated to non-zero frequency bands are automatically source-free [@DeNittis_Lein:adiabatic_periodic_Maxwell_PsiDO:2013 Section 3], $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla + {\mathrm{i}}k) \cdot {\varepsilon}\varphi_n^E &= 0
,
\\
(\nabla + {\mathrm{i}}k) \cdot \mu \varphi_n^H &= 0
. \end{aligned}$$ Schematically, the frequency band spectrum looks as in Figure \[Max\_Schroedinger:fig:band\_spectrum\]: there are 2 “ground state bands” with approximately linear dispersion at $k \approx 0$. Apart from $k = 0$, bands do not touch $\omega = 0$. Note that there are bands of positive and negative frequency; the signs correspond to outgoing and incoming complex Bloch waves. This can already be inferred from , the Maxwell operator looks very similar to a massless Dirac operator $$\begin{aligned}
M_w = - W \, \sigma_2 \otimes \nabla^{\times}\end{aligned}$$ where $W$ is given by equation . Note that the figure depicts the band spectrum of a *non*-gyrotropic PhCs with broken time-reversal symmetry, leading to the point symmetry in the spectrum; in the presence of time-reversal symmetry, all band functions would in addition be even. With the exception of these symmetry considerations the band spectra of gyrotropic PhCs share all other features.
Complex conjugation as a particle-hole symmetry {#Max_Schroedinger:PH_symmetry}
-----------------------------------------------
Complex conjugation $C \Psi(x) := \overline{\Psi(x)}$ induces a relation between $M_w$ and the Maxwell operator $M_{\overline{w}}$ with complex conjugate material weights, $$\begin{aligned}
C \, M_w \, C = - M_{\overline{w}}
.
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:PH_symmetry}\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, Maxwell operators $M_w$ for non-gyrotropic media ($\overline{w} = w$) can be of class D, DIII or BDI in the Cartan-Altland-Zirnbauer (CAZ) classification scheme depending on the presence of additional symmetries [@Altland_Zirnbauer:superconductors_symmetries:1997; @Schnyder_Ryu_Furusaki_Ludwig:classification_topological_insulators:2008]. In other words $C$ acts as a *particle hole symmetry* which squares to $+{\mathrm{id}}$. However, $C$ *cannot* be interpreted as implementing time-reversal, because unlike for the Schrödinger evolution group we in fact obtain[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
C \, {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_w} \, C &= {\mathrm{e}}^{+ {\mathrm{i}}t \, C M_w C}
= {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_{\overline{w}}}
.
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:C_commutes_evolution_group}\end{aligned}$$ Instead, complex conjugation interchanges incoming and outgoing (complex) Bloch waves; This was first noted in [@Bergmann:gyrotropic_Maxwell:1982 Section III] for purely homogeneous media where the material weights are constant, but was not linked explicitly to complex conjugation.
Translating equation to the Bloch-Floquet-Zak representation involves the symmetry $C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} = {\mathcal{Z}}\, C \, {\mathcal{Z}}^{-1}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl ( C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi \bigr )(k,y) = \overline{\varphi(-k,y)}
,
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:C_Zak}\end{aligned}$$ and leads to $$\begin{aligned}
C \, M_w(k) \, C &= - M_{\overline{w}}(-k)
.
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:PH_symmetry_M}\end{aligned}$$ In other words, we have $M_w(k) \varphi_n(k) = \omega_n(k) \, \varphi_n(k)$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\overline{w}}(k) \, \bigl ( C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_n \bigr )(k) &= - \omega_n(-k) \, \bigl ( C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_n \bigr )(k)
. \end{aligned}$$ Equation explains the point symmetry in the band spectrum of non-gyrotropic materials where $\overline{w} = w$: *frequency bands come in pairs* $\bigl ( \omega_n(k) , - \omega_n(-k) \bigr )$ with Bloch functions $\bigl ( \varphi_n(k) \, , \, (C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_n)(k) \bigr )$ (dashed and solid lines of the same color in Figure \[Max\_Schroedinger:fig:band\_spectrum\]). These Bloch waves are necessarily *complex*, because $\varphi_n$ and $C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_n$ are eigenfunctions to frequency bands of different sign.[^2]
Implementation of time-reversal symmetry {#Max_Schroedinger:time-reversal}
----------------------------------------
On physical grounds it is misleading to call $C$ a “time-reversal symmetry”, though: in view of equation time-reversal $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl ( \mathbf{E}(t) , \mathbf{H}(t) \bigr ) \mapsto \bigl ( \mathbf{E}(-t) , - \mathbf{H}(-t) \bigr )
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:time-reversal_condition}\end{aligned}$$ is not implemented by $C$ as in the case of quantum mechanics. Instead, the correct operation $$\begin{aligned}
T = \sigma_3 \otimes {\mathrm{id}}: (\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H}) \mapsto (\mathbf{E},-\mathbf{H})\end{aligned}$$ is *linear* (as opposed to anti-linear) and flips the sign of the magnetic field strength. In the CAZ classification $T$ is a “chiral-type symmetry” [@Schnyder_Ryu_Furusaki_Ludwig:classification_topological_insulators:2008]; we emphasize that both, in case of $C$ and $T$ the names from the CAZ classification do *not* correspond to their physical meaning in electromagnetism ([cf. ]{}Table \[symmetry:table:meaning\_symmetries\]). A straightforward computation shows $T \, M_w \, T = - M_w$, and consequently the linearity of $T$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
T \, {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_w} \, T = {\mathrm{e}}^{+ {\mathrm{i}}t M_w}
.
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:time-reversal}\end{aligned}$$ This equation, however, is just another way of saying that $T$ implements , $$\begin{aligned}
\left (
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{E}(t) \\
(-\mathbf{H})(t) \\
\end{matrix}
\right ) &=
{\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_w} \, \left (
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{E} \\
- \mathbf{H} \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
= {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_w} \, T \left (
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{E} \\
\mathbf{H} \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
= T \, {\mathrm{e}}^{+ {\mathrm{i}}t M_w} \left (
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{E} \\
\mathbf{H} \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
= \left (
\begin{matrix}
\mathbf{E}(-t) \\
- \mathbf{H}(-t) \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
.\end{aligned}$$ Also $T$ gives rise to a symmetry in the band spectrum: taking into account that $T$ is linear, time-reversal yields the fiber-wise relation $$\begin{aligned}
T \, M_w(k) \, T = - M_w(k)
. \end{aligned}$$ Consequently, also the $T$-symmetry pairs frequency bands $\bigl ( \omega_n(k) , - \omega_n(k) \bigr )$ with Bloch functions $\bigl ( \varphi_n(k) , T \varphi_n(k) \bigr )$.
Let us briefly mention that in [@Kong:symmetries_bianisotropic_media:1972 eqns. (18a)–(18d)] $J = T \, C$ has been proposed as time-reversal symmetry for Maxwell equations with complex material weights. The difference between $T$ and $J$ only becomes significant for gyrotropic photonic crystals where $w \neq \overline{w}$, because then instead of the operator $J$ intertwines the evolution of $M_w$ and $M_{\overline{w}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
J \, {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_w} \, J = e^{+ {\mathrm{i}}t M_{\overline{w}}}
. \end{aligned}$$ Seeing as $T$ satisfies equation and agrees with the way time-reversal is defined in other literature (see [e. g. ]{}[@Jackson:electrodynamics:1998 Table 6.1] or [@Altman_Suchy:reciprocity_time-reversal_electromagnetics:2011 Chapter 7]), we will continue to refer to $T$ as time-reversal. We will pick up the topic of symmetries in Section \[symmetry\].
Real states in non-gyrotropic photonic crystals {#Max_Schroedinger:physical_states}
-----------------------------------------------
Very often the initial states of interest are *real* electromagnetic waves $(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H}) = C (\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H})$. By definition Zak transforms of such functions are “real” with respect to $C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} = {\mathcal{Z}}\, C \, {\mathcal{Z}}^{-1}$, [i. e. ]{} $$\begin{aligned}
C (\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H}) = (\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H})
\; \; \Leftrightarrow \; \;
C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \, {\mathcal{Z}}(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H}) = {\mathcal{Z}}(\mathbf{E},\mathbf{H})
. \end{aligned}$$ The action of $C^{{\mathcal{Z}}}$ given by is no longer just pointwise complex conjugation, and to avoid confusion we call functions $\psi(k)$ in Bloch-Floquet-Zak representation *Real* if $(C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \psi)(k) = \overline{\psi(-k)} = \psi(k)$. This is also consistent with the terminology used in the theory of Real vector bundles [@Atiyah:K_theory_reality:1966; @DeNittis_Gomi:AI_bundles:2014].
Let us focus on states that are localized in a narrow frequency range, [i. e. ]{}states associated to a family of Bloch bands which do not cross or merge with other bands. In the simplest case, we only need to consider a single, non-degenerate bands $\omega_+ > 0$ and its symmetric twin $\omega_-(k) = - \omega_+(-k)$ whose Bloch functions $\varphi_-(k) = \bigl ( C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_+ \bigr )(k) = \overline{\varphi_+(-k)}$ are related by complex conjugation. Then the two Real solutions $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{{\mathrm{Re} \,}}(k) &= \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, \bigl ( \varphi_+(k) + \varphi_-(k) \bigr )
\\
\psi_{{\mathrm{Im} \,}}(k) &= \tfrac{1}{{\mathrm{i}}\, \sqrt{2}} \, \bigl ( \varphi_+(k) - \varphi_-(k) \bigr )\end{aligned}$$ are Real and Imaginary part of $\varphi_+$; if we introduce the Real part operator ${\mathrm{Re} \,}^{{\mathcal{Z}}} = \tfrac{1}{2} \bigl ( 1 + C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \bigr )$ and the Imaginary part operator ${\mathrm{Im} \,}^{{\mathcal{Z}}} = \tfrac{1}{{\mathrm{i}}\, 2} \bigl ( 1 - C^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \bigr )$, then we can succinctly write $\psi_{{\mathrm{Re} \,}} = \sqrt{2} \, {\mathrm{Re} \,}^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_+$ and $\psi_{{\mathrm{Im} \,}} = \sqrt{2} \, {\mathrm{Im} \,}^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_+$. Real states associated to the band $\omega_+$ are *real* linear combinations of $\psi_{{\mathrm{Re} \,}}$ and $\psi_{{\mathrm{Im} \,}}$, and these real linear combinations always depend on both, $\varphi_+$ *and* $\varphi_-$. Hence, finding effective dynamics for real states is a *multi*-band problem, one which is still unsolved.
Two- vs[.]{} three-dimensional PhCs {#Max_Schroedinger:2d_vs_3d}
-----------------------------------
All of our arguments generalize to two-dimensional PhCs as the $2d$ Maxwell operator is a restriction of . Thus, also in two dimensions $C$ is a particle-hole symmetry and frequency bands on the two-dimensional Brillouin zone come in conjugate pairs.
To make our arguments self-contained, let us sketch a derivation (see also [@Kuchment:math_photonic_crystals:2001 Chapter 7.2.5] for the isotropic case): suppose the material weights $w = ({\varepsilon},\mu)$ are of both of the form $$\begin{aligned}
w &= \left (
\begin{matrix}
w_1 & u + {\mathrm{i}}\, v & 0 \\
u + {\mathrm{i}}\, v & w_2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & w_3 \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
= \left (
\begin{matrix}
\tilde{w} & 0 \\
0 & w_3 \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
\label{Max_Schroedinger:eqn:2d_weights}\end{aligned}$$ [i. e. ]{}they factor into two blocks. As a consequence the fields in the $x_1 x_2$-plane and along the $x_3$-direction are orthogonal, [e. g. ]{} $$\begin{aligned}
{\left \langle (E_1,E_2,0) , {\varepsilon}(0,0,E_3) \right \rangle} = 0
, \end{aligned}$$ and similarly for the magnetic field. Moreover, electric fields of the form $(E_1,E_2,0)$ drive the dynamics for the magnetic field only along the $x_3$-direction, $\partial_t \mathbf{H} = - \mu^{-1} \, \nabla \times \mathbf{E} = \bigl ( 0,0,\partial_t H_3 \bigr )$. Hence, if we start with a *transverse electric* (TE) mode $\bigl ( (E_1,E_2,0) , (0 , 0 , H_3) \bigr )$, the time-evolved state will be of the same form. One can repeat the same arguments for *transverse magnetic* (TM) modes $\bigl ( (0,0,E_3) , (H_1,H_2,0) \bigr )$.
Now let us impose a second assumption on the material weights, namely that they are independent of $x_3$. Then we can make a product ansatz $\Psi(x_1,x_2,x_3) = \Phi(x_1,x_2) \, {\mathrm{e}}^{+ {\mathrm{i}}k_3 \, x_3}$ for the electromagnetic fields where the component depending on $x_3$ is just a plane wave. The $2d$ Maxwell operator emerges after choosing $k_3 = 0$ (meaning the fields are independent of $x_3$), [i. e. ]{} $$\begin{aligned}
M_{w,2d} = \left (
\begin{matrix}
0 & + {\mathrm{i}}\, {\varepsilon}^{-1} \, (\partial_1,\partial_2,0)^{\times} \\
- {\mathrm{i}}\, \mu^{-1} \, (\partial_1,\partial_2,0)^{\times} & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right )\end{aligned}$$ where $(\partial_1,\partial_2,0)^{\times} \mathbf{E} = (\partial_1,\partial_2,0) \times \mathbf{E}$. Electromagnetic fields of finite energy are now elements of $L^2_w({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{C}}^6)$ with a weighted scalar product defined analogously to .
The block structure of the material weights leads to a block decomposition of the Maxwell operator $M_{w,2d} = M_{\mathrm{TE}} \oplus M_{\mathrm{TM}}$ induced by splitting electromagnetic fields into TE and TM modes, $$\begin{aligned}
L^2_w({\mathbb{R}}^2,{\mathbb{C}}^6) = L^2_{\mathrm{TE}} \oplus L^2_{\mathrm{TM}}
. \end{aligned}$$ These two operators can be compactly written as $3 \times 3$-matrix-valued operators, [e. g. ]{} $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\mathrm{TE}} &= \left (
\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 &
\multirow{2}{*}{$+ {\mathrm{i}}\, \tilde{{\varepsilon}}^{-1} \left (
\begin{matrix}
+ \partial_2 \\
- \partial_1 \\
\end{matrix}
\right )$}
\\
0 & 0 & \\
+ {\mathrm{i}}\, \mu_3^{-1} \, \partial_2 & - {\mathrm{i}}\, \mu_3^{-1} \, \partial_1 & 0 \\
\end{matrix}
\right )\end{aligned}$$ is the form of the Maxwell operator for TE modes $(E_1,E_2,H_3)$. This block structure also means that TE and TM components are independent, [e. g. ]{}one can compute their (two-dimensional) frequency bands and Bloch functions separately. Given that we have derived the $2d$ Maxwell operator from the full, three-dimensional Maxwell equations, $M_{w,2d}$ inherits properties such as the particle hole-type symmetry. Consequently, also $2d$ frequency bands and Bloch functions come as conjugate pairs. And while the particle hole-type symmetry does not force single bands to be topologically trivial (the Chern number associated to $\varphi_n$ need not be zero), real and imaginary part of $\varphi_n$ are. From the viewpoint of topological insulators this is not surprising: the $2d$ Maxwell operator is of class D in the Altland-Zirnbauer classification scheme, so one expects to find a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-valued topological index.
First- vs[.]{} second-order formalism {#first_vs_second_order}
=====================================
Most of the time, at least implicitly, the second-order equation $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl ( \partial_t^2 + M_w^2 \bigr ) \Psi = 0
\label{first_vs_second_order:eqn:Maxwell_wave}\end{aligned}$$ is considered instead of . From a practical point of view, this has a number of advantages, most importantly, electric and magnetic components decouple and one obtains two second-order PDEs. And only one of the two equations needs to be solved. Moreover, in two dimensions this leads to two *scalar* equations, one for the TM and another for the TE modes. These simplifications allow for a more efficient treatment. Clearly, for non-gyrotropic materials where $M_w = M_{\overline{w}}$, complex conjugation leaves invariant.
The eigenvalue problem that is usually solved in other works reads $$\begin{aligned}
M_w(k)^2 \varphi_n(k) = \bigl ( \lambda_n(k) \bigr )^2 \, \varphi_n(k) \end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_n(k) = {\lvert \omega_n(k) \vert}$ is taken to be positive. This eigenvalue problem is subtly different from , because the information whether the Bloch wave is outgoing ($\omega_n > 0$) or incoming ($\omega_n < 0$) is discarded.
The information contained in the sign of $\omega_n$ is critical when one wants to reconstruct solutions to the *dynamical* problem. The similarity of to the wave equation suggests to rewrite it as $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl ( \partial_t + {\mathrm{i}}M_w(k) \bigr ) \, \bigl ( \partial_t - {\mathrm{i}}M_w(k) \bigr ) \Psi
= 0 \end{aligned}$$ in Bloch-Floquet-Zak representation, and we see that any solution of the second-order equation has to be a linear combination of an outgoing and an incoming wave.
But even if one is not interested in the dynamical problem, the loss of information by discarding the sign of $\omega_n$ also affects the analysis of the frequency band spectrum, topological quantities and effective models. Primarily there are two types of situations which are the starting point for further research, namely (i) isolated bands and (ii) band crossings (especially conical crossings). Or put another way, what matters are the locations of band crossings and degeneracies. If we take the absolute value of the spectrum of our fictitious Maxwell operator from Figure \[Max\_Schroedinger:fig:band\_spectrum\], the much more convoluted frequency band picture of Figure \[first\_vs\_second\_order:fig:abs\_band\_spectrum\] emerges. Compared to the signed band spectrum, many *artificial* band crossings appear (the points $X_j$ and $Y_j$). These artificial crossings will have no interesting physical effects associated to them because these bands are in fact decoupled from one another ([e. g. ]{}bands $n_{\pm 2}$ intersects with bands $n_{\pm 4}$ in Figure \[first\_vs\_second\_order:fig:abs\_band\_spectrum\]).
The presence of symmetries such as $C$ or $T$ necessarily generates degeneracies in the ${\left \lvert \omega \right \rvert}$ spectrum, because each of these symmetries lead to symmetric pairings of bands. While in PhCs with $C$-symmetry the pairing $\omega_n(k) \leftrightarrow - \omega_n(-k)$ leads to a degeneracy only at $k = 0$ in the ${\left \lvert \omega \right \rvert}$ band picture, frequency bands of PhCs with $T$-symmetry have even degeneracy everywhere, because of $\omega_n(k) \leftrightarrow - \omega_n(k)$. Put another way, if the PhC has $C$- or $T$-symmetry, then *there are no isolated non-degenerate bands in the second-order formalism* – even if they are isolated in the first-order formalism. In case symmetries are absent and there is no relation between the positive and negative frequency spectrum, but nevertheless folding up the negative-frequency part still creates artificial band crossings.
The absence of isolated bands in the second-order framework for the most common classes of PhCs, [i. e. ]{}those with $C$- or $T$-symmetry, also makes a derivation of correct ray optics equations more difficult. Indeed, recovering the sign of the frequency band $\omega_n(k)$ is not just important for checking whether $\omega_n(k)$ is indeed isolated and all band crossings are artificial. The sign of $\omega_n$ is crucial when solving ray optics equations such as [@Raghu_Haldane:quantum_Hall_effect_photonic_crystals:2008 eqns. (42)–(43)] or [@DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013 eqn. (45)] (see also [@Onoda_Murakami_Nagaosa:geometrics_optical_wave-packets:2006; @Esposito_Gerace:photonic_crystals_broken_TR_symmetry:2013]): in case $\omega_n(k) < 0$ the ray optics flows associated to $\omega_n(k)$ and ${\lvert \omega_n(k) \vert}$ will be qualitatively different from one another.
A distinction between artificial and proper band crossings also enters when one wants to discuss conical intersection and avoided conical crossings using, say, graphene-type models [@Onoda_Murakami_Nagaosa:topological_nature_polarization:2004; @Raghu_Haldane:quantum_Hall_effect_photonic_crystals:2008; @Ochiai_Onoda:edge_states_photonic_graphene:2009; @DeNittis_Lein:piezo_graphene:2013]. These graphene-type models encapsulate two interesting features: first of all, there is a link between symmetry breaking and the opening of a gap, and secondly, the existence of topologically non-trivial phases [@Hasegawa_Kohmoto:quantum_Hall_effect_graphene:2006; @Ochiai_Onoda:edge_states_photonic_graphene:2009]. Artificial band crossings will behave very differently (the points $X_j$ and $Y_j$) from proper band crossings (the points $A_j$ and $B_j$) under symmetry breaking: artificial band crossings will persist while for proper ones gaps may open.
Even if the spectral information can somehow be reconstructed, labeling bands in this fashion *artificially alters the topology of the Bloch bands*. Given that topological terms also enter into the *dynamical* equations, [e. g. ]{}the Berry curvature appears in the ray optics equations, labeling bands properly is crucial. Moreover, we note that one needs the magnetic *and* electric component in order to compute Chern numbers; in the single-band case where $c_1 = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb{B}} {\mathrm{d}}k \, \Omega_n(k)$ the right-hand side is guaranteed to be an integer only if one takes $\Omega_n(k)$ to be the rotation of $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A}_n(k) = \int {\mathrm{d}}y \, \varphi_n^E(k,y) \cdot {\varepsilon}(y) \varphi_n^E(k,y) + \int {\mathrm{d}}y \, \varphi_n^H(k,y) \cdot \mu(y) \varphi_n^H(k,y)\end{aligned}$$ rather than the rotation of the first or second term of $\mathcal{A}_n$ only.
Finally, a correct identification of the nature of symmetries for the purpose of CAZ classification is not possible in the second-order framework, because the action of many symmetries becomes trivial when considering $M_w^2$ instead. More on that below.
The CAZ classification of Maxwell operators {#symmetry}
===========================================
The first-order Schrödinger-type formalism presented in Section \[Max\_Schroedinger\] allows one to systematically adapt tools developed for analyzing topological phases of quantum systems. Concretely, we apply the Cartan-Altland-Zirnbauer (CAZ) classification scheme [@Altland_Zirnbauer:superconductors_symmetries:1997; @Schnyder_Ryu_Furusaki_Ludwig:classification_topological_insulators:2008] to PhCs. Similarly to crystalline solids, PhCs can be classified using the CAZ classification scheme; this gives rise to different classes of “photonic topological insulators” [@Khanikaev_et_al:photonic_topological_insulators:2013; @Rechtsman_Zeuner_et_al:photonic_topological_insulators:2013; @Lin_et_al:topological_photonic_states:2014] which are characterized by different topological invariants. The aim of this section is to identify for the first time the CAZ classes of PhCs and their topological invariants.
To include more general linear and lossless media, we now consider Maxwell operators $M_w = W \, {\mathrm{Rot}}$ with material weights of the form $$\begin{aligned}
W^{-1} = \left (
\begin{matrix}
{\varepsilon}& \chi \\
\chi^* & \mu \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
\label{symmetry:eqn:W_with_chi}\end{aligned}$$ such that $W^{-1}$ is bounded, invertible and has a bounded inverse $W$. The assumption that the material is lossless is equivalent to $W = W^*$. Material weights of this form have been discussed in the physics literature (see [e. g. ]{}[@Padilla:group_theory_metamaterials:2007; @Lin_et_al:topological_photonic_states:2014]).
The starting point of a CAZ classification is the choice of one or two symmetry operators, one unitary and/or one antiunitary which have to square to $\pm {\mathrm{id}}$. These are symmetries of the free Maxwell operator ${\mathrm{Rot}}$, and the question arises for which material weights these symmetries persist?
Classification via $C$ and $T$ {#symmetry:classification}
------------------------------
Our discussion in Sections \[Max\_Schroedinger:PH\_symmetry\]–\[Max\_Schroedinger:time-reversal\] suggests to use the antiunitary $C$ and the unitary $T$; we will also need their product $J = T \, C$. All of these operators square to $+ {\mathrm{id}}$ and are indeed symmetries of the free Maxwell operator, $$\begin{aligned}
C \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, C &= - {\mathrm{Rot}},
\\
T \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, T &= - {\mathrm{Rot}},
\\
J \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, J &= + {\mathrm{Rot}}. \end{aligned}$$ Because the CAZ scheme was initially developed for quantum problems, the CAZ designations of $C$ as a “particle-hole symmetry”, of $T$ as a “chiral symmetry” and of $J$ as a “time-reversal symmetry” do not match the terminology of electromagnetism ([cf. ]{}Table \[symmetry:table:meaning\_symmetries\]).
**Symmetry** **Linear/antilinear** **Parity** **CAZ designation** **Physical meaning**
-------------- ----------------------- ------------ ------------------------ -------------------------
$C$ antilinear $+$ particle-hole symmetry real fields remain real
$T$ linear $+$ chiral symmetry time-reversal
$J = T C$ antilinear $+$ time-reversal symmetry
: The CAZ classification holds for arbitrary operators, but the names are derived from the quantum world. Hence, the CAZ monikers of $T$, $C$ and $J$ do not match with their physical interpretations. []{data-label="symmetry:table:meaning_symmetries"}
Seeing as the Maxwell operator is a product of $W$ and ${\mathrm{Rot}}$, the presence or absence of symmetries solely depends on the material weights, [i. e. ]{}whether $$\begin{aligned}
U \, W \, U^* = + W \end{aligned}$$ where $U$ stands for $C$, $T$ or $J$. (We will discuss the case where symmetry operators *anti*commute with $W$ below.)
Because $U$ is either unitary or antiunitary, $U \, W \, U^* = \pm W$ is in fact equivalent to $U \, W^{-1} \, U^* = \pm W^{-1}$, and we will give conditions on the constituents of $W^{-1}$, namely ${\varepsilon}$, $\mu$ and $\chi$, which derive from the presence of a symmetry. A series of simple, back-of-the-envelope computations then gives rise to Table \[symmetry:table:symmetry\_classes\]; note that $\chi = {\mathbb{C}}$, for instance, is short-hand for (i) $\chi \neq 0$ and (ii) ${\mathrm{Im} \,}\chi \neq 0$ for otherwise the Maxwell operator is in a different symmetry class. This way, 5 out of 10 CAZ classes can be realized with PhCs; At least 4 have been considered in physics literature.
---------- ------ ---------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*none* A ${\mathbb{C}}$ ${\mathbb{C}}$ [@Lin_et_al:topological_photonic_states:2014]
$J$ AI ${\mathbb{R}}$ ${\mathrm{i}}{\mathbb{R}}$ [@Khanikaev_et_al:photonic_topological_insulators:2013]
$T$ AIII ${\mathbb{C}}$ $0$ [@Raghu_Haldane:quantum_Hall_effect_photonic_crystals:2008; @Lu_Fu_Joannopoulos_Soljacic:Weyl_points_gyroid_PhCs:2013; @Esposito_Gerace:photonic_crystals_broken_TR_symmetry:2013]
$C$ D ${\mathbb{R}}$ ${\mathbb{R}}$ unknown
$T$, $C$ BDI ${\mathbb{R}}$ $0$ [@Ochiai_Onoda:edge_states_photonic_graphene:2009]
---------- ------ ---------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Cartan-Altland-Zirnbauer (CAZ) classification of Maxwell operators using $C$, $T$ and $J = T \, C$. The columns labeled ${\varepsilon}$, $\mu$ and $\chi$ indicate whether these matrix-valued functions are complex, real, purely imaginary or zero; note that $\chi = {\mathrm{i}}{\mathbb{R}}$, for instance, also implies $\chi \neq 0$. []{data-label="symmetry:table:symmetry_classes"}
Extended classification and other symmetries {#symmetries:alternative_classification}
--------------------------------------------
Due to its Dirac form the free Maxwell operator ${\mathrm{Rot}}= - \sigma_2 \otimes \nabla^{\times}$ has many more symmetries than just $C$ and $T$, so the question arises whether $C$, $T$ and $J = T \, C$ are the only *physically relevant* operators for a classification of Maxwell operators. Three ways to extend the classification scheme come to mind:
(1) Instead of requiring $U \, W \, U^* = + W$ for some discrete symmetry $U$, we can ask for $U \, W \, U^* = - W$.
(2) Replace $T = T_3 = \sigma_3 \otimes {\mathrm{id}}$ with $T_j = \sigma_j \otimes {\mathrm{id}}$ for $j = 1 , 2$. Here, $T_j \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, T_j = - {\mathrm{Rot}}$ for $j = 1 , 3$ and $T_2 \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, T_2 = + {\mathrm{Rot}}$. Similarly, we set $J_j = T_j \, C$ for the third symmetry. Note that $J_2$ is the only odd symmetry, $J_2^2 = - {\mathrm{id}}$, while all others are even.
(3) One can include parity $(P \Psi)(x) = \Psi(-x)$ as an even symmetry.
Even though mathematically speaking, these symmetry conditions are equally valid, it is not clear whether they are equally *mathematically* or *physically significant*.
From a mathematical perspective *linear* symmetry operators which *commute* with the Maxwell operator are irrelevant for the CAZ classification. For instance, if $T_2 = \sigma_2 \otimes {\mathrm{id}}$ commutes with $W$, then also $T_2 \, M_w \, T_2^* = + M_w$ holds. Moreover, *linear* symmetries $U$ need to intertwine Maxwell operators for the *same* value of $k$, [i. e. ]{}$U \, M_w(k) \, U^* = \pm M_w(k)$, whereas *antilinear* symmetries $V$ have to *flip the sign*, $V \, M_w(k) \, V^* = \pm M_w(-k)$. That is also why parity does not play a role in the CAZ classification: even though $P$ is linear, we have $P \, {\mathrm{Rot}}(k) \, P = - {\mathrm{Rot}}(-k)$ for the free Maxwell operator.
We have worked out all different combinations of symmetries for the different choices of sign in Appendix \[appendix:tabulated\_symmetries\] and arranged the different realizations of the symmetry classes in Table \[symmetries:table:all\_symmetry\_classes\]. To get a flavor let us work out the consequences of two alternate symmetry conditions:
[c | Q | Q | Q ]{} & [1]{} & [2]{} & [3]{}\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
& & &\
#### $T_1 \, W \, T_1 = + W$ {#symmetries:alternative_classification:T_1_C}
Here, we have replaced $T_3$ by $T_1$ but kept the sign, and a quick computation shows $$\begin{aligned}
T_1 \, W \, T_1 = + W
\; \; \Leftrightarrow \; \;
{\varepsilon}= \mu
, \;
\chi = \chi^*
. \end{aligned}$$ Such a symmetry is not of purely academic interest as a PhC for microwaves with yttrium-iron-garnet (YIG) rods subjected to a magnetic field in a square lattice geometry realizes complex ${\varepsilon}= \mu$ and $\chi = 0$ [@Pozar:microwave_engineering:1998; @Wang_et_al:edge_modes_photonic_crystal:2008]. In addition, this system has time-reversal symmetry ($W$ commutes with $T = T_3$). However, the additional $T_1$-symmetry does not change the CAZ class: both, $T_1$ and $T_3$ are linear, so only one of them is relevant for the CAZ classification. And in both cases, the corresponding Maxwell operator $M_w$ is in CAZ class AIII ([cf. ]{}Table \[symmetries:table:all\_symmetry\_classes\]).
Several other works [@Marques_et_al:bianisotropy_negative_permeability:2002; @Khanikaev_et_al:photonic_topological_insulators:2013] also consider PhCs made up of split ring resonators with ${\varepsilon}= \mu = {\mathrm{Re} \,}{\varepsilon}$ and $\chi = {\mathrm{Im} \,}\chi = \chi^*$. The associated Maxwell operator $M_w$ is then of class CI: in addition to the symmetry $J_3$ (${\varepsilon}$, $\mu$ real and $\chi = {\mathrm{Im} \,}\chi$), also $T_1$ (${\varepsilon}= \mu$, $\chi = \chi^*$) and $J_2 \propto T_1 \, J_3$ are present. Hence, we identify $T_1$ as a chiral symmetry, $J_3$ as an even time-reversal symmetry and $J_2$ as an odd particle-hole symmetry, and we read off CAZ class CI from Table \[symmetries:table:all\_symmetry\_classes\].
#### $C \, W \, C = - W$ {#symmetries:alternative_classification:C_minus}
If one wants $C$ to act as a “time-reversal symmetry” in CAZ parlance, then $$\begin{aligned}
C \, W \, C = - W
\; \; \Leftrightarrow \; \;
\overline{{\varepsilon}} = - {\varepsilon}, \;
\overline{\mu} = - \mu
, \;
\overline{\chi} = - \chi
, \end{aligned}$$ is one way to ensure $C \, M_w \, C = + M_w$. However, combining the fact that the constituents of $W$ are purely imaginary with $W^* = W$ yields that the diagonal entries of the tensors ${\varepsilon}^{-1}$ and $\mu^{-1}$ vanish identically. Apart from an *approximate* realization by making the purely imaginary offdiagonal entries of $W$ much larger compared to its diagonal entries, we reckon that this symmetry seems to be of purely mathematical interest. Typically the ratio of imaginary and real part of the elements of ${\varepsilon}$ and $\mu$ is very small ($\sim 10^{-3}$), and even in the YIG PhC mentioned above [@Pozar:microwave_engineering:1998; @Wang_et_al:edge_modes_photonic_crystal:2008] it is of order $\sim 1$. Obviously, there are other combinations of symmetries and signs, and while some of them may apply to certain physically-realizable PhCs, it is clear that many just yield physically unrealistic conditions on ${\varepsilon}$, $\mu$ and $\chi$.
Topological triviality of frequency bands and Chern numbers {#symmetry:topological_triviality}
-----------------------------------------------------------
We now explore the link between the CAZ classification and topological photonic insulator that are characterized by topological invariants. More specifically, the CAZ class of a Maxwell operator determines which topological invariants can – and which cannot – arise.
\[1\][>p[\#1]{}]{}
[c | c | C[1.4cm]{} | C[1.4cm]{} | C[1.4cm]{} | C[1.4cm]{} ]{} & &\
& & $d = 1$ & $d = 2$ & $d = 3$ & $d = 4$\
*none* & A & $0$ & ${\mathbb{Z}}$ & $({\mathbb{Z}}^3)$ & ${\mathbb{Z}}\oplus({\mathbb{Z}}^6)$\
$J \equiv + \mathrm{TR}$ & AI & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & ${\mathbb{Z}}$\
$T \equiv \chi$ & AIII & ${\mathbb{Z}}$ & $({\mathbb{Z}}^2)$ & ${\mathbb{Z}}\oplus({\mathbb{Z}}^3)$ & (${\mathbb{Z}}^8$)\
$C \equiv + \mathrm{PH}$ & D & ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ & $({\mathbb{Z}}_2^2) \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}$ & (${\mathbb{Z}}_2^3 \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}^3$) & (${\mathbb{Z}}_2^4 \oplus {\mathbb{Z}}^6$)\
$T \equiv \chi$, $C \equiv + \mathrm{PH}$ & BDI & ${\mathbb{Z}}$ & $({\mathbb{Z}}^2)$ & $({\mathbb{Z}}^3)$ & $({\mathbb{Z}}^4)$\
$J_2 \equiv - \mathrm{PH}$, $J_3 \equiv + \mathrm{TR}$ & CI & $0$ & $0$ & ${\mathbb{Z}}$ & $({\mathbb{Z}}^4)$\
To frame the discussion, let us sketch the argument why the first Chern class, the best-known example of topological invariants, vanish for quantum Hamiltonians with time-reversal symmetry. And then we will show why this argument *fails* for Maxwell operators.
Suppose we are given a contiguous family of energy bands $\sigma_{\mathrm{rel}}(k) = \bigcup_{n \in \mathcal{I}} \{ E_n(k) \}$ indexed by $\mathcal{I} = \{ n_{\min} , \ldots , n_{\max} \}$ that is separated from all others by a gap, [e. g. ]{}the yellow ($\pm n_2$) or the violet bands ($\pm n_3$) in Figure \[Max\_Schroedinger:fig:band\_spectrum\]. Then the Chern numbers are associated to the family of Bloch functions or, equivalently, to the projection onto the corresponding eigenspaces, $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(k) = \sum_{n \in \mathcal{I}} {\vert \varphi_n(k) \rangle \langle \varphi_n(k) \vert}
= \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2 \pi} \int_{\gamma(k)} {\mathrm{d}}z \, \bigl ( H(k) - z \bigr )^{-1}
,
\label{symmetry:eqn:projection}\end{aligned}$$ which can either be expressed as a sum of rank-$1$ projections or as a Cauchy integral where the contour $\gamma(k)$ encloses only $\sigma_{\mathrm{rel}}(k)$.
Now if there exists an antiunitary operator $C$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
C \, \pi(k) \, C = \pi(-k)
\label{symmetry:eqn:symmetry_projection}\end{aligned}$$ holds, then it is well-known that the associated first Chern class vanishes \[cite\]. In the Schrödinger case where $C$ is complex conjugation and $C \, H(k) \, C = H(-k)$, equation holds true: conjugating the projection with $C$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
C \, \pi(k) \, C &= - \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2 \pi} \int_{\overline{\gamma(k)}} {\mathrm{d}}z \, \bigl ( C \, H(k) \, C - \bar{z} \bigr )^{-1}
\notag \\
&= \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2 \pi} \int_{\gamma(k)} {\mathrm{d}}z \, \bigl ( H(-k) - z \bigr )^{-1}
= \pi(-k)
,
\label{symmetry:eqn:symmetry_projection_H_k}\end{aligned}$$ because $C \, H(k) \, C = H(-k)$ implies $\sigma_{\mathrm{rel}}(-k) = \sigma_{\mathrm{rel}}(k)$ is enclosed by $\gamma(k)$. Hence, the first Chern numbers associated to $\sigma_{\mathrm{rel}}(k)$ vanish.
Despite claims in the physics literature, this argument does not carry over to the Maxwell operator, because the right-hand side of $C \, M_w(k) \, C = - M_w(-k)$ contains an additional minus sign if the material weights are real ($M_w$ is of CAZ class D or BDI). Here, we see that the first-order Schrödinger-type formalism of electrodynamics and a correct identification of the nature of $C$ is crucial. Misidentifying complex conjugation as a “time-reversal symmetry” is false, both on physical grounds and in the context of the CAZ classification (see Table \[symmetry:table:meaning\_symmetries\]).
However, a quick peak at Table \[symmetry:table:symmetry\_classes\] reveals that for Maxwell operators of class AI and BDI $$\begin{aligned}
J \, M_w(k) \, J = + M_w(-k)\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied, and consequently, the above argument for Schrödinger operators holds verbatim after replacing $C$ with the correct “time-reversal symmetry” $J$ and $H(k)$ with $M_w(k)$.
There is another class of Maxwell operators, where topological effects due to non-zero Chern classes are also absent, namely those of class D ($C$-symmetry present but $T$-symmetry broken). This is for a less obvious reason: here, frequency bands come in pairs, and one always needs to take symmetrically related pairs in order to be able to form Real initial states ([cf. ]{}discussion in Section \[Max\_Schroedinger:physical\_states\]). So let us pick a contiguous, separated family of positive frequency bands $\sigma_+(k) = \bigcup_{n \in \mathcal{I}} \bigl \{ \omega_n(k) \bigr \}$, and define the collection of symmetrically related bands $\sigma_-(k) = \bigcup_{n \in \mathcal{I}} \bigl \{ - \omega_n(-k) \bigr \}$ as well as the associated projections $\pi_{\pm}(k)$. Then instead of a modification of the arguments in equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
C \, \pi_+(k) \, C = \pi_-(-k)
,
\label{symmetry:eqn:symmetry_projection_M_k}\end{aligned}$$ from which we deduce that the Chern numbers of $\pi_{\pm}$ are equal in magnitude, but are of opposite sign [@DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013 Remark 4]. However, there are a few projections which do have trivial Chern numbers, for instance, holds for $\pi(k) = \pi_+(k) + \pi_-(k)$. Also the projections ${\vert \psi_{{\mathrm{Re} \,}}(k) \rangle \langle \psi_{{\mathrm{Re} \,}}(k) \vert}$ and ${\vert \psi_{{\mathrm{Im} \,}}(k) \rangle \langle \psi_{{\mathrm{Im} \,}}(k) \vert}$ onto ${\mathrm{Re} \,}^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_n$ and ${\mathrm{Im} \,}^{{\mathcal{Z}}} \varphi_n$ satisfy by construction, and thus, *Chern numbers associated to real states vanish.* This explains the absence of topological effects in non-gyrotropic PhCs.
Chern numbers are but one example of topological invariants, and depending on the CAZ class there may be others. To see that, we note that any projection $\pi(k)$ of the form defines a vector bundle, the so-called *Bloch bundle* (see [e. g. ]{}[@DeNittis_Lein:exponentially_loc_Wannier:2011 Section ]), whose structure can be analyzed with standard tools of the trade such as $K$-theory. For each CAZ class it is the *reduced $K$-group* which identifies the form of the topological invariants; the reduced $K$-groups for the CAZ classification from Section \[symmetry:classification\] has been tabulated in Table \[symmetry:table:K\_groups\].
Note that $K$-theory gives no clue how to *compute* topological invariants. Nevertheless, Table \[symmetry:table:K\_groups\] tells us *which* symmetries need to be broken if one wants to find ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ topological invariants (only class D does); we expect this to be significant for a first-principles derivation of the bulk-edge correspondence for PhCs.
The Maxwell-Harper approximation for non-gyrotropic PhCs {#Maxwell_Harper}
========================================================
Usually, the frequency bands and Bloch functions are only obtainable numerically for given choices of ${\varepsilon}$ and $\mu$, and one way to better understand some aspects of light dynamics is to look for simpler model operators which are more amenable to analysis but retain certain features of the full operator. In solid state physics, one such operator is the Harper operator [@Hofstadter:Bloch_electron_magnetic_fields:1976], and the purpose of this section is to motivate a photonic analog.
Let us consider PhCs of class D or BDI ([i. e. ]{}$C$ is a symmetry of $M_w$). As argued in Sections \[Max\_Schroedinger:physical\_states\] and \[symmetry:topological\_triviality\] as well as [@DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013 Section 5], if one wants to understand *real* electromagnetic fields, then the *simplest* model for a PhC necessarily includes two symmetrically related bands. Suppose, for instance, that $M_w$ is of class D, then according to Table \[symmetry:table:K\_groups\] we expect topological effects may still play a role (there are ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-invariants) even if the total Chern class of symmetrically chosen bands vanishes.
If the periodic structure is perturbed on the macroscopic level, [i. e. ]{}we replace the periodic material weights $w = ({\varepsilon},\mu)$ by $w(\lambda) = ({\varepsilon}_{\lambda} , \mu_{\lambda})$ where these perturbed material weights $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}_{\lambda}(x) &= \tau_{{\varepsilon}}^{-2}(\lambda x) \, {\varepsilon}(x)
,
\\
\mu_{\lambda}(x) &= \tau_{\mu}^{-2}(\lambda x) \, \mu(x)
, \end{aligned}$$ are modulated by bounded, strictly positive functions $\tau_{{\varepsilon}}$ and $\tau_{\mu}$ whose inverses are also bounded. This type of perturbation has been studied theoretically [@Raghu_Haldane:quantum_Hall_effect_photonic_crystals:2008; @Esposito_Gerace:photonic_crystals_broken_TR_symmetry:2013; @DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013] and models effects such as uneven thermal [@Duendar_et_al:optothermal_tuning_photonic_crystals:2011; @van_Driel_et_al:tunable_2d_photonic_crystals:2004] or uneven strain tuning [@Wong_et_al:strain_tunable_photonic_crystals:2004].
Quite naturally, the first task in the study of the perturbed Maxwell operator $M_{\lambda} = M_{w(\lambda)}$ is to derive *effective dynamics*, [i. e. ]{}to relate the perturbed to the unperturbed dynamics if one knows something about the initial states. Here, the states one considers are associated to a *relevant family of frequency bands* which is separated by a local gap from the others to prevent band transition. For instance, the bands $\bigl \{ \omega_{n_2}(k) , \omega_{n_{-2}}(k) \bigr \}$ or $\bigl \{ \omega_{n_3}(k) , \omega_{n_4}(k) \bigr \}$. However, we do allow band intersections within the family of relevant bands.
For the Bloch electron, the analogous situation in quantum mechanics, this is a very well-studied problem [@Panati_Spohn_Teufel:sapt_PRL:2002]. One type of effective dynamics are *semiclassical dynamics*: here, the band energy enters the Hamilton function, but the dynamical equations also contain a topological contribution in the form of the Berry curvature which acts as a pseudomagnetic field. Such semiclassical equations of motion, *ray optics equations*, have been proposed for PhCs by Raghu and Haldane [@Raghu_Haldane:quantum_Hall_effect_photonic_crystals:2008] and derived in [@Onoda_Murakami_Nagaosa:geometrics_optical_wave-packets:2006; @Esposito_Gerace:photonic_crystals_broken_TR_symmetry:2013]. However, Real states can never be supported by single frequency bands so even in the simplest physically relevant situation, one has to work with a conjugate pair of bands $\bigl \{ \omega_{\pm}(k) \bigr \} = \bigl \{ \omega(k) , - \omega(-k) \bigr \}$. Then the single-band effective dynamics needs to be augmented by an analysis of an interband term ([cf. ]{}the discussion in Section 6 of [@DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013]).
So instead, let us pursue a different, complementary strategy to find effective dynamics in the twin-band case: here, one approximates ${\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_{\lambda}}$ on the subspace ${\mathrm{ran} \, }\Pi_{\lambda}$ defined in terms of the *superadiabatic projection* $\Pi_{\lambda} = \Pi_0 + {\mathcal{O}}(\lambda)$ [@Nenciu:effective_dynamics_Bloch:1991; @Panati_Spohn_Teufel:sapt_PRL:2002]. The leading-order term $\Pi_0$ is unitarily equivalent to the family of the projections $\sum_{j = \pm} {\vert \varphi_j(k) \rangle \langle \varphi_j(k) \vert}$ onto the eigenspaces of $\omega_{\pm}$. Effective dynamics now means that there exists an effective Maxwell operator $M_{\mathrm{eff}}$ and a unitary $U_{\lambda}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl ( {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_{\lambda}} - U_{\lambda}^* \; {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}t M_{\mathrm{eff}}} \; U_{\lambda} \Bigr ) \; \Pi_{\lambda} = {\mathcal{O}}(\lambda^n)\end{aligned}$$ holds for some $n$. This scheme has recently been implemented rigorously for photonic crystals [@DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013], and $U_{\lambda}$, $\Pi_{\lambda}$ and $M_{\mathrm{eff}}$ have been constructed order-by-order in $\lambda$ via explicit recursion relations. The role of the unitary $U_{\lambda}$ is to map the problem onto a simpler reference Hilbert space which in this case is $L^2(\mathbb{B}) \otimes {\mathbb{C}}^N$ where $\mathbb{B}$ is the Brillouin zone and in our case $N = 2$ since we are dealing with two non-degenerate bands.
The leading-order of $M_{\mathrm{eff}}$ has been computed in [@DeNittis_Lein:sapt_photonic_crystals:2013] for Bloch bands which individually carry zero Chern charge, and $M_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the “quantization” of $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{eff}}(r,k) = \tau(r) \, \left (
\begin{matrix}
\omega(k) & 0 \\
0 & - \omega(-k) \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
. \end{aligned}$$ This is a matrix-valued function depending on macroscopic position $r$ and crystal momentum $k$, and involves the perturbation via the function $\tau(r) = \tau_{{\varepsilon}}(r) \, \tau_{\mu}(r)$. After replacing $r$ with ${\mathrm{i}}\lambda \nabla_k$ and $k$ with multiplication with $k$, the resulting *Maxwell-Harper operator* $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\mathrm{eff}} = \frac{\tau({\mathrm{i}}\lambda \nabla_k)}{2} \, \left (
\begin{matrix}
\omega(k) & 0 \\
0 & - \omega(-k) \\
\end{matrix}
\right ) + \mbox{h.c.}
\label{Maxwell_Harper:eqn:Maxwell_Harper}\end{aligned}$$ is the analog of *“Peierls substitution”* for PhCs.
One way to further analyze this operator is to assume $\tau$ is periodic on the macroscopic level; for instance, one can think of a finite sample of size $L = \bigl \{ L_1 \, e_1 , L_2 \, e_2 , L_3 \, e_3 \bigr \}$ where the $L_j$ are all positive, large integers, and we impose periodic boundary conditions. This gives rise to a lattice $\Gamma_L$ and a dual lattice $\Gamma_L^*$, and we can expand the modulation $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(r) = \sum_{\gamma^* \in \Gamma_L^*} \hat{\tau}(\gamma^*) \, {\mathrm{e}}^{+ {\mathrm{i}}\gamma^* \cdot r}\end{aligned}$$ and the frequency band function $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(k) &= \sum_{\gamma \in \Gamma} \hat{\omega}(\gamma) \, {\mathrm{e}}^{+ {\mathrm{i}}k \cdot \gamma}\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the Fourier coefficients $\hat{\tau}(\gamma^*)$ and $\hat{\omega}(\gamma)$. The operator $M_{\mathrm{eff}}$ can be expressed algebraically in terms of $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl ( {S}_j \psi \bigr )(k) &= {\mathrm{e}}^{+ {\mathrm{i}}{k}_j} \, \psi(k)
,
\\
\bigl ( {T}_j \psi \bigr )(k) &= \psi \bigl ( k + \tfrac{\lambda}{L_j} \, e_j^{\ast} \bigr )
. \end{aligned}$$ These two unitary operators are shifts in real and reciprocal space which satisfy the following commutation relations: $$\begin{aligned}
{T}_j \, {S}_n= {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{\lambda}{L_n} \delta_{jn}}
\, {S}_n \, {T}_j
\, ,
\qquad
\bigl [ {T}_j , {T}_n \bigr ] = 0 = \bigl [ {S}_j , {S}_n \bigr ]
\, ,
\qquad
j,n = 1,2,3
. \end{aligned}$$ After a Fourier transform which maps $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^3)$ to $\ell^2(\Gamma)$, one obtains a multiband tight-binding model from just as in condensed matter physics. Simplifying assumptions on the Fourier coefficients of $\omega$ and $\tau$ then lead to tight-binding models which can be analyzed efficiently and perhaps even explicitly.
These six operators generate a representation of a six-dimensional non-commutative torus on $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^3)$ [@Varilly_Figueroa_Gracia_Bondia:noncommutative_geometry:2001 Chapter 12]. Let us denote the $C^\ast$-algebra generated by ${S}_j$ and ${T}_j$ on $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^3)$ with $\mathcal{A}^6(\nicefrac{\lambda}{L})$. We have shown that the effective models for the Maxwell dynamics in the twin bands case can be associated with a (diagonal) representative of the non-commutative torus $\mathcal{A}^6(\nicefrac{\lambda}{L}) \otimes \mathrm{Mat}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(2)$. This analogy allows us to apply all the well-known techniques for Harper operators to the Maxwell-Harper operator . For instance, one can expect to recover a Hofstadter’s butterfly-like spectrum [@Hofstadter:Bloch_electron_magnetic_fields:1976] which produces a splitting of the two topologically trivial bands $\omega_{\pm}$ into subbands which can carry a non-trivial topology. We stress that in this case the non-trivial effect is due only to an incommensurability between the perturbation parameter $\lambda$ and the lengths $L_j$ of the macroscopic lattice without any magnetic effect.
The operator is just a particular example of a Maxwell-Harper operator; the fact that it is a *diagonal* element of $\mathcal{A}^6(\nicefrac{\lambda}{L}) \otimes \mathrm{Mat}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(2)$ can be linked to the topological triviality of $\omega_{\pm}$. However, in PhCs the presence of the PH symmetry does not imply the topological triviality of single bands, and the Bloch functions $\varphi_{\pm}(k)$ cannot be used to smoothly diagonalize $M_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Instead, our arguments in Section \[symmetry\] suggest to use Real and Imaginary part $\psi_{{\mathrm{Re} \,}}$ and $\psi_{{\mathrm{Im} \,}}$, and generally one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{eff}}(r,k) = \frac{\tau(r)}{2} \,
\left (
\begin{matrix}
\omega(k)- \omega(-k) & -{\mathrm{i}}\bigl ( \omega(k)+ \omega(-k) \bigr ) \\
{\mathrm{i}}\bigl ( \omega(k)+ \omega(-k) \bigr ) & \omega(k)- \omega(-k) \\
\end{matrix}
\right ) \end{aligned}$$ which after the Peierls substitution produces a non diagonal element of $\mathcal{A}^6(\nicefrac{\lambda}{L}) \otimes \mathrm{Mat}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(2)$.
On the role of complex fields in gyrotropic PhCs {#gyrotropic}
================================================
Our explanation for the absence of topological effects in non-gyrotropic PhCs hinged on the presence of the particle-hole symmetry and the assumption that the electromagnetic wave was purely real. However, the material weights in gyrotropic media are complex (such as is the case in [@Yeh_Chao_Lin:Faraday_effect:1999; @Wang_et_al:edge_modes_photonic_crystal:2008; @Kriegler_Rill_Linden_Wegener:bianisotropic_photonic_metamaterials:2010; @Wu_Levy_Fratello_Merzlikin:gyrotropic_photonic_crystals:2010], for instance), and the Maxwell equations are coupled PDEs with complex coefficients. So even if the initial states are real, the time-evolved fields acquire a non-zero imaginary part. That means a distinction between real and complex electromagnetic fields is only meaningful for PhCs with $C$-symmetry, and to understand PhCs with broken $C$-symmetry, the significance of truly complex electromagnetic fields needs to be explored. This is purely a problem of physics, because mathematically no fundamental obstacles arise in the analysis.
To the best of our knowledge this particular problem has seen very little attention in the literature. The best reference we have been able to track down is [@Bergmann:gyrotropic_Maxwell:1982] which covers the case of constant permittivity and permeability; its arguments extend readily to the present setting, but the author stops short of a complete physical interpretation of the complex nature of the plane wave solutions he gets. In standard textbooks ([e. g. ]{}[@Jackson:electrodynamics:1998]) complex electromagnetic fields are either discussed in the context of systems with friction or as a convenient way to express solutions of the Maxwell equations in terms of complex plane waves rather than $\sin$ and $\cos$. Neither one of these qualifications applies: In systems with friction or amplification, the eigenvalues of ${\varepsilon}(x)$ and $\mu(x)$ need to have non-zero imaginary parts. As long as the material weights are hermitian, the field energy is conserved because the Maxwell operator is selfadjoint.
Essentially, we see two ways to interpret complex electromagnetic waves:
(1) One takes the real part of the complex wave.
(2) One accepts the complex nature of the waves and that only real-valued quantities such as field intensities and the Poynting vector are measured in experiment.
The problem of strategy (1) is the interpretation of the imaginary part: where does the associated field energy go? And more importantly, our arguments from Section \[symmetry\] show the *absence of topological effects* for states of the form ${\mathrm{Re} \,}(\mathbf{E} , \mathbf{H} \bigr ) = C {\mathrm{Re} \,}\bigl (\mathbf{E} , \mathbf{H} \bigr )$. Clearly, this interpretation yields testable hypothesis that are incompatible with experiment (topological effects in PhCs have been observed [@Wang_et_al:edge_modes_photonic_crystal:2008]).
The second interpretation is consistent with experiment, because it allows for topological effects. Electrodynamics in matter is an *effective theory* that is obtained after a suitable coarse graining procedure and holds only for electromagnetic waves whose *in vacuo* wavelength is large compared to the size of the constituents of the PhC ([e. g. ]{}the size of split-ring resonators). So what is really measured in experiment? Observables in this context are *real*-valued functions in the fields such as the *field intensities* ${\bigl \lvert \mathbf{E}(t,x) \bigr \rvert}^2$ and ${\bigl \lvert \mathbf{H}(t,x) \bigr \rvert}^2$, and the *Poynting vector* $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{S} = {\mathrm{Re} \,}\, \overline{\mathbf{E}} \times \mathbf{H}
.
\label{gyrotropic:eqn:Poynting}\end{aligned}$$ The definition of this vector stems from energy conservation ([@Bergmann:gyrotropic_Maxwell:1982 equation (38)]), namely if $$\begin{aligned}
U_{\mathcal{E}}(t,x) = \frac{1}{2} \Bigl ( \mathbf{E}(t,x) \cdot {\varepsilon}(x) \mathbf{E}(t,x) + \mathbf{H}(t,x) \cdot \mu(x) \mathbf{H}(t,x) \Bigr ) \end{aligned}$$ denotes the energy density, then $S$ satisfies the conservation law $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t U_{\mathcal{E}} + \nabla_x \cdot \mathbf{S} = 0
. \end{aligned}$$ Lastly, how are gyrotropic media different? After all, our arguments show that there is nothing mathematically wrong with having complex electromagnetic waves if all that counts is the propagation field intensity.
#### Acknowledgements
G. D[.]{} acknowledges support by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. M. L[.]{} is grateful for the financial support from the Fields Institute. Both of the authors would also like to thank Daniel Ueltschi and Robert Seiringer for the invitation to Warwick where this article was finished. Moreover, the authors would like to thank Ling Lu and the referee for their comments which have helped improve the manuscript.
Tabulated symmetries {#appendix:tabulated_symmetries}
====================
Given that $W = W^*$ and $W^{-1}$ exists, one can express our material weight tensor as $$\begin{aligned}
W^{-1} = \sum_{j = 0}^3 \sigma_j \otimes w_j
= \left (
\begin{matrix}
w_0 + w_3 & w_1 - {\mathrm{i}}\, w_2 \\
w_1 + {\mathrm{i}}\, w_1 & w_0 - w_3 \\
\end{matrix}
\right )
\label{appendix:tabulated_symmetries:eqn:W_decomposition}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_0 = {\mathrm{id}}$ is the identity and $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_3$ are the Pauli matrices, and the $w_j$ are hermitian $3 \times 3$ matrices. Given that ${\mathrm{Rot}}= - \sigma_2 \otimes \nabla^{\times}$, we immediately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
C \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, C &= - {\mathrm{Rot}}\\
T_j \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, T_j &= - {\mathrm{Rot}},
&&
j = 1 , 3
\\
T_2 \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, T_2 &= + {\mathrm{Rot}}\\
J_j \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, J_j &= + {\mathrm{Rot}},
&&
j = 1 , 3
\\
J_2 \, {\mathrm{Rot}}\, J_2^* &= - {\mathrm{Rot}}.
\end{aligned}$$ With the exception of $J_2$ for which $J_2^2 = - {\mathrm{id}}$, all other symmetries are even. Consequently, $U \, M_w \, U^* = \pm M_w$ translates to the conditions $U \, W \, U^* = \pm W$ for $U = C , T_j , J_j$, $j = 1 , 2 , 3$. These can again be computed very efficiently using the algebraic properties of the Pauli matrices.
When tabulating these symmetries, one first needs to pick one unitary and/or one antiunitary operator; since the classification uses $U_1$, $U_2$ and the product $U_1 \, U_2$ there are many equivalent choices which yield the same classification scheme. For instance, choosing $C$ and $T_2$ is equivalent to choosing $C$ and $J_2 = T_2 \, C$ or $T_2$ and $J_2$. This helps to reduce the size of Tables \[appendix:tabulated\_symmetries:table:++\_table\]–\[appendix:tabulated\_symmetries:table:+-\_table\] further.
Secondly, two signs need to be chosen, [e. g. ]{}the $(+-)$ combination imposes $$\begin{aligned}
U_1 \, W \, U_1^* &= + W
,
\\
U_2 \, W \, U_2^* &= - W
,
\end{aligned}$$ for two symmetries $U_1 , U_2 = T_j , J_j , C$, $j = 1 , 2 , 3$. Similarly, we define the $(++)$ and $(--)$ combinations.
Lastly, *linear* symmetries which *commute* with the Maxwell operator are irrelevant for the purpose of CAZ classification. For the benefit of the reader not yet familiar with the CAZ classification, we have labelled those symmetries with “\[irrel.\]” in Table \[appendix:tabulated\_symmetries:table:++\_table\]. The CAZ class is determined by the remaining symmetry (if present); for instance, a Maxwell operator with $(++)$ symmetries $C$ and $T_2$ is of class D just like any other Maxwell operator with $C \, M_w \, C = - M_w$. In the $(+-)$ and $(--)$ tables, though, we have omitted these superfluous symmetries.
[c | Q | Q | Q | Q ]{} & *none* & $T_1$ & $T_2$ & $T_3$\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
& & & &\
[c | Q | Q ]{} & *none* & $T_2$\
& &\
& &\
& &\
& &\
& &\
[c | Q | Q | Q | Q | Q]{} & $T_2$ & $C$ & $J_1$ & $J_2$ & $J_3$\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
& & & & &\
[^1]: Note that $C$ is not an anti-unitary map between $L^2_w({\mathbb{R}}^3,{\mathbb{C}}^6)$ and itself but only as a map $L^2_w({\mathbb{R}}^3,{\mathbb{C}}^6)$ and the Hilbert space with conjugate weights $L^2_{\overline{w}}({\mathbb{R}}^3,{\mathbb{C}}^6)$.
[^2]: Even for ground state bands, [i. e. ]{}the bands with linear dispersion around $k = 0$, a real Bloch basis can only be chosen at $k = 0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the entropy of pure shift-invariant states on a quantum spin chain. Unlike the classical case, the local restrictions to intervals of length $N$ are typically mixed and have therefore a non-zero entropy $S_N$ which is, moreover, monotonically increasing in $N$. We are interested in the asymptotics of the total entropy. We investigate in detail a class of states derived from quasi-free states on a CAR algebra. These are characterised by a measurable subset of the unit interval. As the entropy density is known to vanishes, $S_N$ is sublinear in $N$. For states corresponding to unions of finitely many intervals, $S_N$ is shown to grow slower than $(\log N)^2$. Numerical calculations suggest a $\log N$ behaviour. For the case with infinitely many intervals, we present a class of states for which the entropy $S_N$ increases as $N^\alpha$ where $\alpha$ can take any value in $(0,1)$.'
author:
- 'M. Fannes$^{\,1,\,}$[^1], B. Haegeman$^{\,1,\,}$[^2], M. Mosonyi$^{\,2,\,}$[^3]'
title: 'Entropy growth of shift-invariant states on a quantum spin chain'
---
$^{\,1}$ Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica\
K.U.Leuven\
Celestijnenlaan 200D, B-3001 Heverlee, Belgium\
$^{\,2}$ Mathematical Institute\
Budapest University of Technology and Economics\
H-1521 Budapest XI. Sztoczek u. 2, Hungary\
Introduction
============
In quantum statistical mechanics, one-dimensional lattice systems, the so-called spin chains, are far from fully understood. One of the obstacles for a systematic study is the complicated correlations that can occur. This is even possible for pure states, which are trivial for classical spin chains. Due to these quantum correlations, it is often very hard to explicitly specify a state. Only a few classes can be studied in detail, including the product states, the finitely correlated states [@fnw] and the states derived from quasi-free states on the CAR algebra [@br; @ek].
Let us denote by $\rho_N$ the density matrix of the restriction of a translation-invariant state $\rho$ on a spin chain to $N$ consecutive spins. The von Neumann entropy $S_N:=S(\rho_N)$ has proved to be a very useful quantity in the study of quantum correlations. For ergodic translation-invariant states, $\rho_N$ is essentially concentrated on a subspace of dimension $\exp(N s(\rho))$ [@hp]. Here, $s(\rho)$ is the entropy density of $\rho$. The compression of $\rho_N$ from the full dimension $d^N$ of $N$ spins to $\exp(N
s(\rho))$ lies e.g. at the basis of DMRG computations [@pwkh]. One may conjecture that $s(\rho)=0$ for pure states $\rho$, which should allow for a very efficient compression. For pure states, $S_N$ is also the unique reasonable measure for the entanglement of this interval with the rest of the chain [@nc] and it measures therefore the resources of the state for quantum computing purposes.
For pure product states $S_N$ vanishes for all $N$, this is in fact completely analogous to the classical spin chain. For pure finitely correlated states $S_N$ is uniformly bounded, a behaviour that is certainly not expected to be generic.
In this paper, we study the entropy $S_N$ for translation-invariant pure states derived from quasi-free states on the CAR algebra. Here, the entropy density is known to vanish and we investigate the sublinear growth of the entropy $S_N$ when $N\to\infty$. We show that $S_N$ increases much faster with $N$ than in the previous cases. For the simplest quasi-free states, the entropy behaves as $\log N$. We shall also present a more involved example for which the entropy increases as $N^\alpha$ with $\alpha$ arbitrarily close to 1.
The construction of pure shift-invariant quasi-free states is recalled in Section \[sec:quafree\]. Such states are characterised by a subset of the unit interval. In Section \[sec:asympt\] we prove that the asymptotics of $S_N$ as $N\to\infty$ can be obtained by a quadratic approximation of the entropy. The entropy growth of quasi-free states given by a set consisting of finitely many intervals is studied in Section \[sec:finite\]. Finally, Section \[sec:infinite\] is devoted to the infinitely many intervals case.
Quasi-free states on the spin chain {#sec:quafree}
===================================
In this section we show, following [@ek], how a quasi-free state on the CAR algebra can be used to define a state on the spin chain algebra. After the introductory definitions, we explain how both algebras can be retrieved as subalgebras of a larger algebra. This construction permits to transfer translation-invariant states from the CAR algebra to the spin chain algebra. This idea is then applied to quasi-free states.
CAR algebra and spin chain algebra
----------------------------------
Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be the Hilbert space $\ell^2({\mathbbm{Z}})$, in which $\{\delta_k
\,:\, k\in{\mathbbm{Z}}\}$ forms an orthonormal basis, where $\delta_k$ is the characteristic function of the integer number $k$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be the CAR algebra corresponding to ${\mathcal{H}}$. It is the C\*-algebra generated by ${\mathbbm{1}}$ and $\{c_k \,:\, k\in{\mathbbm{Z}}\}$, satisfying the canonical anticommutation relations $$c_k c_l=-c_l c_k \qquad c_k^* c_l=\delta_{k,l}{\mathbbm{1}}-c_l c_k^*.$$
The parity automorphism $\alpha$ on ${\mathcal{A}}$ is defined by $\alpha(c_k)=-c_k$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}_+$ be the fixed point algebra of $\alpha$, i.e. ${\mathcal{A}}_+ = \{a\in{\mathcal{A}}\,:\, \alpha(a)=a\}$. The elements of ${\mathcal{A}}_+$ are called even, while those of ${\mathcal{A}}_- :=
\{a\in{\mathcal{A}}\,:\, \alpha(a)=-a\}$ are odd. Obviously, ${\mathcal{A}}=
{\mathcal{A}}_++{\mathcal{A}}_-$. The shift automorphism $\gamma$ is defined by $\gamma(c_k) = c_{k+1}$.
The quantum spin chain is the UHF algebra $${\mathcal{C}}:= \bigotimes_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty} {\mathcal{M}}_2,$$ where ${\mathcal{M}}_2$ is the algebra of $2\times 2$ matrices. Let $e_{11}^k$, $e_{12}^k$, $e_{21}^k$ and $e_{22}^k$ denote the standard matrix units of ${\mathcal{M}}_2$ embedded into the $k$th factor of ${\mathcal{C}}$. The following relations hold: $$\begin{aligned}
e_{ab}^k e_{cd}^l
&= e_{cd}^l e_{ab}^k \quad \text{when $k\ne l$,}
\nonumber \\
e_{ab}^k e_{cd}^k
&= \delta_{b,c} e_{ad}^k,
\nonumber \\
\left(e_{ab}^k\right)^*
&= e_{ba}^k,
\label{eq:matrunit} \\
e_{11}^k+e_{22}^k
&= {\mathbbm{1}}.
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Any algebra generated by elements $\{E_{ab}^k \,:\, a,b\in\{1,2\},\
k\in{\mathbbm{Z}}\}$ satisfying the above relations is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Jordan-Wigner isomorphism
-------------------------
Let ${\mathcal{A}}_n$ be the algebra generated by $\{c_k \,:\, 0\leq k\leq
n-1\}$ and let ${\mathcal{C}}_n=\bigotimes_{k=0}^{n-1} {\mathcal{M}}_2$. It is well-known that ${\mathcal{A}}_n$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{C}}_n$ for all $n\in{\mathbbm{N}}$. An explicit isomorphism is given by the so-called Jordan-Wigner isomorphism given in terms of matrix units in ${\mathcal{A}}_n$ by $$E_{11}^k:=c_k^*c_k, \quad
E_{22}^k:=c_k c_k^*, \quad
E_{12}^k:=A_k c_k^*, \quad
E_{21}^k:=A_k c_k. \quad$$ Here we introduced $$\sigma_k^z:=2c_k^*c_k-{\mathbbm{1}}, \qquad A_k:=\prod_{l=0}^{k-1}\sigma_l^z.$$ The set $\{E_{ab}^k \,:\, a,b\in\{1,2\},0\leq k\leq n-1\}$ generates ${\mathcal{A}}_n$ and the operators $E_{ab}^k$ satisfy the same relations (\[eq:matrunit\]) as the matrix units $e_{ab}^k$ of $C_n$.
A first idea would be to extend this isomorphism to an isomorphism from ${\mathcal{A}}$ to ${\mathcal{C}}$. However, it is impossible to extend this definition to negative $k$’s in such a way that the isomorphism intertwines the shifts in ${\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{C}}$. This property is needed to transport translation-invariance from ${\mathcal{A}}$ to ${\mathcal{C}}$.
One way to circumvent this problem is the following. Enlarge ${\mathcal{A}}$ to $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ by adding a new element $T$ that has the following properties $$\begin{aligned}
&T^*=T,\quad T^2={\mathbbm{1}}\quad \text{(i.e.\ $T$ is a self-adjoint
unitary)} \\
&Tc_k T = \begin{cases} c_k &\text{if $k\ge 0$}\\ -c_k &\text{if
$k<0$.} \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Any element of $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ can uniquely be written in the form $a+Tb$ with $a$ and $b$ from ${\mathcal{A}}$. Therefore, $\hat{\mathcal{A}}={\mathcal{A}}+T{\mathcal{A}}$. Note that formally $T=\prod_{k=-1}^{-\infty}\sigma_k^z$.
A state $\varphi$ on ${\mathcal{A}}$ can be extended to a state $\hat\varphi$ on $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ by $\hat\varphi(a+Tb):=\varphi(a)$ and the extensions of the automorphisms $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are $$\hat\alpha(a+Tb) := \alpha(a)+T\alpha(b)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\hat\gamma(a+Tb) := \gamma(a)+T\sigma_0^z\gamma(b).$$ We define another automorphism $\beta$ on $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ by $\beta(a+Tb) := a-Tb$. The fixed point algebra of $\beta^{-1}\hat\alpha$ will be denoted by $\check{\mathcal{A}}$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\check{\mathcal{A}}&= \{ a+Tb \in \hat{\mathcal{A}}\,:\, \hat\alpha(a+Tb) = \beta(a+Tb) \} \\
&= \{ a+Tb \in \hat{\mathcal{A}}\,:\, \alpha(a)=a,\, \alpha(b)=-b \} \\
&= {\mathcal{A}}_+ + T {\mathcal{A}}_-.\end{aligned}$$ The restriction of a state $\hat\varphi$ on $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ to a state on $\check{\mathcal{A}}$ will be denoted by $\check\varphi$. Because the automorphisms $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\gamma$ leave the subalgebra $\check{\mathcal{A}}$ invariant, they can be restricted to $\check{\mathcal{A}}$. Denote these restrictions by $\check\alpha$ and $\check\gamma$.
Let $\varphi$ be an even state, i.e., it vanishes on odd elements or, equivalently, $\varphi\circ\alpha=\varphi$. It is easy to see that also $\check\varphi\circ\check\alpha=\check\varphi$, thus $\check\varphi$ is an even state on $\check{\mathcal{A}}$. Similarly, let $\varphi$ be a translation-invariant state on ${\mathcal{A}}$, i.e. $\varphi\circ\gamma=\varphi$, then $\check\varphi \circ \check\gamma
= \check\varphi$, thus $\check\varphi$ is a translation-invariant state on $\check{\mathcal{A}}$.
Now, define $$\tilde E_{11}^k:=c_k^*c_k, \quad
\tilde E_{22}^k:=c_k c_k^*, \quad
\tilde E_{12}^k:=T A_k c_k^*, \quad
\tilde E_{21}^k:=T A_k c_k. \quad$$ with $$\sigma_k^z:=2c_k^*c_k-{\mathbbm{1}}, \qquad
A_k := \begin{cases} \prod_{\ell=0}^{k-1} \sigma_\ell^z &\text{if } k>0 \\
{\mathbbm{1}}&\text{if } k=0 \\ \prod_{\ell=k}^{-1} \sigma_\ell^z
&\text{if } k<0. \end{cases}$$ One verifies that these operators satisfy the same commutation relations as the matrix units of ${\mathcal{C}}$. Moreover, $\check\gamma(\tilde E_{ab}^k)=\tilde E_{ab}^{k+1}$.
To summarise, we constructed an algebra $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ which contains both ${\mathcal{A}}$ and $\check{\mathcal{A}}$ as subalgebras. This embedding is compatible with the translations on the subalgebras. Moreover, we established an isomorphism between $\check{\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{C}}$ which is also compatible with the translations. This allows us to transfer translation-invariant states from ${\mathcal{A}}$ to ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Let $\varphi$ be a translation-invariant state. Such a state is automatically even and is completely determined by the sequence $\left(\varphi_n\right)_{n=0}^{+\infty}$, where $\varphi_n$ is the restriction of $\varphi$ to ${\mathcal{A}}_n$. The density matrix $[\varphi_n]$ of $\varphi_n$ has entries $$[\varphi_n]_{\underline j,\underline i} =
\varphi \left( \prod_{k=0}^{n-1} E_{i_k j_k}^k \right),
\qquad \underline i,\underline j\in \{1,2\}^n.$$ The transferred state $\check\varphi$ is also translation-invariant and so completely determined by its restriction to the subalgebras $\{{\mathcal{C}}_n \,:\, n\in{\mathbbm{N}}\}$ with density matrices $$[\check\varphi_n]_{\underline j,\underline i} = \hat{\varphi}
\left(\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} \tilde E_{i_k j_k}^k\right)
\qquad \underline i,\underline j\in \{1,2\}^n.$$ The expressions $\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} E_{i_k j_k}^k$ and $\prod_{k=0}^{n-1} \tilde E_{i_k j_k}^k$ are both either odd or even. When odd, $[\varphi_n]_{\underline j,\underline i}=
[\check\varphi_n]_{\underline j,\underline i}=0$, while when even, since $Tc_k=c_k T$ for $k\ge 0$ and $T^2={\mathbbm{1}}$, we get that $\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}\tilde E_{i_k j_k}^k = \prod_{k=0}^{n-1} E_{i_k
j_k}^k$ and so $[\varphi_n]_{\underline i,\underline j} =
\left[\check\varphi_n\right]_{\underline i,\underline j}$. From this, we conclude that the states $\varphi$ and $\check\varphi$ have the same reduced density matrices. It follows immediately that if $\varphi$ is pure, then also $\check\varphi$ is pure.
Quasi-free states
-----------------
We apply the construction of the previous section to quasi-free states on the CAR algebra ${\mathcal{A}}$. For these states an explicit formula is known for the entropy of the restricted density matrices. Because the corresponding states on ${\mathcal{C}}$ have the same restricted density matrices, the same explicit formulas are available, as we shall use in the following sections. The proofs of the theorems mentioned in this subsection can be found in [@af].
Let $\varphi$ be a quasi-free, gauge-invariant state on ${\mathcal{A}}$, i.e., $\varphi$ is given by the rule $$\varphi(c_{i_1}^*\dots c_{i_m}^* c_{j_n}\dots c_{j_1}) =
\delta_{m,n} \det\left( \left[ Q_{i_kj_l} \right]_{k,l=1}^n \right),$$ where $Q$ is an operator on ${\mathcal{H}}$, $0\leq Q\leq{\mathbbm{1}}$ and $Q_{ij} =
\langle \delta_i,Q\delta_j \rangle$ are the matrix elements of $Q$ in the standard basis of ${\mathcal{H}}$. The operator $Q$ is called the symbol of the state $\varphi$. Obviously, $\varphi$ is even.
The quasi-free state $\varphi$ is translation-invariant if and only if its symbol $Q$ is a Toeplitz operator, i.e., there exists a sequence $\{q_k \,:\, k\in{\mathbbm{Z}}\}$ such that $Q_{lk} = q(k-l)$. By the Fourier transform, $$\label{eq:Qcomp}
q^\land(\theta) = \sum_{k\in{\mathbbm{Z}}} q(k) \mathrm e^{i2\pi k\theta}
\qquad \text{and its inverse} \qquad
q(k) = \int_{{\mathbbm{T}}}\!d\theta\, q^\land(\theta) \mathrm e^{-i2\pi k\theta},$$ with ${\mathbbm{T}}$ the torus parametrised by $[0,1)$, the symbol of a translation-invariant quasi-free state is unitarily equivalent with the multiplication operator by $q^\land$ on $L^2({\mathbbm{T}},d\theta)$. This function $q^\land$ satisfies $0\le q^\land(\theta)\le 1$ almost everywhere.
A quasi-free state $\varphi$ is pure if and only if its symbol $Q$ is a projector. For a translation-invariant state this means that the Fourier transform of the symbol $Q$ is a characteristic function, i.e., there exists a measurable set $K\subset{\mathbbm{T}}$ such that $q^\land(\theta)=\chi_K(\theta)$.
The entropy of a quasi-free state $\varphi$ can be expressed in terms of its symbol $Q$. Define, for $0\le x\le1$, the functions $\eta(x)
:= -x\log x$ and $\tilde{\eta}(x):= \eta(x) + \eta(1-x)$. The von Neumann entropy of the state restricted to an interval of $N$ spins is given by $$\label{eq:entropy}
S_N := {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\eta\left([\varphi_N]\right)
= {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(Q_N),$$ where $Q_N$ is the restriction of $Q$ to the $N$-dimensional space spanned by $\{\delta_k \,:\, 0\leq k\leq N-1\}$. It follows by Szegö’s theorem [@gs] that the entropy density of a translation-invariant quasi-free state equals $$s := \lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{S_N}{N}
= \int \!d\theta\, \tilde{\eta}\bigl( q^\land(\theta)\bigr).$$ In particular, the entropy density of a pure translation-invariant quasi-free state is zero.
Asymptotics for entropy of quasi-free states {#sec:asympt}
============================================
Quasi-free states are good approximations of true ground and equilibrium states for systems of Fermions, either at low density or with weakly interacting particles. The coordinate $\theta$ appearing in (\[eq:Qcomp\]) has the meaning of momentum and the system is specified by a dispersion relation $\theta\mapsto\varepsilon(\theta)$ which is the relation between effective energy and momentum. For a shift-invariant quasi-free state, determined by a symbol $Q$ or, equivalently, by a measurable function $q^\land$ on the unit circle with $0\leq q^\land\leq 1$, the energy and particle densities are given by $$e(\varepsilon,q^\land) := \int_{{\mathbbm{T}}} \!d\theta\, \varepsilon(\theta)\,
q^\land(\theta)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
n(q^\land) := \int_{{\mathbbm{T}}} \!d\theta\, q^\land(\theta).$$ The ground state at density $\lambda$, $0\le\lambda\le1$, is obtained by minimising the energy density under the constraint $n(q^\land)=\lambda$. It is given by $q^\land = \chi_{K(e_{\mathrm F}(\lambda))}$, where $K(e) := \{\theta\in{\mathbbm{T}}\,:\,\varepsilon(\theta)\leq e\}$ and $e_{\mathrm F}(\lambda)$ is the Fermi level determined by the condition $$\left| K(e_{\mathrm F}(\lambda)) \right| =
\int_{\varepsilon(\theta)\leq e_{\mathrm F}(\lambda)} \!d\theta =
\lambda.$$ For smooth dispersion relations with few oscillations in $\theta$, $K(e_{\mathrm F}(\lambda))$ will typically consist of a finite union of disjoint intervals. This case will be investigated in Section \[sec:finite\]. Section \[sec:infinite\] deals with the opposite situation when $K(e_{\mathrm F}(\lambda))$ has a Cantor-like structure.
The quasi-free states on the spin chain ${\mathcal{C}}$, as introduced in the previous section, obey Equation (\[eq:entropy\]) for the von Neumann entropy of the restricted density matrices. This will be the starting point for our study of the asymptotic behaviour of this entropy $S_N$ as $N\to\infty$.
Growth exponents
----------------
We use the following estimate for the entropy function $\tilde\eta(x) := \eta(x)+\eta(1-x)$, $$x(1-x) \leq \tilde\eta(x) \leq
\epsilon - c\, \log\epsilon\ x(1-x),\quad 0\leq x\leq 1,$$ see Figure \[fig:bounds\]. The upper bound for $\tilde\eta$ holds for $c$ a constant independent of $0<\epsilon$, moreover, for $0<\epsilon<\epsilon_0$ we may choose $c=1+\mathrm o(\epsilon_0)$. Therefore, $${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N) \leq S_N \leq \epsilon N - c\,\log\epsilon\
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N).$$ By choosing a function $\epsilon(N)$ for which $\epsilon\to 0$ as $N\to\infty$, we obtain bounds for the entropy $S_N$ in terms of ${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)$. E.g., putting $\epsilon(N):=\frac{1}{N}$, $$\label{eq:bound}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N) \leq S_N \leq
1 + c\,\log N\ {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N).$$
![\[fig:bounds\] A quadratic upper and lower bound for the entropy function $\tilde\eta$.](bounds.eps){width="8cm"}
We are particularly interested in the growth exponents of the entropy, $$\alpha_- := \liminf_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log S_N}{\log N}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
\alpha_+ := \limsup_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log S_N}{\log N}.$$ With the inequalities (\[eq:bound\]), $$\liminf_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)}{\log N}
\leq \alpha_- \leq \alpha_+ \leq
\limsup_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)}{\log N}.$$ We conclude that, if $$\lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)}{\log N}
\quad \mbox{exists, then also }
\lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log S_N}{\log N}
\quad \mbox{exists, and}$$ $$\label{eq:exponent}
\alpha := \lim_{N\to +\infty} \frac{\log S_N}{\log N}
= \lim_{N\to +\infty} \frac{\log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)}{\log N}.$$
Quadratic approximation
-----------------------
Equations (\[eq:bound\]) and (\[eq:exponent\]) show the importance of the quantity ${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)$. It can be expressed in terms of the sequence $\{q(k)\}$ or, equivalently, of the Fourier transform $q^\land(\theta)=\chi_K(\theta)$ of the symbol $Q_N$. Using Equation (\[eq:Qcomp\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N) \\
&\quad= N q(0) - \sum_{n,m=1}^N |q(n-m)|^2 \\
&\quad= N q(0) - N \sum_{n=-(N-1)}^{N-1}
\left(1-\frac{|n|}{N}\right) |q(n)|^2 \\
&\quad= N q(0) - N \int\!d\theta_1 \int\!d\theta_2
\,\chi_K(\theta_1)\chi_K(\theta_2)
\sum_{n=-(N-1)}^{N-1} \left(1-\frac{|n|}{N}\right)
{\mathrm{e}}^{i2\pi n(\theta_1-\theta_2)}.\end{aligned}$$ Define the Dirichlet kernel, $$\begin{aligned}
k_N(\varphi)
&:= \sum_{n=-(N-1)}^{N-1}
\left(1-\frac{|n|}{N}\right) {\mathrm{e}}^{i2\pi n\varphi} \\
&= 1 + 2 \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{N-n}{N} \cos 2\pi n\varphi
\,=\, \frac{1}{N} \frac{\sin^2 N\pi\varphi}{\sin^2\pi\varphi}.\end{aligned}$$ This is a sequence of positive normalised functions, weakly converging to the Dirac distribution, $$k_N(\varphi) \geq 0 ,\qquad \int\!d\varphi\, k_N(\varphi) = 1.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)
&= N\left( \int\!d\theta\, \chi_K(\theta) -\int\!d\theta \int\!d\varphi\,
\chi_K(\theta)\chi_K(\theta-\varphi) k_N(\varphi) \right)
\nonumber \\
&= N \int\!d\theta \int\!d\varphi\, \chi_K(\theta)
\left[1-\chi_K(\theta-\varphi)\right] k_N(\varphi)
\nonumber \\
&= N \int\!d\varphi\, k_N(\varphi)\int\!d\theta\, \chi_K(\theta)
\left[1-\chi_K(\theta-\varphi)\right]
\nonumber \\
&= N \int\!d\varphi\, k_N(\varphi)\,|K\setminus (K+\varphi)|.
\label{eq:quadr}\end{aligned}$$ Note that both $S(Q_N)$ and ${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)$ are invariant for the replacement of $Q_N$ by ${\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N$. As a consequence, Equation (\[eq:quadr\]) can be written in the form $$\label{eq:quadr2}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N) =
N \int\!d\varphi\, k_N(\varphi)\,|K^c\setminus (K^c+\varphi)|.$$
Finitely many intervals {#sec:finite}
=======================
As explained in Section \[sec:quafree\] the subset $K$ of the torus ${\mathbbm{T}}$ determines the state $\varphi$ we are studying. In this section we study sets $K$ composed of a finite number of intervals, whereas in the next section sets with an infinite number of intervals are treated.
Lower bound
-----------
By Equation (\[eq:bound\]) we have to bound ${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)$ from below. We consider a set $K$ with a finite number of intervals, say $M$. Let $\delta>0$ be a fixed number which is smaller than any of the intervals and the holes between two such intervals. Therefore, $|K\setminus (K+\varphi)|\geq M\varphi$ for $0\leq\varphi\leq\delta$. Equation (\[eq:quadr\]) becomes, $$\begin{aligned}
S_N
&\ge {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N) \\
&= N \int\!d\varphi\, k_N(\varphi)\,|K\setminus (K+\varphi)| \\
&\ge 2NM \int_0^{\delta}\!d\varphi\, k_N(\varphi)\,\varphi \\
&= 2NM \int_0^{\delta}\!d\varphi\,\varphi
\left[ 1+2\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{N-n}{N}\cos 2\pi n\varphi \right] \\
&= NM \left[ \delta^2
+ \frac{2\delta}{\pi}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{\sin 2\pi n\delta}{n}
- \frac{2}{\pi^2}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{\sin^2 \pi n\delta}{n^2} \right] \\
&\quad+ M \left[- \frac{2\delta}{\pi}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \sin 2\pi n\delta
- \frac{1}{\pi^2}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{\cos 2\pi n\delta}{n}
+ \frac{1}{\pi^2}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{1}{n} \right].\end{aligned}$$ Using the identities, $$\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin 2\pi n\delta}{n}
= \frac{\pi}{2} (1-2\delta)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n\delta}{n^2}
= \frac{\pi^2}{2} \delta(1-\delta),$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
S_N
&\ge NM \left[
- \frac{2\delta}{\pi}\sum_{n=N}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin 2\pi n\delta}{n}
+ \frac{2}{\pi^2}\sum_{n=N}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n\delta}{n^2}
\right]
\nonumber \\
&\quad+ M \left[
- \frac{2\delta}{\pi}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \sin 2\pi n\delta
- \frac{1}{\pi^2}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{\cos 2\pi n\delta}{n}
+ \frac{1}{\pi^2}\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{1}{n}
\right].
\label{eq:finlow1}\end{aligned}$$
Next, we estimate the different terms in (\[eq:finlow1\]). The first term on the first line, $$\left| \sum_{n=N}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin 2\pi n\delta}{n} \right|
= \left| \sum_{n=N}^{+\infty}
\frac{\cos\pi(2n+1)\delta-\cos\pi(2n-1)\delta}{2n\sin\pi\delta} \right|
\leq \frac{1}{N} \frac{1}{|\sin \pi\delta|}.$$ The second term on the first line, $$\left| \sum_{n=N}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n\delta}{n^2} \right|
\leq \sum_{n=N}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{n^2}
\leq \int_{N-1}^{+\infty} \!dx\, \frac{1}{x^2}
= \frac{1}{N-1}.$$ The first term on the second line, $$\left| \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \sin 2\pi n\delta \right|
\leq \frac{1}{|\sin \pi\delta|}.$$ The second term on the second line, for any $\epsilon>0$ and $N$ sufficiently large, $$\left| \sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{\cos 2\pi n\delta}{n} \right|
\leq -\log \left[ 2\sin(2\pi\delta) \right] + \epsilon.$$ Finally, the last term on the last line, $$\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{n}
\ge \int_1^{N} \!dx\, \frac{1}{x} = \log N.$$ Putting everything together in (\[eq:finlow1\]), we find that there exists a constant $c_1>0$ independent of $N$ such that $$\label{eq:finlow2}
S_N \geq c_1 \log N.$$
Subadditivity
-------------
Before establishing the upper bound for the entropy $S_N$ in case the set $K$ is composed of a finite number of intervals, we prove a general subadditivity property of this entropy. This will enable us to restrict the proof of the upper bound to the case of a single interval.
Suppose that $K_1$ and $K_2$ are disjoint sets and put $K:=K_1\cup K_2$. Denoting the symbols of these states by $Q$, $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, we shall prove the subadditivity property, namely, $$\label{eq:subadd}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(Q_N) \leq
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}((Q_1)_N) + {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}((Q_2)_N).$$
To simplify notation, define $R:=Q_N$, $R_1:=(Q_1)_N$ and $R_2:=(Q_2)_N$. First, note that $R=R_1+R_2$. Remember that $\tilde{\eta}(x)=-x\log x-(1-x)\log(1-x)$ and thus $\tilde{\eta}'(x)=-\log x+\log(1-x)$. We assume $R_1>0$, $R_2>0$ and $R_1+R_2<{\mathbbm{1}}$. Otherwise, we can introduce operators $\tilde{R}_1:=(1-\epsilon)R_1+\frac{\epsilon}{2}{\mathbbm{1}}$ and $\tilde{R}_2:=(1-\epsilon)R_2+\frac{\epsilon}{2}{\mathbbm{1}}$, prove the subadditivity for these two operators and then take the limit $\epsilon\to 0$. Using the operator identity $\frac{d}{d\lambda}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}f(A+\lambda B) = {\mathrm{Tr}\,}B f'(A+\lambda B)$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(R_1+R_2) - {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(R_1)
&= {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(R_1+\lambda R_2) \bigg|_{\lambda=0}^1
\nonumber \\
&= \int_0^1\!d\lambda\, \frac{d}{d\lambda} {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(R_1+\lambda R_2)
\nonumber \\
&= \int_0^1\!d\lambda\, {\mathrm{Tr}\,}R_2
\log\frac{{\mathbbm{1}}-R_1-\lambda R_2}{R_1+\lambda R_2}.
\label{eq:subadd1}\end{aligned}$$ Because the inverse is operator decreasing, $$\frac{{\mathbbm{1}}-R_1-\lambda R_2}{R_1+\lambda R_2}
= \frac{1}{R_1+\lambda R_2}-{\mathbbm{1}}\leq \frac{1}{\lambda R_2}-{\mathbbm{1}}= \frac{{\mathbbm{1}}-\lambda R_2}{\lambda R_2},$$ and, because the logarithm is operator increasing, $$\log \frac{{\mathbbm{1}}-R_1-\lambda R_2}{R_1+\lambda R_2}
\leq \log \frac{{\mathbbm{1}}-\lambda R_2}{\lambda R_2}.$$ Substituting this into Equation (\[eq:subadd1\]), $${\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(R_1+R_2) - {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(R_1)
\leq {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{\eta}(R_2).$$
Upper bound
-----------
Due to subadditivity, it is enough to prove an upper bound for a set $K$ consisting of a single interval. We assume that the length of this interval $|K|\leq \frac{1}{2}$. Otherwise, we can work with $K^c$. By Equation (\[eq:bound\]) we have to bound ${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)$. In this case, $$|K\setminus (K+\varphi)|
= \begin{cases} \varphi &\text{for } |\varphi|\le|K|, \\
|K| &\text{for } |K|\le|\varphi|\le\frac{1}{2}.
\end{cases}$$ By Equation (\[eq:quadr\]), $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)
&= 2N \int_0^{\frac{1}{2}} \!d\varphi\,
\left[ 1+2\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\frac{N-n}{N}\cos 2\pi n\varphi \right]
|K\setminus (K+\varphi)| \\
&= N \left[ |K| (1-|K|) -
\frac{2}{\pi^2} \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n|K|}{n^2}
\right] \\
&\quad + \frac{2}{\pi^2} \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n|K|}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the identity, $$\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n|K|}{n^2}
= \frac{\pi^2}{2} |K| (1-|K|),$$ we obtain, $$\label{eq:finupp1}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)
= \frac{2N}{\pi^2} \sum_{n=N}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n|K|}{n^2}
+ \frac{2}{\pi^2} \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n|K|}{n}.$$ The first term, $$\sum_{n=N}^{+\infty} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n|K|}{n^2}
\leq \sum_{n=N}^{+\infty} \frac{1}{n^2}
\leq \int_N^{+\infty} \!dx\, \frac{1}{x^2} = \frac{1}{N}.$$ The second term, $$\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{\sin^2 \pi n|K|}{n}
\leq \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{n}
\leq 1+\int_1^{N-1} \!dx\, \frac{1}{x} = 1+\log(N-1).$$ Putting everything together in (\[eq:finupp1\]), we find that there exists a constant $c_2$ independent of $N$ such that $${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N) \leq c_2 \log N,$$ and, finally, by Equation (\[eq:bound\]), there exists a constant $c_3$ independent of $N$ such that $$\label{eq:finupp2}
S_N \leq c_3 \, (\log N)^2.$$
Numerical results
-----------------
Analytically, we determined the asymptotics of the entropy $S_N$ between the $\log N$ lower bound (\[eq:finlow2\]) and the $(\log N)^2$ upper bound (\[eq:finupp2\]). In Figure \[fig:logN\] we present the results of a numerical calculation. The set $K$ consists of one interval of length $|K|=\frac{1}{2}$. The figure shows clearly the $\log N$ dependence. By the subadditivity property (\[eq:subadd\]), we expect the same behaviour for all sets $K$ consisting of a finite number of intervals.
![\[fig:logN\] The entropy $S_N$ as a function of the length $N$ of the restriction, for an interval of length $\frac{1}{2}$ as set $K$. Notice the logarithmic scale.](logN.eps){width="8cm"}
Infinitely many intervals {#sec:infinite}
=========================
For a set $K$ consisting of finitely many intervals, the entropy $S_N$ increases asymptotically slower than any power $N^\alpha$ with $\alpha>0$. However, it is easy to construct a state such that $S_N =
N \log 2$. For example, one can take for $K$ a set of $2^{N-1}$ regularly spaced intervals, each of length $2^{-N}$. Note that this construction does not have an appropriate limit when $N\to\infty$. Nevertheless, it suggests that in the infinitely many intervals case the entropy $S_N$ could have a richer behaviour. This will be shown in the present section by presenting a class of states for which the growth exponent $\alpha$ can take any value $\alpha\in(0,1)$.
A Cantor-like construction
--------------------------
The standard Cantor set is constructed recursively by removing in step $m$ a fixed fraction of the set obtained in step $m-1$. This would leave us with a set of zero Lebesgue measure. To avoid this, we remove a fraction in step $m$ which decreases with $m$, such that the limit set has strictly positive Lebesgue measure.
We start with the unit interval. Remove in the first step an open interval in the middle of the unit interval with length $1-\gamma(1)$. The resulting set $K_1$ consists of two closed intervals each of length $\gamma(1)/2$. In the second step, for each of these two intervals, a fraction $1-\gamma(2)$ is removed in the middle of these intervals. This leaves us with a set $K_2$ consisting of four closed intervals of length $\gamma(1)\gamma(2)/4$. Continuing this procedure, in step $m$ we obtain a set $K_m$ of $2^m$ closed intervals of length $$\label{eq:intervals}
\ell_i(m) := \frac{\prod_{n=1}^{m}\gamma(n)}{2^m}.$$ There are $2^m-1$ holes in between such intervals, $2^{m-1}$ of which are created in step $m$. The latter have a length $$\label{eq:holes}
\ell_h(m) := \ell_i(m-1)(1-\gamma(m))
= \frac{\prod_{n=1}^{m-1}\gamma(n)}{2^{m-1}}(1-\gamma(m)).$$ The Lebesgue measure of the limit set $K$ is then $\prod_{n=1}^\infty\gamma(n)$.
To construct an explicit example, we have to fix a function $m\mapsto\gamma(m)$. We can as well specify the function $m\mapsto \ell_h(m)=aq^m$, where $0<q<\frac{1}{2}$ and $a$ is chosen such that $$1 > \sum_{m=1}^{+\infty} 2^{m-1} aq^m = \frac{a}{2}\, \frac{2q}{1-2q}.$$ The resulting set has Lebesgue measure $1-aq/(1-2q)$.
Lower bound
-----------
To bound ${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)$ from below, we start from Equation (\[eq:quadr\]). As before, $K_m$ denotes the set obtained after $m$ steps in the construction of the Cantor-like set $K$. Then $K_m$ is the union of $2^m$ intervals, each of length $l_i(m)$. Because $K\subset K_m$, (\[eq:quadr\]) can be estimated by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)
&= N \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\!d\varphi\,
k_N(\varphi) |K\setminus (K+\varphi)| \\
&\ge N \int_{-\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}\!d\varphi\,
k_N(\varphi) |K\setminus (K_m+\varphi)|,\end{aligned}$$ and since $k_N(\varphi)\ge N/\pi^2$ when $|\varphi|\le1/2N$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)
&\ge \frac{1}{\pi^2}N^2 \int_{-\frac{1}{2N}}^{\frac{1}{2N}} \!d\varphi\,
|K\setminus (K_m+\varphi)| \\
&= \frac{2}{\pi^2}N^2 \int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2N}} \!d\varphi\,
|K\setminus (K_m+\varphi)|.\end{aligned}$$
For given $N$, take $m$ such that $$\label{eq:lowerNm}
\ell_h(m)\ge\frac{1}{2N}>\ell_h(m+1).$$ As $K_m$ consists of $2^m$ translations of the interval $[0,\ell_i(m)]$, the Cantor-like set $K$ consists of $2^m$ translations of another Cantor-like set $\tilde{K}\subset[0,\ell_i(m)]$. Let us denote these translations by $x_\ell+[0,\ell_i(m)]$ and $x_\ell+\tilde{K}$ for $\ell=1,\ldots,2^m$.
For $\varphi\in [0,1/2N]$, $\varphi\leq \ell_h(k)$ for all $k=1,\ldots,m$. This means that a translation by $\varphi$ of an interval of length $\ell_i(m)$ in $K_m$ will never bridge the hole (of length $\ell_h(k), k=1,\ldots,m$) between this interval and the next. Therefore, every $x_\ell+\tilde{K}$ will overlap with one and only one $x_{\tilde{\ell}}+[0,\ell_i(m)]+\varphi$, namely the one with $\tilde{\ell}=\ell$. As a consequence, $$\Big| K\setminus (K_m+\varphi) \Big|
= 2^m \Big| \tilde{K}\setminus ([0,\ell_i(m)]+\varphi) \Big|
= 2^m \Big| \tilde{K}\setminus [\varphi,\ell_i(m)] \Big|
= 2^m \Big| \tilde{K} \cap [0,\varphi] \Big|.$$
This quantity has to be estimated from below. For $\varphi\in (0,1/2N]$, take $n$ such that $\ell_i(n)\geq\varphi>\ell_i(n+1)$. Then, $$\left| \tilde{K}\cap [0,\varphi] \right|
\geq \ell_i(n+1)\prod_{k=n+2}^{+\infty}\gamma(k)
= \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}\prod_{k=1}^{+\infty}\gamma(k),$$ and $$\varphi\leq \ell_i(n)= \frac{1}{2^n}\prod_{k=1}^{n}\gamma(k),$$ which gives $$\frac{\left| \tilde{K}\cap [0,\varphi] \right|}{\varphi}
\geq \frac{1}{2}\prod_{k=n+1}^{+\infty}\gamma(k)
\geq \frac{1}{2}|K|,$$ and so $$\left| \tilde{K}\cap [0,\varphi] \right| \geq \frac{1}{2}|K|\varphi,$$ which does not depend any longer on $n$. It follows that $${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)
\geq 2^m \frac{1}{\pi^2}|K| N^2 \int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2N}}\!d\varphi\,\varphi
= 2^m \frac{1}{8\pi^2}|K|.$$
This is an estimate from below of ${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)$ where $N$ and $m$ are coupled by (\[eq:lowerNm\]). From the latter we also have that $N<1/2\ell_h(m+1)$. Therefore, $$\frac{\log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N(I-Q_N)}{\log N} > \frac{\log\left(2^m\frac{1}{8\pi^2}|K|\right)}
{-\log\left(2\ell_h(m+1)\right)}.$$ The limit $N\to\infty$ corresponds to the limit $m\to\infty$. Using the explicit form $\ell_h(m)=aq^m$, we finally get $$\label{eq:liminf}
\liminf_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N(I-Q_N)}{\log N}
\geq \frac{\log 2}{-\log q}.$$
Upper bound
-----------
To get an upper bound for ${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)$, we start from Equation (\[eq:quadr2\]). With $C(\varphi):=|K^c\setminus (K^c+\varphi)|$, it reads $${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N) = N \int\!d\varphi\, k_N(\varphi)C(\varphi),$$
For $\theta>0$, take $m$ such that $$\label{eq:upperthm}
\ell_h(m) \geq \theta > \ell_h(m+1).$$ We bound $C(\theta)$ from above, $$\begin{aligned}
C(\theta)
&\le \sum_{k=1}^\infty 2^{k-1} \min\{\theta,\ell_h(k)\}
\nonumber \\
&= \sum_{k=1}^{m} 2^{k-1} \theta + \sum_{k=m+1}^\infty 2^{k-1}
\ell_h(k)
\nonumber \\
&\le (2^m-1) \ell_h(m) + \sum_{k=m+1}^\infty 2^{k-1} \ell_h(k)
\nonumber \\
&\le 2 \prod_{n=1}^{m-1} \gamma(n)\,(1-\gamma(m)) +
\sum_{k=m+1}^\infty \prod_{n=1}^{k-1} \gamma(n)\, (1-\gamma(k)).
\label{eq:upper1}\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, this bound increases with $\theta$. The kernel $k_N(\varphi)$ satisfies $$k_N(\varphi) \le
\begin{cases} N &\text{for } |\varphi|\le\theta, \\
\frac{\pi^2}{2N}\, \frac{1}{\varphi^2} &\text{for } |\varphi|\ge\theta,
\end{cases}$$ and so we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)
&\le N^2 \int_{|\varphi|\le\theta} \!d\varphi\, C(\varphi) +
\int_{|\varphi|\ge\theta} \!d\varphi\, C(\varphi) \frac{\pi^2}{2}\,
\frac{1}{\varphi^2}
\nonumber \\
&\le 2N^2 \theta C(\theta)
+ \frac{\pi^2}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{m}
(\ell_h(k)-\ell_h(k+1)) \frac{C(\ell_h(k))}{\ell_h(k+1)^2}
\nonumber \\
&\le 2N^2 \ell_h(m) C(\theta)
+ \frac{\pi^2}{2} \sum_{k=0}^{m}
\frac{\ell_h(k)C(\ell_h(k))}{\ell_h(k+1)^2}.
\label{eq:upper2}\end{aligned}$$
Take again the explicit form $\ell_h(m)=aq^m$. Then $$\prod_{n=1}^{m-1} \gamma(n)\, (1-\gamma(m)) = 2^{m-1}\ell_h(m) =
\frac{a}{2} (2q)^m,$$ and (\[eq:upper1\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
C(\theta)
&\le 2\prod_{n=1}^{m-1} \gamma(n)\, (1-\gamma(m)) +
\sum_{k=m+1}^\infty \prod_{n=1}^{k-1} \gamma(n)\, (1-\gamma(k))
\nonumber \\
&= 2\frac{a}{2} (2q)^m + \sum_{k=m+1}^\infty \frac{a}{2} (2q)^{k} =
\frac{a(1-q)}{1-2q} (2q)^m.
\label{eq:upperCth}\end{aligned}$$ If $\theta=\ell_h(k)$, then by (\[eq:upperthm\]), we have to put $m=k$, and so $$\label{eq:upperCk}
C(\ell_h(k)) \le \frac{a(1-q)}{1-2q} (2q)^k.$$ Substituting inequalities (\[eq:upperCth\]) and (\[eq:upperCk\]) into (\[eq:upper2\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)
&\le 2N^2aq^m \frac{a(1-q)}{1-2q} (2q)^m + \frac{\pi^2}{2}
\sum_{k=0}^m \frac{aq^k}{(aq^{k+1})^2} \frac{a(1-q)}{1-2q} (2q)^k
\nonumber \\
&= 2N^2aq^m \frac{a(1-q)}{1-2q} (2q)^m + \frac{\pi^2}{2}
\frac{1}{q^2} \frac{2(1-q)}{1-2q} (2^{m+1}-1)
\nonumber \\
&\le \frac{2(1-q)}{1-2q} \left[ N^2a^2(2q^2)^m + \frac{\pi^2}{2}
\frac{1}{q^2} 2^m \right]
\nonumber \\
&=: c_1 N^2 (2q^2)^m + c_2 2^m,
\label{eq:upper3}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are independent of $N$.
To get an upper bound as a function of $N$, we have to fix a function $m(N)$ and plug it into (\[eq:upper3\]). Let $$\gamma := \frac{\log 2}{-\log q} = \frac{1}{-\log_2 q},$$ then choose $m$ to be $$m = \left[ \log_{2q^2}N^{\gamma-2} \right] \le \log_{2q^2}N^{\gamma-2}
= \frac{\log_2 N^{\gamma-2}}{\log_2 2q^2},$$ where $[a]$ denotes the integer part of the number $a$. Then $$N^2 (2q^2)^m \le N^{\gamma},$$ and $$2^m \le \left(2^{\log_2 N^{\gamma-2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{\log_2 2q^2}}
= N^{\frac{\gamma-2}{1+\log_2 q^2}} = N^{\gamma},$$ and so $${\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N) \leq (c_1+c_2)N^{\gamma},$$ from which we get the upper bound $$\label{eq:limsup}
\limsup_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)}{\log N}
\le \gamma = \frac{\log 2}{-\log q}.$$
Combining the results (\[eq:liminf\]) and (\[eq:limsup\]) we see that $\lim_{N\to+\infty} \log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)/\log N$ exists, which implies that also $\lim_{N\to+\infty} \log S_N/\log N$ exists, and $$\alpha = \lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log S_N}{\log N}
= \lim_{N\to+\infty} \frac{\log {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Q_N({\mathbbm{1}}-Q_N)}{\log N}
= \frac{\log 2}{-\log q}.$$ Since $q$ can be any number in the interval $(0,1/2)$, the growth exponent $\alpha$ can take any value in $(0,1)$.
[99]{}
R. Alicki, M. Fannes, [*Quantum Dynamical Systems*]{}, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
O. Bratteli, D.W. Robinson, *Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics*, Vol. 2, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
D.E. Evans, Y. Kawahigashi, *Quantum Symmetries on Operator Algebras*, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.
M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, R. F. Werner, Finitely correlated states on quantum spin chains, *Comm. Math. Phys. ***144**, 443–490 (1992).
U. Grenander, G. Szegö, *Toeplitz Forms and their Applications*, University of California Press, 1958.
F. Hiai, D. Petz, The proper formula for relative entropy and its asymptotics in quantum probability, *Comm. Math. Phys. ***143**, 99–114 (1991).
M.A. Nielsen, I.L. Chuang, *Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.
I. Peschel, X. Wang, M. Kaulke, K. Hallberg (Eds.), *Density Matrix Renormalization*, LNP **528**, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'While recent deep neural networks have achieved a promising performance on object recognition, they rely ***implicitly*** on the visual contents of the whole image. In this paper, we train deep neural networks on the foreground (object) and background (context) regions of images respectively. Considering human recognition in the same situations, networks trained on the pure background ***without*** objects achieves highly reasonable recognition performance that beats humans by a large margin if only given context. However, humans still outperform networks ***with*** pure object available, which indicates networks and human beings have different mechanisms in understanding an image. Furthermore, we straightforwardly combine multiple trained networks to explore different visual cues learned by different networks. Experiments show that useful visual hints can be ***explicitly*** learned separately and then combined to achieve higher performance, which verifies the advantages of the proposed framework.'
author:
- |
Zhuotun Zhu, Lingxi Xie, Alan Yuille\
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA\
`{zhuotun, 198808xc, alan.l.yuille}@gmail.com`
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title:
- 'IJCAI–17 Formatting Instructions'
- Object Recognition with and without Objects
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Object recognition is a long-lasting battle in computer vision, which aims to categorize an image according to the visual contents. In recent years, we have witnessed an evolution in this research field. Thanks to the availability of large-scale image datasets [@Deng_2009_ImageNet] and powerful computational resources, it becomes possible to train a very deep convolutional neural network (CNN) [@Krizhevsky_2012_ImageNet], which is much more efficient beyond the conventional Bag-of-Visual-Words (BoVW) model [@Csurka_2004_Visual].
It is known that an image contains both foreground and background visual contents. However, most object recognition algorithms focus on recognizing the visual patterns only on the foreground region [@Zeiler_2014_Visualizing]. Although it has been proven that background (context) information also helps recognition [@Simonyan_2015_Very], it still remains unclear if a deep network can be trained individually to learn visual information only from the background region. In addition, we are interested in exploring different visual patterns by training neural networks on foreground and background separately for object recognition, which is less studied before.
![Procedures of dataset generation. First, we denote the original set as the [**OrigSet**]{}, divided into two sets, one with the ground-truth bounding box (W/ BBX) and the other one without (W/O BBX). Then the set with labelled bounding box(es) are further processed by setting regions inside all ground-truth to be $0$’s to compose the [**BGSet**]{} while cropping the regions out to produce the [**FGSet**]{}. In the end, add the images without bounding boxes with [**FGSet**]{} to construct the [**HybridSet**]{}. Please note that some images of the [**FGSet**]{} have regions to be black ($0$’s) since these images are labelled with multiple objects belonging to the same class, which are cropped according to the smallest rectangle frame that includes all object bounding boxes in order to keep as less background information as possible on [**FGSet**]{}. Best viewed in color.[]{data-label="Fig:Dataset"}](figures/datasetintro.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}\
In this work, we investigate the above problems by explicitly training multiple networks for object recognition. We first construct datasets from [**ILSVRC2012**]{} [@Russakovsky_2015_ImageNet], [*i.e.*]{}, one [*foreground*]{} set and one [*background*]{} set, by taking advantage of the ground-truth bounding box(es) provided in both training and testing cases. After dataset construction, we train deep networks individually to learn foreground (object) and background (context) information, respectively. We find that, even ***only*** trained on pure background contexts, the deep network can still converge and makes reasonable prediction ($\bm{14.4}\%$ top-$1$ and nearly $\bm{30}\%$ top-$5$ classification accuracy on the background validation set). To make a comparison, we are further interested in the human recognition performance on the constructed datasets. Deep neural networks outperform non-expert humans in fine-grained recognition, and humans sometimes make errors because they cannot memorize all categories of datasets [@Russakovsky_2015_ImageNet]. In this case, to more reasonably compare the recognition ability of humans and deep networks, we follow [@Huh_2016_What] to merge all the $1\rm{,}000$ fine-grained categories of the original [**ILSVRC2012**]{}, resulting in a $127$-class recognition problem meanwhile keeping the number of training/testing images unchanged. We find that human beings tend to pay more attention to the object while networks put more emphasis on context than humans for classification. By visualizing the patterns captured by the background net, we find that some visual patterns are not available in the foreground net. Therefore, we apply networks on the foreground and background regions respectively via the given ground-truth bounding box(es) or extracting object proposals without available ones. We find that the linear combination of multiple neural networks can give higher performance.
To summarize, our main contributions are three folds: 1) We demonstrate that learning foreground and background visual contents ***separately*** is beneficial for object recognition. Training a network based on pure background although being wired and challenging, is technically feasible and captures highly useful visual information. 2) We conduct ***human recognition*** experiments on either pure background or foreground regions to find that human beings outperform networks on pure foreground while are beaten by networks on pure background, which implies the different mechanisms of understanding an image between networks and humans. 3) We straightforwardly ***combine*** multiple neural networks to explore the effectiveness of different learned visual clues under two conditions ***with*** and ***without*** ground-truth bounding box(es), which gives promising improvement over the baseline deep neural networks.
Related Work {#RelatedWork}
============
Object recognition is fundamental in computer vision field, which is aimed to understand the semantic meaning among an image via analyzing its visual contents. Recently, researchers have extended the traditional cases [@Lazebnik_2006_Beyond] to fine-grained [@Wah_2011_Caltech] [@Nilsback_2008_Automated] [@lin2015bilinear], and large-scale [@Xiao_2010_SUN] [@Griffin_2007_Caltech] tasks. Before the exploding development of deep learning, the dominant BoVW model [@Csurka_2004_Visual] represents every single image with a high-dimensional vector. It is typically composed of three consecutive steps, [*i.e.*]{}, descriptor extraction [@Lowe_2004_Distinctive] [@Dalal_2005_Histograms], feature encoding [@Wang_2010_Locality] [@Perronnin_2010_Improving] and feature summarization [@Lazebnik_2006_Beyond].
The milestone Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is treated as a hierarchical model for large-scale visual recognition. In past years, neural networks have already been proved to be effective for simple recognition tasks [@LeCun_1990_Handwritten]. More recently, the availability of large-scale training data ([*e.g.*]{}, ImageNet [@Deng_2009_ImageNet]) and powerful computation source like GPUs make it practical to train deep neural networks [@Krizhevsky_2012_ImageNet] [@zhu2016deep] which significantly outperform the conventional models. Even deep features have been proved to be very successful on vision tasks like object discovery [@wang2015relaxed], object recognition [@xietowards], etc. A CNN is composed of numerous stacked layers, in which responses from the previous layer are then convoluted and activated by a differentiable function, followed by a non-linear transformation [@Nair_2010_Rectified] to avoid over-fitting. Recently, several efficient methods were proposed to help CNNs converge faster and prevent over-fitting [@Krizhevsky_2012_ImageNet]. It is believed that deeper networks produce better recognition results [@Szegedy_2015_Going][@Simonyan_2015_Very], but also requires engineering tricks to be trained very well [@Ioffe_2015_Batch] [@He_2016_Deep].
Very few techniques on background modeling [@bewley2017background] have been developed for object recognition, despite the huge success of deep learning methods on various vision tasks. [@shelhamer2016fully] proposed the fully convolutional networks (FCN) for semantic segmentation, which are further trained on foreground and background defined by shape masks. They find it is not vital to learn a specifically designed background model. For face matching, [@sanderson2009multi] developed methods only on the cropped out faces to alleviate the possible correlations between faces and their backgrounds. [@han2015background] modeled the background in order to detect the salient objects from the background. [@doersch2014context] showed using the object patch to predict its context as supervisory information can help discover object clusters, which is consistent with our motivation to utilize the pure context for visual recognition. To our best knowledge, we are the first to explicitly learn both the foreground and background models and then combine them together to be beneficial for the object recognition.
Recently, researchers pay more attention to human experiments on objects recognition. Zhou [*et al.*]{} [@zhou2014object] invited Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) to identify the concept for segmented images with objects. They found that the CNN trained for scene classification automatically discovers meaningful object patches. While in our experiments, we are particularly interested in the different emphasis between human beings and networks for recognition task.
Last but not the least, visualization of CNN activations is an effective method to understand the mechanism of CNNs. In [@Zeiler_2014_Visualizing], a [*de-convolutional*]{} operation was proposed to capture visual patterns on different layers of a trained network. [@Simonyan_2015_Very] and [@Cao_2015_Look] show that different sets of neurons are activated when a network is used for detecting different visual patterns. In this work, we will use a much simpler way of visualization which is inspired by [@Wang_2015_Discovering].
Training Networks {#ComplementaryNets}
=================
Our goal is to explore the possibility and effectiveness of training networks on foreground and background regions, respectively. Here, foreground and background regions are defined by the annotated ground-truth bounding box(es) of each image. All the experiments are done on the datasets composed from the [**ILSVRC2012**]{}.
Dataset Image Description \# Training Image \# Testing Image Testing Accuracy
------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
[**OrigSet**]{} Original Image $1\rm{,}281\rm{,}167$ $50\rm{,}000$ $58.19\%$, $80.96\%$
[**FGSet**]{} Foreground Image $544\rm{,}539$ $50\rm{,}000$ $60.82\%$, $83.43\%$
[**BGSet**]{} Background Image $289\rm{,}031$ $50\rm{,}000$ $14.41\%$, $29.62\%$
[**HybridSet**]{} Original Image or Foreground Image $1\rm{,}281\rm{,}167$ $50\rm{,}000$ $61.29\%$, $83.85\%$
Data Preparation {#ComplementaryNets:DataPreparation}
----------------
The [**ILSVRC2012**]{} dataset [@Russakovsky_2015_ImageNet] contains about $1.3\mathrm{M}$ training and $50\mathrm{K}$ validation images. Throughout this paper, we refer to the original dataset as [**OrigSet**]{} and the validation images are regarded as our testing set. Among [**OrigSet**]{}, $544\rm{,}539$ training images and all $50\rm{,}000$ testing images are labeled with at least one ground-truth bounding box. For each image, there is only one type of object annotated according to its ground-truth class label.
We construct three variants of training sets and two variants of testing sets from [**OrigSet**]{} by details below. An illustrative example of data construction is shown in Fig. \[Fig:Dataset\]. The configuration of different image datasets are summarized in Table \[Tab:Dataset\].
- The foreground dataset ([**FGSet**]{}) is composed of all images with at least one available ground-truth bounding box. For each image, we first compute the smallest rectangle frame which includes all object bounding boxes, then based on which the image inside the frame is cropped to be used as the training/testing data. Note that if an image has multiple object bounding boxes belonging to the same class, we set all the background regions inside the frame to be $0$’s to keep as little context as possible on [**FGSet**]{}. There are totally $544\rm{,}539$ training images and $50\rm{,}000$ testing images on [**FGSet**]{}. Since the annotation is on the bounding box level, images of the [**FGSet**]{} may contain some background information.
- The construction of the background dataset ([**BGSet**]{}) consists of two stages. First, for each image with at least one ground-truth bounding box available, regions inside every ground-truth bounding box are set to $0$’s. Chances are that almost all the pixels of one image are set to 0s if its object consists of nearly 100 percent of its whole region. Therefore during training, we discard those samples with less than $50\%$ background pixels preserved, [*i.e.*]{}, the [*foreground frame*]{} is larger than half of the entire image, so that we can maximally prevent using those less meaningful background contents (see Fig \[Fig:Dataset\]). However in testing, we keep all the processed images, in the end, $289\rm{,}031$ training images and $50\rm{,}000$ testing images are preserved.
- To increase the amount of training data for foreground classification, we also construct a hybrid dataset, abbreviated as the [**HybridSet**]{}. The [**HybridSet**]{} is composed of all images of the original training set. If at least one ground-truth bounding box is available, we pre-process this image as described on [**FGSet**]{}, otherwise, we simply keep this image without doing anything. As bounding box annotation is available in each testing case, the [**HybridSet**]{} and the [**FGSet**]{} contain the same testing data. Training with the [**HybridSet**]{} can be understood as a semi-supervised learning process.
Training and Testing {#ComplementaryNets:TrainingTesting}
--------------------
We trained the milestone [**AlexNet**]{} [@Krizhevsky_2012_ImageNet] using the CAFFE library [@Jia_2014_CAFFE] on different training sets as mentioned in the Sec \[ComplementaryNets:DataPreparation\]. The base learning rate is set to $0.01$, and reduced by $1/10$ for every $100\rm{,}000$ iterations. The moment is set to be $0.9$ and the weight decay parameter is $0.0005$. A total number of $450\rm{,}000$ iterations is conducted, which corresponds to around $90$ training epochs on the original dataset. Note that both [**FGSet**]{} and [**BGSet**]{} contain less number of images than that of [**OrigSet**]{} and [**HybridSet**]{}, which leads to a larger number of training epochs, given the same training iterations. In these cases, we adjust the dropout ratio as $0.7$ to avoid the overfitting issue. We refer to the network trained on the [**OrigSet**]{} as the [**OrigNet**]{}, and similar abbreviated names also apply to other cases, [*i.e.*]{}, the [**FGNet**]{}, [**BGNet**]{} and [**HybridNet**]{}.
During testing, we report the results by using the common data augmentation of averaging 10 patches from the [*$5$ crops*]{} and [*$5$ flips*]{}. After all forward passes are done, the average output on the final ([*fc-8*]{}) layer is used for prediction. We adopt the MatConvNet [@Vedaldi_2015_Matconvnet] platform for performance evaluation.
Experiments {#ComplementaryNets:PreliminaryResults}
===========
The testing accuracy of [**AlexNet**]{} trained on corresponding dataset are given in the last column of Table \[Tab:Dataset\]. We can find that the [**BGNet**]{} produces reasonable classification results: $14.41\%$ top-$1$ and $29.62\%$ top-$5$ accuracy (while the random guess gets $0.1\%$ and $0.5\%$, respectively), which is a bit surprising considering it makes classification decisions only on background contents ***without*** any foreground objects given. This demonstrates that deep neural networks are capable of learning pure contexts to infer objects even being fully occluded. Not surprisingly, the [**HybridNet**]{} gives better performance than the [**FGNet**]{} due to more training data available.
Human Recognition {#HumanRecognition}
-----------------
As stated before, to alleviate the possibility of wrongly classifying images for humans beings due to high volume of classes up to $1\rm{,}000$ on the original [**ILSVRC2012**]{}, we follow [@Huh_2016_What] by merging all the fine-grained categories, resulting in a $127$-class recognition problem meanwhile keeping the number of training/testing images unchanged. To distinguish the merged $127$-class datasets with the previous datasets, we refer to them as the [**OrigSet-127**]{}, [**FSet-127**]{} and [**BGSet-127**]{}, respectively. Then we invite volunteers who are familiar with the merged $127$ classes to perform the recognition task on [**BGSet-127**]{} and [**FSet-127**]{}. Humans are given $256$ images covering all $127$ classes and one image takes around two minutes to make the top-$5$ decisions. We do not evaluate humans on [**OrigSet-127**]{} since we believe humans can perform well on this set like on [**OrigSet**]{}. Human performance on [**OrigSet**]{} (labeled by $^\star$) is reported by [@Russakovsky_2015_ImageNet].
Table \[Tab:ResultsILSVRC\] gives the testing recognition performance of human beings and trained [**AlexNet**]{} on different datasets. It is well noted that humans are good at recognizing natural images [@Russakovsky_2015_ImageNet], [*e.g.*]{}, on [**OrigSet**]{}, human labelers achieve much higher performance than [**AlexNet**]{}. We can find the human beings also surpass networks on the foreground (object-level) recognition by $5.93\%$ and $1.96\%$ in terms of top-$1$ and top-$5$ accuracy. Surprisingly, [**AlexNet**]{} beats human labelers to a large margin on the background dataset [**BGSet-127**]{} considering the $127\%$ and $85\%$ relative improvements from $18.36\%$ to $41.65\%$ and $39.84\%$ to $73.79\%$ for top-$1$ and top-$5$ accuracy, respectively. In this case, the networks are capable of exploring background hints for recognition much better than human beings. On the contrary, humans classify images mainly based on the visual contents of the foreground objects.
Dataset [**AlexNet**]{} [**Human**]{}
--------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
[**OrigSet**]{} $58.19\%$, $80.96\%$ $-$, $94.90\%^\star$
[**BGSet**]{} $14.41\%$, $29.62\%$ $-$, $-$
[**OrigSet-127**]{} $73.16\%$, $93.28\%$ $-$, $-$
[**FGSet-127**]{} $75.32\%$, $93.87\%$ $81.25\%$, $95.83\%$
[**BGSet-127**]{} $41.65\%$, $73.79\%$ $18.36\%$, $39.84\%$
: Classification accuracy (in terms of top-$1$, top-$5$) on five sets by deep neural networks and human, respectively. []{data-label="Tab:ResultsILSVRC"}
Cross Evaluation {#ComplementaryNets:CrossEvaluation}
----------------
To study the difference in visual patterns learned by different networks, we perform the cross evaluation, [*i.e.*]{}, applying each trained network to different testing sets. Results are summarized in Table \[Tab:CrossEvaluation\].
We find that the transferring ability of each network is limited, since a model cannot obtain satisfying performance in the scenario of different distributions between training and testing data. For example, using [**FGNet**]{} to predict [**OrigSet**]{} leads to $27.40\%$ absolute drop ($45.05\%$ relative) in top-$1$ accuracy, meanwhile using [**OrigNet**]{} to predict [**FGSet**]{} leads to $7.46\%$ drop ($12.82\%$ relative) in top-$1$ accuracy. We conjecture that [**FGNet**]{} may store very little information on contexts, thus confused by the background context of [**OrigSet**]{}. On the other side, [**OrigNet**]{} has the ability of recognizing contexts but is wasted for the task on [**FGSet**]{}.
Diagnosis {#ComplementaryNets:Diagnosis}
---------
We conduct diagnostic experiments to study the property of different networks to fully understand the networks behaviors. Specifically, we report the classification accuracy of different networks with respect to keeping different foreground ratios of the testing image.
We split each testing dataset into $10$ subsets, each of which contains all images with the foreground ratio no greater than a fixed value. Results are shown in Fig. \[Fig:AccFGRatio\]. [**BGNet**]{} gets higher classification accuracy on the images with a relatively smaller foreground ratio, while other three networks prefer a large object ratio since the foreground information is primarily learned for recognition in these cases. Furthermore when the foreground ratio goes larger, [*e.g.*]{}, greater than $80\%$, the performance gap among [**OrigNet**]{}, [**FGNet**]{} and [**HybridNet**]{} gets smaller.
Visualization {#ComplementaryNets:Visulization}
-------------
In this part, we visualize the networks to see how different networks learn different visual patterns. We adopt a very straightforward visualization method [@Wang_2015_Discovering], which takes a trained network and reference images as input.
We visualize the most significant responses of the neurons on the [*conv-5*]{} layer. The [*conv-5*]{} layer is composed of $256$ filter response maps, each of which has $13\times13$ different spatial positions. After all the $50\rm{,}000$ reference images are processed, we obtain $13^2\times50000$ responses for each of the $256$ filters. We pick up those neurons with the highest response and trace back to obtain its receptive field on the input image. In this way, we can discover the visual patterns that best describe the concept this filter has learned. For diversity, we only choose at most one patch from a reference image with the highest response score.
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
Fig. \[Fig:Visualization\] shows visualization results using [**FGNet**]{} on [**FGSet**]{}, [**BGNet**]{} on [**BGSet**]{} and [**OrigNet**]{} on [**OrigSet**]{}, respectively. We can observe quite different visual patterns learned by these networks. The visual patterns learned by [**FGNet**]{} are often very specific to some object categories, such as the patch of a [*dog face*]{} (filter $5$) or the [*front side*]{} of a [*shop*]{} (filter $11$). These visual patterns correspond to some visual attributes, which are vital for recognition. However, each visual concept learned by [**BGNet**]{} tends to appear in many different object categories, for instance, the patch of [*outdoor scene*]{} (filter $8$) shared by the [*jetty, viaduct, space shuttle, etc.* ]{} These visual patterns are often found in the context, which plays an assistant role in object recognition. As for [**OrigNet**]{}, the learned patterns can be shared specific objects or scene. To summarize, [**FGNet**]{} and [**BGNet**]{} learn different visual patterns that can be combined to assist visual recognition. In Sec \[ComplementaryNets:Diagnosis\] we quantitatively demonstrate the effectiveness of these networks via combining these information for better recognition performance.
Combination {#Combination}
===========
Network [*Guided*]{} [*Unguided*]{}
------------------------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------------------
[**OrigNet**]{} $58.19\%$, $80.96\%$ $58.19\%$, $80.96\%$
[**BGNet**]{} $14.41\%$, $29.62\%$ $ 8.30\%$, $20.60\%$
[**FGNet**]{} $60.82\%$, $83.43\%$ $40.71\%$, $64.12\%$
[**HybridNet**]{} $61.29\%$, $83.85\%$ $45.58\%$, $70.22\%$
[**FGNet**]{}$+$[**BGNet**]{} $61.75\%$, $83.88\%$ $41.83\%$, $65.32\%$
[**HybridNet**]{}$+$[**BGNet**]{} $62.52\%$, $84.53\%$ $48.08\%$, $72.69\%$
[**HybridNet**]{}$+$[**OrigNet**]{} $\bm{65.63}\%$, $\bm{86.69}\%$ $\bm{60.36}\%$, $\bm{82.47}\%$
: Classification accuracy (in terms of top-$1$, top-$5$) comparison of different network combinations. It’s worth noting that we feed the entire image into the [**OrigNet**]{} no matter whether the ground-truth bounding box(es) is given in order to keep the testing phase consistent with the training of [**OrigNet**]{}. Therefore, the reported results of [**OrigNet**]{} are same with each other under both [*guided*]{} and [*unguided*]{} conditions. To integrate the results from several networks, we weighted sum up the responses on the [*fc-8*]{} layer. []{data-label="Tab:LinearCombination"}
We first show that the recognition accuracy can be significantly boosted using ground-truth bounding box(es) at the testing stage. Next, with the help of the EdgeBox algorithm [@Zitnick_2014_Edge] to generate accurate object proposals, we improve the recognition performance without the requirement of ground-truth annotations. We name them as [*guided*]{} and [*unguided*]{} combination, respectively.
Guided vs. Unguided Combination
-------------------------------
We start with describing guided and unguided manners of the model combination. For simplicity, we adopt the linear combination over different models, [*i.e.*]{}, forwarding several networks, and weighted summing up the responses on the [*fc-8*]{} layer.
If the ground-truth bounding box is provided (the [*guided*]{} condition), we use the ground-truth bounding box to divide the testing image into foreground and background regions. Then, we feed the foreground regions into [**FGNet**]{} or [**HybridNet**]{}, and background regions into [**BGNet**]{}, then fuse the neuron responses at the final stage.
![ EdgeBox statistics on [**ILSVRC2012**]{} validation set, which denotes the curriculum distribution function of the detected ground-truth with respect to the top-$k$ proposals. Here, we set the Intersection over Union (IoU) threshold to be $0.7$ for EdgeBox algorithm. []{data-label="Fig:EdgeBoxStatistics"}](figures/EdgeboxRank.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Furthermore, we also explore the solution of combining multiple networks in an [*unguided*]{} manner. As we will see in Sec \[Combination:LinearCombination\], a reliable bounding box helps a lot in object recognition. Motivated by which, we use an efficient and effective algorithm, EdgeBox, to generate a lot of potential bounding boxes proposals for each testing image, and then feed the foreground and background regions into neural networks as described before across top proposals.
To begin with, we demonstrate the EdgeBox proposals are good to capture the ground-truth object. After extracting top-$k$ proposals with EdgeBox, we count the detected ground-truth if at least one of proposals has the IoU no less than $0.7$ with the ground-truth. The cumulative distribution function (CDF) is plotted in Fig. \[Fig:EdgeBoxStatistics\]. Considering efficiency as well as accuracy, we choose the top-$100$ proposals to feed the foreground and background into trained networks, which give an around $81\%$ recall. After obtaining $100$ outputs for each network, we average responses of [*fc-8*]{} layer for classification.
Combination Results and Discussion {#Combination:LinearCombination}
----------------------------------
Results of different combinations are summarized in Table \[Tab:LinearCombination\]. Under either [*guided*]{} or [*unguided*]{} settings, combining multiple networks boosts recognition performance, which verifies the statement that different visual patterns from different networks can help with each other for the object recognition. Take a closer look at the accuracy gain under the [*unguided*]{} condition. The combination of [**HybridNet**]{}$+$[**BGNet**]{} outperforms [**HybridNet**]{} by $2.50\%$ and $2.47\%$ in terms of top-$1$ and top-$5$ recognition accuracy, which are noticeable gains. As for the [**FGNet**]{}$+$[**BGNet**]{}, it improves $1.12\%$ and $1.20\%$ classification accuracy compared with the [**FGNet**]{}, which are promising. Surprisingly, the combination of [**HybridNet**]{} with [**OrigNet**]{} can still increase from the [**OrigNet**]{} by $2.17\%$ and $1.51\%$. We hypothesize that the combination is capable of discovering the objects implicitly by the inference of where the objects are due to the visual patterns of [**HybridNet**]{} are learned from images with object spatial information. One may conjecture that the performance improvement may come from the ensemble effect, which is not necessarily true considering: 1) object proposals are not accurate enough; 2) data augmentation ([*$5$ crops*]{} and [*$5$ flips*]{}) is already done for the [**OrigNet**]{}, therefore the improvement is complementary to data augmentation. Moreover, we quantitatively verify that the improvements are not from simple data augmentation by giving the results of [**OrigNet**]{} averaged by $100$ densely sampled patches ($50$ crops and corresponding $50$ flips, $227\times227\times3$, referred to as [**OrigNet100**]{}) instead of the default ($5$ crops and $5$ flips) setting. The top-$1$ and top-$5$ accuracy of [**OrigNet100**]{} are $58.08\%$ and $81.05\%$, which are very similar to original $58.19\%$ and $80.96\%$. This suggests that the effect of data augmentation by $100$ patches is negligible. By contrast, [**HybridNet+OrigNet100**]{} reports $60.80\%$ and $82.59\%$, significantly higher than [**OrigNet100**]{} alone, which reveals that [**HybridNet**]{} brings in some benefits that are not achieved via data augmentation. These improvements are super promising considering that the networks don’t know where the accurate objects are under the [*unguided*]{} condition. Notice that the results under [*unguided*]{} condition cannot surpass those under [*guided*]{} condition, arguably because the top-$100$ proposals not good enough to capture the accurate ground-truth given that the [**BGNet**]{} cannot give high confidence on the predictions.
For the [*guided*]{} way of testing, by providing accurate separation of foreground from background, works better than the [*unguided*]{} way by a large margin, which makes sense. And the improvements can consistently be found after combinations with the [**BGNet**]{}. It is well worth noting that the combination of [**HybridNet**]{} with [**OrigGNet**]{} improves the baseline of [**OrigGNet**]{} to a significant margin by $7.44\%$ and $5.73\%$. The huge gains are reasonable because of networks’ ability to infer object locations trained on accurate bounding box(es).
Conclusions and Future Work {#Conclusions}
===========================
In this work, we first demonstrate the surprising finding that neural networks can predict object categories quite well even when the object is ***not*** present. This motivates us to study the human recognition performance on foreground ***with*** objects and background ***without*** objects. We show on the $127$-classes [**ILSVRC2012**]{} that human beings beat neural networks for foreground object recognition, while perform much worse to predict the object category only on the background without objects. Then ***explicitly*** combining the visual patterns learned from different networks can help each other for the recognition task. We claim that more emphasis should be placed on the role of contexts for object detection and recognition.
In the future, we will investigate an end-to-end training approach for explicitly separating and then combining the foreground and background information, which explores the visual contents to the full extent. For instance, inspired by some joint learning strategy such as Faster R-CNN [@Ren_2015_Faster], we can design a structure which predicts the object proposals in the intermediate stage, then learns the foreground and background regions derived from the proposals separately by two sub-networks and then takes foreground and background features into further consideration.
Acknowledgment
==============
This work is supported by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Department of Interior/Interior Business Center (DoI/IBC) contract number D16PC00007. We greatly thank the anonymous reviewers and JHU CCVL members who have given valuable and constructive suggestions which make this work better.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A family $\mathcal A$ of subsets of an $n$-element set is called an *eventown* (resp. *oddtown*) if all its sets have even (resp. odd) size and all pairwise intersections have even size. Using tools from linear algebra, it was shown by Berlekamp and Graver that the maximum size of an eventown is $2^{\left\lfloor n/2\right\rfloor}$. On the other hand (somewhat surprisingly), it was proven by Berlekamp, that oddtowns have size at most $n$. Over the last four decades, many extensions of this even/oddtown problem have been studied. In this paper we present new results on two such extensions. First, extending a result of Vu, we show that a $k$-wise eventown (i.e., intersections of $k$ sets are even) has for $k \geq 3$ a unique extremal configuration and obtain a stability result for this problem. Next we improve some known bounds for the defect version of an $\ell$-oddtown problem. In this problem we consider sets of size $\not\equiv 0 \pmod \ell$ where $\ell$ is a prime number $\ell$ (not necessarily $2$) and allow a few pairwise intersections to also have size $\not\equiv 0 \pmod \ell$.'
author:
- 'Benny Sudakov [^1]'
- 'Pedro Vieira [^2]'
title: Two remarks on even and oddtown problems
---
Introduction
============
Let $\mathcal A=\{A_1,\ldots, A_m\}$ be a family of subsets of $[n]:=\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$. We say that $\mathcal A$ is an *eventown* (resp. *oddtown*) if all its sets have even (resp. odd) size and $$\begin{aligned}
|A_i\cap A_j| \;\text{ is even}&\text{ for }1\le i< j\le m\end{aligned}$$ Answering a question of Erdős, Berlekamp [@B69] and Graver [@G75] showed independently that the maximum size of an eventown is $2^{\left\lfloor n/2\right\rfloor}$. Somewhat surprisingly, the answer changes drastically when one considers oddtowns. Indeed, Berlekamp [@B69] proved that oddtowns have size at most $n$, which is easily seen to be best possible. The proofs of these two results relied on a technique known as the *linear algebra bound* method, which has been widely used to tackle problems in Extremal Combinatorics ever since.
Over the last decades, many extensions of this even/oddtown problem have been studied. A natural extension is to consider the problem modulo $\ell \ge 2$. We say that $\mathcal A$ is a $\ell$-*eventown* (resp. $\ell$-*oddtown*) if all its sets have size $\equiv 0 \; (\bmod\; \ell)$ (resp. $\not \equiv 0 \; (\bmod\; \ell)$) and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:leventown}
|A_i\cap A_j| \equiv 0\; (\bmod\; \ell)\, \text{ for }1\le i< j\le m.\end{aligned}$$ The problem of estimating the maximum possible size of an $\ell$-oddtown is nowadays fairly well understood. One can modify Berlekamp’s proof for oddtowns slightly to show that if $\ell$ is a prime number then an $\ell$-oddtown has size at most $n$. With a bit of effort one can prove that the same still holds when $\ell$ is a prime power and that a weaker bound of $m\le c(\ell)n$ holds in general, where $c(\ell)$ is a constant depending on $\ell$. It remains an open problem whether one can take $c(\ell) = 1$ when $\ell$ is a composite number. For further details and related problems see the excellent monograph [@BF92] of Babai and Frankl.
For $\ell$-eventowns a bit less is known. A natural lower bound construction for the maximum size of an $\ell$-eventown is $2^{\lfloor n/\ell\rfloor}$. This arises from considering $\lfloor n/\ell\rfloor$ disjoint subsets $B_1,\ldots, B_{\lfloor n/\ell\rfloor}$ of $[n]$ of size $\ell$ and taking $\mathcal A=\left\{\bigcup_{i\in S} B_i: \;S\subseteq \left[\lfloor n/\ell\rfloor\right]\right\}$. It turns out surprisingly that for large $\ell$ there are significantly larger $\ell$-eventowns. Indeed, Frankl and Odlyzko [@FO83] found a nice construction of $\ell$-eventowns of size at least $(c\ell)^{\lfloor n/(4\ell)\rfloor}$, where $c>0$ is an absolute constant. Their construction relies on a clever use of Hadamard matrices. In addition, they showed that any $\ell$-eventown has size at most $2^{O\left(\log \ell/\ell\right)n}$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$. These two results combined certify that the maximum possible size of an $\ell$-eventown is of order $2^{\Theta(\log \ell/\ell)n}$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$.
Our results will focus on two other extensions of the even/oddtown problem that have been considered in the past. The first one extends property (\[eq:leventown\]) to multiple intersections. The second one is a defect version of the $\ell$-oddtown problem, obtained by relaxing condition (\[eq:leventown\]). We shall discuss these two extensions as well as our results in the next two subsections.
Multiple intersections
----------------------
We say that $\mathcal A=\{A_1,\ldots, A_m\}$ is a *$k$-wise $\ell$-eventown* if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kwiseleventown}
\left|\bigcap_{i\in S}A_{i}\right|\equiv 0\; (\bmod\; \ell)\text{ for every non-empty }S\subseteq [m] \text{ of size } |S| = k.\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we refer to a $k$-wise $2$-eventown simply as a $k$-wise eventown. We remark that a $2$-wise eventown is not the same as an eventown, since in the former we do not require that the sets themselves have even size.
The problem of maximizing the size of $k$-wise eventowns is nowadays well understood. For $k=1$, a $k$-wise eventown $\mathcal A$ is just a family of even-sized sets. Thus, $|\mathcal A| \le \sum_{i = 0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\binom{n}{2i}=2^{n-1}$, a bound which is attained by taking $\mathcal A$ to be the family of all subsets of $[n]$ of even size. The case $k=2$ was first considered in the papers of Berlekamp [@B69] and Graver [@G75] who showed that the maximum size of a $2$-wise eventown is $n+1$ if $n\le 5$, $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ if $n\ge 6$ is even and $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}+1$ if $n\ge 7$ is odd. Later, Vu [@V97] addressed the general case:
\[thm:vukwiseeventown\] There is a constant $c>0$ such that for any $k\ge 2$ the maximum size of a $k$-wise eventown in a universe of size $n\ge c\log_2 k$ is $2^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}$ if $n$ is even and $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}+k-1$ if $n$ is odd.
In Extremal Combinatorics, given an extremal result like Theorem \[thm:vukwiseeventown\], it is common to ask what possible extremal configurations exist. In many problems, one can classify all the extremal configurations or at least describe some structural properties of these. When there is a unique extremal configuration, it is often the case that a *stability* result holds. This means that one can give a precise structural description not just of the extremal configuration but also of nearly extremal configurations.
Given Theorem \[thm:vukwiseeventown\], it is therefore natural to investigate what $k$-wise eventowns of maximum possible size look like, and whether a stability version of Theorem \[thm:vukwiseeventown\] exists. The next construction provides $k$-wise eventowns with the sizes indicated in Theorem \[thm:vukwiseeventown\], for any $k\ge 2$ and $n\ge 2\lceil\log_{2}(k-1)\rceil$.
\[cons:maxkwiseeventown\] (i) Let $B_1,\ldots, B_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ be $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ disjoint subsets of $[n]$ of size $2$. The family $\mathcal A=\left\{\bigcup_{i\in S} B_i: \;S\subseteq \left[\lfloor n/2\rfloor\right]\right\}$ is a $k$-wise eventown of size $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ for every $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
\(ii) If $n$ is odd, let $B_1,\ldots, B_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ and $\mathcal A$ be as in (i). Let $i\in[n]$ be the unique element not covered by the sets $B_1,\ldots, B_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ and let $C_1,\ldots, C_{k-1}$ be any $k-1$ distinct sets in $\mathcal A$ (for this we need that $n\ge 2\lceil\log_{2}(k-1)\rceil$). If we add to $\mathcal A$ the $k-1$ sets $C_1\cup\{i\},\ldots, C_{k-1}\cup\{i\}$ then the resulting family is a $k$-wise eventown of size $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}+k-1$.
For $k=2$, the families considered in Construction \[cons:maxkwiseeventown\] are by no means the only examples of $2$-wise eventowns of maximum size. For example, for $n$ even, one can show that for any $2$-wise eventown $\mathcal A$ with even-sized sets, there exists a $2$-wise eventown $\mathcal B$ containing $\mathcal A$ of size $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ (see, e.g., Ex. 1.1.10 of Babai-Frankl [@BF92]). This allows one to produce many highly non-isomorphic $2$-wise eventowns of maximum possible size, by starting with very different looking small $2$-wise eventowns $\mathcal A$ with even-sized sets and then extending them to $2$-wise eventowns of maximum possible size. Given this phenomena, it is natural to ask what happens for $k\ge 3$. We prove that in this case the extremal construction of a $k$-wise eventown is unique. Moreover, a stability result holds.
\[thm:kwiseeventown\] Let $\mathcal A$ be a $k$-wise eventown on $[n]$ for some $k\ge 3$. If $|\mathcal A|> \frac{3}{4}2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}+(k-1)n$ and $n\ge 2\lceil \log_{2}(k-1)\rceil + 4$ then $\mathcal A$ is a subfamily of a family in Construction \[cons:maxkwiseeventown\].
In order to establish Theorem \[thm:kwiseeventown\] it will be convenient for us to consider a strengthening of (\[eq:kwiseleventown\]). We say that $\mathcal A$ is a *strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventown* if it is a $k'$-wise $\ell$-eventown for every $k'\in \{1,2,\ldots, k\}$. The problem of estimating the maximum size of a strong $k$-wise eventown is a simple one. For $k=1$, a strong $k$-wise eventown is the same as a $k$-wise eventown and so, as mentioned earlier, its maximum possible size is $2^{n-1}$. For $k\ge 2$, a strong $k$-wise eventown is also an eventown and thus has size at most $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$. Construction \[cons:maxkwiseeventown\] (i) certifies that strong $k$-wise eventowns of this size exist for every $k$. As was the case with $2$-wise eventowns, there are many highly non-isomorphic strong $2$-wise eventowns of size $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$. However, as our next result shows, for $k\ge 3$ the families in Construction \[cons:maxkwiseeventown\] (i) are the only strong $k$-wise eventowns of size $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ and, furthermore, a stability result holds.
\[thm:strongkwiseeventown\] If $\mathcal A$ is a $k$-wise eventown in $[n]$ for every $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, then there exist disjoint even-sized subsets $B_1,\ldots, B_s$ of $[n]$ such that $\mathcal A\subseteq \{\bigcup_{i\in S}B_i:S\subseteq [s]\}$. Furthermore, for $k\ge 2$, if $\mathcal A$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown in $[n]$ but not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown then $|\mathcal A|\le 2^{\left\lfloor n/2\right\rfloor-\left(2^{k}-k-2\right)}$.
We remark that strong $k$-wise eventowns which are not $(k+1)$-wise eventowns only exist for $n\ge 2^{k+1}-1$. Moreover, the upper bound in Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\] is best possible as there exist strong $k$-wise eventowns of size $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor -(2^k-k-2)}$ which are not $(k+1)$-wise eventowns for any $n\ge 2^{k+1}-1$. We discuss this in Section \[section:kwiseeventowns\] after proving Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\].
Far less is known about the maximum possible size of (strong) $k$-wise $\ell$-eventowns when $\ell > 2$. We address this problem in Section \[section:concludingremarks\].
Defect version for $\ell$-oddtowns
----------------------------------
We say that $\mathcal A=\{A_1,\ldots, A_m\}$ is a *$d$-defect $\ell$-oddtown* if for every $i\in [m]$ we have $|A_i|\not \equiv 0\; (\bmod\; \ell)$ and there are at most $d$ indices $j\in [m]\setminus \{i\}$ such that $|A_i\cap A_j|\not \equiv 0\;(\bmod \;\ell)$. Note that a $0$-defect $\ell$-oddtown is the same as an $\ell$-oddtown. For simplicity, we refer to a $d$-defect $2$-oddtown simply as a $d$-defect oddtown. Vu [@V99] considered the problem of maximizing the size of a $d$-defect oddtown, solving it almost completely. His results imply the following:
\[thm:vu\]The maximum size of a $d$-defect oddtown in $[n]$ is $(d+1)(n-2\lceil \log_{2}(d+1)\rceil)$, for any $d\ge 0$ and $n\ge d/8$.
For $\ell>2$, Vu observed that the maximum size of a $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtown is at most $(d+1)n$ if $\ell$ is a prime number and at least $(d+1)(n-\ell\lceil \log_{2}(d+1)\rceil)$ for every $\ell$. Our next result improves Vu’s upper bound of $(d+1)n$ on the maximum size of a $d$-defect $\ell$-odtown, when $\ell >2$ is a prime number.
\[thm:ddefectloddtown\] Let $\ell$ be a prime number and suppose $\mathcal A$ is a $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtown in the universe $[n]$. There is a constant $C>0$ such that if $n\ge Cd\log d$ then $|\mathcal A|\le (d+1)\left(n-2\left(\lceil \log_{2}(d+2)\rceil-1\right)\right)$.
For $d=1$ we can show that this upper bound is essentially best possible:
\[thm:1defectloddtown\] Let $\ell$ be a prime number. If $\mathcal A$ is a $1$-defect $\ell$-oddtown in $[n]$ then $|\mathcal A|\le \max\{n,2n-4\}$. Moreover, there exist $1$-defect $\ell$-oddtowns of size $2n-4$ for infinitely many values of $n$.
It turns out that Vu’s lower bound of $(d+1)(n-\ell\lceil \log_{2}(d+1)\rceil)$ can also be improved for some values of $d$ and $\ell$. We discuss this briefly in the last section of the paper.
**Organization of the paper:** In Section \[section:auxiliaryresults\] we introduce some auxiliary lemmas which we need in the proofs of our results. In Section \[section:kwiseeventowns\] we present the proofs of Theorems \[eq:kwiseleventown\] and \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\]. In Section \[section:ddefectloddtowns\] we prove Theorems \[thm:ddefectloddtown\] and \[thm:1defectloddtown\]. Finally, in Section \[section:concludingremarks\] we discuss further extensions of the problems considered as well as related open problems.
Auxiliary results {#section:auxiliaryresults}
=================
The following lemma (see, e.g. Ex. 1.1.8 of [@BF92]) will be useful for us in the proof of Theorem \[thm:kwiseeventown\].
\[lemma:skewoddtown\] Suppose $R_1,\ldots, R_m$ and $B_1,\ldots, B_m$ are subsets of $[n]$ such that the following conditions hold:
1. $|R_i\cap B_i|\not\equiv 0 \pmod 2$ for every $i\in [m]$;
2. $|R_i\cap B_j|\equiv 0 \pmod 2$ for $1\le i< j\le m$.
Then $m\le n$.
For any graph $G$ we denote by $\chi(G)$ and $\Delta(G)$ the chromatic number and maximum degree of $G$, respectively. Recall that for any graph $G$ one has $\chi(G)\le \Delta(G)+1$ (see, e.g., [@D10]). In the proof of Theorem \[thm:ddefectloddtown\] we will be interested in the cases in which equality holds. For that matter we make use of Brooks’ Theorem [@B41].
\[thm:Brooks\] For any graph $G$, we have $\chi(G)\le \Delta(G)$ unless $G$ contains a copy of $K_{\Delta(G)+1}$ or $\Delta(G)=2$ and $G$ contains a cycle of odd length.
The next auxiliary lemmas use basic linear algebra. All the vector spaces considered will be over the field $\mathbb{F}_{\ell}$ where $\ell$ is a prime number and the dot product considered will always refer to the standard inner product such that $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\cdot (y_1,\ldots, y_n) = \sum_{i=}^{n}x_iy_i$ for $(x_1,\ldots, x_n),(y_1,\ldots,y_n)\in \mathbb F_{\ell}^{n}$. We will say that a subspace $U$ of $\mathbb F_{\ell}^{n}$ is *non-degenerate* if the dot product in $U$ is a non-degenerate bilinear form, meaning that for any non-zero vector $u\in U$ there exists $v\in U$ such that $u\cdot v \neq 0$. The next well-known lemma follows from Proposition 1.2 of Chapter XV of [@L02].
\[lemma:linearalgebra\] Let $V$ be a non-degenerate subspace of $\mathbb{F}_{\ell}^{n}$ and $U$ a subspace of $V$. Denote by $U^{\perp}$ the orthogonal complement of $U$ in $V$ with respect to the dot product. Then:
1. $\dim U+\dim U^{\perp}=\dim V$.
2. If $U$ is non-degenerate then $U^{\perp}$ is also non-degenerate.
Note that any $d$ linearly independent vectors in $\mathbb F_{\ell}^{n}$ span a subspace of size $\ell^{d}$. Therefore, given $t$ distinct vectors $v_1,\ldots, v_t$ in $\mathbb F_{\ell}^{n}$ one can always find $\lceil\log_{\ell}t\rceil$ of them which are linearly independent (e.g. take a basis of the subspace spanned by $v_1,\ldots, v_t$ consisting of vectors from this set). This is best possible in general but it can be improved under certain conditions on these vectors. A good example of this, is the following theorem of Odlyzko [@O81] which will be useful for us.
\[thm:(0,1)-vectors\] Let $\ell$ be a prime number and $n$ a natural number. Given $t$ distinct $\{0,1\}$-vectors in $\mathbb F_{\ell}^{n}$ one can find at least $\lceil\log_{2}t\rceil$ of them which are linearly independent.
In the proof of Theorem \[thm:ddefectloddtown\] we will make use of the following lemma of this type.
\[lemma:dimension\] Suppose $b_1,\ldots,b_{t}$ are distinct $\{0,1\}$-vectors in a non-degenerate subspace $W$ of $\mathbb{F}_{\ell}^{n}$ such that $(b_1\cdot b_1)(b_i\cdot b_j)=(b_1\cdot b_i)(b_1\cdot b_j)\neq 0$ for every $i,j\in [t]$. Then $\dim W\ge 2\lceil \log_{2}(t+1)\rceil-1$.
For each $i\in [t]$ define $c_i:=(b_1\cdot b_1)b_{i}-(b_1\cdot b_i)b_{1}$. Let $B$ and $C$ be the linear subspaces generated by $b_1,\ldots, b_{t}$ and $c_1,\ldots, c_{t}$, respectively, and let $C^{\perp}$ denote the orthogonal complement of $C$ in $W$ with respect to the dot product. Note that $$c_{i}\cdot b_{j}=(b_1\cdot b_1)(b_i\cdot b_j)-(b_1\cdot b_i)(b_1\cdot b_j)=0$$ for every $i,j\in [t]$ and so it follows that $C\subseteq B\subseteq C^{\perp}$. Moreover, we know that $b_1\notin C$ since $b_1\cdot b_1\neq 0$ and so $\dim C\le \dim B -1$. In addition, by the definition of the vectors $c_1,\ldots, c_{t}$ it follows that $B=C+\text{span}(b_1)$ and so $\dim C\ge \dim B-1$. We conclude then that $\dim C=\dim B-1$.
By (a) of Lemma \[lemma:linearalgebra\] we have $\dim C+\dim C^{\perp}=\dim W$ and so we get: $$\dim W \ge \dim B+\dim C=2\dim B-1$$ Finally, since $b_1,\ldots, b_{t}$ and the $0$-vector are $t+1$ distinct $\{0,1\}$-vectors (because $b_i\cdot b_i\neq 0$) it follows from Theorem \[thm:(0,1)-vectors\] that $\dim B\ge \lceil\log_{2}(t+1)\rceil$.
**Remark:** For $\ell = 2$, since all the vectors in $\mathbb{F}_{2}^{n}$ are $\{0,1\}$-vectors, one can apply Theorem \[thm:(0,1)-vectors\] to the vectors in $C$ to get the stronger bound $\dim W\ge 2\lceil\log_{2}t\rceil+1$. We believe that one should be able to get the same bound for any prime $\ell$.
$k$-wise eventowns {#section:kwiseeventowns}
==================
In this section we present the proofs of Theorems \[thm:kwiseeventown\] and \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\]. The main ingredient in the proof of Theorem \[thm:kwiseeventown\] is the structure of large strong $k$-wise eventowns obtained from Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\]. Therefore, we start with the proof of the latter and later use it to deduce the proof of the former.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\] {#subsection:strongkwiseeventown}
--------------------------------------------
In the next lemma, we prove the first half of the statement in Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\], characterizing the families which are $k$-wise eventowns for every $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
\[lemma:blockfamily\] If $\mathcal A$ is a $k$-wise eventown for every $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, then there exist disjoint even-sized subsets $B_1,\ldots, B_s$ of $[n]$ such that $\mathcal A\subseteq \{\bigcup_{i\in S}B_i:S\subseteq [s]\}$.
Suppose $\mathcal A=\{A_1,\ldots, A_m\}$ is a $k$-wise eventown for every $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Define for each $i\in [m]$ the sets $A^{0}_{i}:=A_i$ and $A^{1}_{i}:=[n]\setminus A_i$. Set $\mathcal T =\{0,1\}^{m}\setminus\{(1,1,\ldots,1)\}$ and given a tuple $t=(t_i)_{i\in [m]}\in \mathcal T$ let $B_t:=\bigcap_{i\in [m]}A^{t_i}_i$. To prove Lemma \[lemma:blockfamily\] it suffices to show that the sets $\{B_t:t\in \mathcal T\}$ satisfy:
1. for every $i\in [m]$ there exists a set $T_i\subseteq \mathcal T$ such that $A_i=\cup_{t\in T_i}B_t$
2. for any $t,t'\in \mathcal T$, if $t\neq t'$ then $B_t\cap B_{t'}=\emptyset$.
3. $|B_t|$ is even for every $t\in \mathcal T$.
We start by showing that (a) holds. Given $i\in [m]$ let $T_i=\{t\in \mathcal T: t_i=0\}$. Note that for any $t\in T_i$ we have $B_t=\bigcap_{j\in [m]}A^{t_j}_j\subseteq A_i$ since the term $A_i^{t_i}=A_i$ appears in this intersection. Thus, it follows that $\bigcup_{t\in T_i}B_t\subseteq A_i$. Now, note that for each $a\in A_i$ there exists $t\in T_i$ such that $a\in B_t$. Indeed, just consider $t_j=0$ if $a\in A_j$ and $t_j=1$ otherwise. Thus, it follows also that $A_i\subseteq \bigcup_{t\in T_i}B_t$.
Next, we show that (b) holds. Suppose $t\neq t'$ and let $i\in [m]$ be such that $t_i\neq t'_i$. Then $B_t\subseteq A_i^{t_i}$ and $B_{t'}\subseteq A_i^{t'_i}$. Since $t_i\neq t'_i$ it follows that $A_i^{t_i}\cap A_i^{t'_i}=\emptyset$ and so $B_t\cap B_{t'}=\emptyset$.
Finally, we show that $(c)$ holds. Given $t\in \mathcal T$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
|B_t|=&\left|\left(\bigcap_{i\in [m], t_i=0}A_i\right)\cap\left(\bigcap_{i\in [m],t_i=1}[n]\setminus A_i\right)\right|\\
=&\left|\left(\bigcap_{i\in [m], t_i=0}A_i\right)\setminus\left(\bigcup_{i\in [m],t_i=1}A_i\right)\right|\\
=& \left|\left(\bigcap_{i\in [m], t_i=0}A_i\right)\right|-\left|\left(\bigcap_{i\in [m], t_i=0}A_i\right)\cap \left(\bigcup_{i\in [m],t_i=1}A_i\right)\right|.\end{aligned}$$ The first term is the intersection of a positive number of sets in $\mathcal A$ (since $t\neq (1,1,\ldots,1)$) and thus has even size since $\mathcal A$ is a $k$-wise eventown for every $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$. Moreover, the second term can be written, by the inclusion-exclusion principle, as a sum of signed intersection sizes of sets in $\mathcal A$. Thus, the second term is also even, implying that $|B_t|$ is even.
For the second half of the statement of Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\] we will use basic linear algebra techniques. Given a set $A\subseteq [n]$ let $v_A\in\mathbb{F}_{2}^{n}$ denote its $\{0,1\}$-characteristic vector. We consider the following two correspondences between families $\mathcal A\subseteq 2^{[n]}$ and linear subspaces $V\subseteq\mathbb{F}_{2}^{n}$: $$\mathcal A\mapsto V_{\mathcal A}:=\text{span}\{v_{A}:A\in\mathcal A\}\;\;\text{and}\;\;V\mapsto \mathcal A_V:=\{A\subseteq [n]: v_{A}\in V\}$$ Given $\mathcal A\subseteq 2^{[n]}$, we define $\overline{\mathcal A}:=\mathcal A_{V_{\mathcal A}}$ which we call the *linear closure of $\mathcal A$*. Note that $\mathcal A\subseteq \overline{\mathcal A}$, but equality does not necessarily hold. As the next lemma shows, an important property of linear closure is that it preserves the property of being a strong $k$-wise eventown.
\[lemma:linearclosure\] If $\mathcal A$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown then $\overline{\mathcal A}$ is also a strong $k$-wise eventown.
Given a set $B\subseteq [n]$ define the function $f_{B}:[n]\rightarrow \mathbb F_{2}$ such that $$f_{B}(i)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
1 & \text{ if } i\in B\\
0 & \text{ if } i\notin B
\end{matrix}\right.$$ and note that:
1. for any $B\subseteq [n]$ we have $|B|= \sum_{i\in [n]}f_B(i)\pmod 2$;
2. for any $t$ sets $B_1,\ldots,B_t\subseteq [n]$ we have $f_{\cap_{i\in [t]}B_i}=\prod_{i\in [t]}f_{B_i}$;
3. if $A_1,\ldots, A_{t}, B\subseteq [n]$ are such that $v_{B}=\sum_{i\in [t]}v_{A_i}$ then $f_{B}=\sum_{i\in [t]}f_{A_{i}}$.
Now, let $B_1,\cdots,B_k$ be any $k$ not necessarily distinct sets in $\overline{\mathcal A}$. We want to show that $\bigcap_{j\in [k]}B_j$ has even size. Since $\overline{\mathcal A}$ is the span of the vectors $\{v_A\}_{A\in \mathcal A}$, we know that for each $j\in [k]$ there are sets $A_1^{j},\ldots, A_{t_{j}}^{j}\in \mathcal A$ such that $v_{B_j}=\sum_{i\in [t_j]}v_{A_{i}^{j}}$. Thus, by properties (i), (ii) and (iii) it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\bigcap_{j\in[k]} B_j\right|&= \sum_{i\in [n]}f_{\cap_{j\in[k]} B_j}(i)\\
&= \sum_{i\in [n]}\prod_{j\in [k]}f_{B_j}(i)\\
&= \sum_{i\in [n]}\prod_{j\in [k]}\sum_{h\in [t_j]}f_{A_h^{j}}(i)\\
&=\sum_{i\in [n]}\sum_{(h_1,\ldots, h_k)}f_{\cap_{j\in [k]}A_{h_j}^{j}}(i)\\
&= \sum_{(h_1,\ldots,h_k)}\sum_{i\in [n]}f_{\cap_{j\in [k]}A_{h_j}^{j}}(i)\\
&= \sum_{(h_1,\ldots,h_k)}\left|\cap_{j\in [k]}A_{h_j}^{j}\right|\pmod 2\end{aligned}$$ where the sums indexed with $(h_1,\ldots,h_k)$ run over all tuples in $[t_1]\times\ldots\times[t_k]$. Since $\mathcal A$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown we conclude that all the terms in the last sum are even. Thus, for any $k$ not necessarily distinct sets $B_1,\ldots, B_k\in\overline{\mathcal A}$ the set $\bigcap_{j\in[k]} B_j$ has even size, i.e., $\overline{\mathcal A}$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown.
With Lemma \[lemma:linearclosure\] we are ready to present the proof of the second half of the statement of Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\].
\[lemma:upperbound\] For $k\ge 2$, if $\mathcal A\subseteq 2^{[n]}$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown but not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown then: $$|\mathcal A|\le 2^{\left\lfloor n/2\right\rfloor-\left(2^{k}-k-2\right)}$$
Suppose $\mathcal A\subseteq 2^{[n]}$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown which is not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown and let $A_1,\ldots, A_{k+1}\in \mathcal A$ be such that $|A_1\cap\ldots\cap A_{k+1}|$ is odd. For each $S\subseteq [k+1]$ define the set $A_{S}:=\bigcap_{i\in S}A_i$, let $\mathcal S=\{S\subseteq [k]: 2\le |S|\le k-1\}$ and define $\mathcal B:=\{A_{S}\}_{S\in\mathcal S}$. We claim that the family $\mathcal C=\mathcal A\cup\mathcal B$ is an eventown. Indeed, this holds since:
1. all sets in $\mathcal A$ and pairwise intersections between sets in $\mathcal A$ have even size since $\mathcal A$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown and $k\ge 2$;
2. all sets in $\mathcal B$ have even size since they are the intersection of at most $k-1$ sets in $\mathcal A$;
3. for any $A\in \mathcal A$ and $S\in\mathcal S$ the set $A\cap A_{S}=A\cap \left(\bigcap_{i\in S}A_i\right)$ is the intersection of at most $k$ sets in $\mathcal A$, and thus has even size;
4. for any $S_1,S_2\in\mathcal S$ the set $A_{S_1}\cap A_{S_2}=\bigcap_{i\in S_1\cup S_2}A_i$ is the intersection of at most $k$ sets in $\mathcal A$, and thus has even size.
We claim now that $\dim V_{\mathcal C}=\dim V_{\mathcal A} + \dim V_{\mathcal B}$ and that $\dim V_{\mathcal B} = |\mathcal S|=2^{k}-k-2$. If this is the case then: $$\left|\overline{\mathcal C}\right|=2^{\dim V_{\mathcal C}}=2^{\dim V_{\mathcal A}}\cdot 2^{\dim V_{\mathcal B}}\ge |\mathcal A|\cdot 2^{2^{k}-k-2}$$ and since $\overline{\mathcal C}$ is an eventown by Lemma \[lemma:linearclosure\], we conclude that $$|\mathcal A|\le \left|\overline{\mathcal C}\right|\cdot 2^{-\left(2^{k}-k-2\right)}\le 2^{\left\lfloor n/2\right\rfloor-\left(2^{k}-k-2\right)}$$ as desired. Thus, it remains to prove the claim. For that, it suffices to prove that if there is a linear relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lindep2}
\sum_{A\in \mathcal A}\alpha_{A}v_{A}+\sum_{S\in \mathcal S}\beta_{S}v_{A_S}=0\end{aligned}$$ then $\beta_{S}=0$ for any $S\in \mathcal S$. Define for each $S\in \mathcal S$ the set $S^{c}:=[k+1]\setminus S$ and note that for any $A\in \mathcal A$ and $S,T\in \mathcal S$ we have:
1. $v_{A}\cdot v_{A_{T^{c}}}=|A\cap\left(\bigcap_{i\in T^{c}}A_i\right)|= 0\pmod 2$ because the latter is the intersection of at most $k$ sets in $\mathcal A$, since $|T^{c}|=k+1-|T|\le k-1$;
2. if $S\cup T^{c}\neq [k+1]$ then $v_{A_S}\cdot v_{A_{T^{c}}}=|\bigcap_{i\in S\cup T^{c}}A_i|= 0\pmod 2$ because the latter is the intersection of at most $k$ sets in $\mathcal A$;
3. $v_{A_T}\cdot v_{A_{T^{c}}}=|\bigcap_{i\in[k+1]}A_i|= 1\pmod 2$.
Consider now a linear relation as in equation (\[eq:lindep2\]) and suppose that there is some set $S\in \mathcal S$ such that $\beta_{S}\neq 0$. Let $T\in \mathcal S$ be such a set of maximum possible size and note that for any $S\in \mathcal S\setminus \{T\}$ with $\beta_{S} \neq 0$ we have $T\not\subseteq S$, or equivalently $
S\cup T^{c}\neq [k+1]$. Therefore, it follows from (i), (ii) and (iii) that $$0 = \left(\sum_{A\in \mathcal A}\alpha_{A}v_{A}+\sum_{S\in \mathcal S}\beta_{S}v_{A_S}\right) \cdot v_{A_{T^{c}}}=\sum_{A\in \mathcal A}\alpha_{A}\left(v_{A}\cdot v_{A_{T^{c}}}\right)+\sum_{S\in \mathcal S}\beta_{S}\left(v_{A_S}\cdot v_{A_{T^{c}}}\right) =\beta_{T}$$ contradicting the choice of $T$. This proves the claim.
Note that Lemma \[lemma:upperbound\] implies that there is no strong $k$-wise eventown in $[n]$ that is not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown if $\lfloor n/2\rfloor < 2^{k}-k-2$. In fact, one actually needs that $n\ge 2^{k+1}-1$ for such families to exist. The reason for this is quite simple. If $\mathcal A$ is not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown then there exist sets $A_1,\ldots, A_{k+1}\in \mathcal A$ for which $|A_1\cap \ldots, A_{k+1}|$ is odd. Since the intersection of the sets in any proper non-empty subfamily of $\{A_1,\ldots, A_{k+1}\}$ has even size then one can use the principle of inclusion-exclusion to show that in fact $|A'_1\cap \ldots \cap A'_{k+1}|$ is odd for any choice of $A'_i \in \{A_i, [n]\setminus A_i\}$ for $i\in [k+1]$, with the exception of the choice $A'_i = [n]\setminus A_i$ for every $i\in [k+1]$ (when $n$ is odd). This implies that there are at least $2^{k+1}-1$ disjoint non-empty sets in $[n]$, implying that $n\ge 2^{k+1}-1$.
We show next that for any $n\ge 2^{k+1}-1$ there are strong $k$-wise eventowns $\mathcal A$ in $[n]$ of size $|\mathcal A|=2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor-(2^{k}-k-2)}$ which are not $(k+1)$-wise eventowns. We start by constructing a strong $k$-wise eventown consisting of $2^{k+2}$ subsets of $[2^{k+1}]$ which is not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown.
For convenience, let us denote by $2^{[k+1]}$ the family of all subsets of the set $[k+1] = \{1,\ldots, k+1\}$ and let $f:2^{[k+1]}\rightarrow [2^{k+1}]$ be any bijection. Let $B_0=[2^{k+1}]$ and for each $i\in [k+1]$ define $B_i=\{f(S):i\in S\subseteq [k+1]\}$. Note that for any set $I\subseteq \{0,1,\ldots,k+1\}$ we have: $$\left|\bigcap_{i\in I}B_i\right|=\left|\bigcap_{i\in I\setminus \{0\}}B_i\right|=\left|\left\{f(S):\left(I\setminus \{0\}\right)\subseteq S\subseteq [k+1]\right\}\right|=2^{k+1-\left|I\setminus \{0\}\right|}$$ and so the family $\mathcal B=\{B_0,B_1,\ldots, B_{k+1}\}$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown but not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown. Hence, by Lemma \[lemma:linearclosure\] it follows that $\overline{\mathcal B}$, the linear closure of $\mathcal B$, is also a strong $k$-wise eventown but not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown.
We claim now that the vectors $v_{B_0},\ldots, v_{B_{k+1}}$ are linearly independent. Indeed, this follows from the next observations:
- $v_{\{f(\emptyset)\}}\cdot v_{B_0} = 1$ and $v_{\{f(\emptyset)\}}\cdot v_{B_i} = 0$ for $i\in [k+1]$ since $f(\emptyset)\not\in B_i$.
- for $i,j\in[k+1]$ we have $v_{\{f(\{i\})\}}\cdot v_{B_j} = \left\{\begin{matrix}
1 & \text{if }i=j\\
0 & \text{if }i\neq j
\end{matrix}\right.$.
Therefore, $\overline{\mathcal B}$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown in $[2^{k+1}]$ of size $|\overline{\mathcal B}| = 2^{\dim V_{\mathcal B}} = 2^{k+2}$ which is not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown.
Now, if $n\ge 2^{k+1}$ let $\mathcal C$ be a strong $k$-wise eventown in $[n]\setminus [2^{k+1}]$ of size $2^{\lfloor (n-2^{k+1})/2\rfloor}$ as in Construction \[cons:maxkwiseeventown\] (i). Since $\overline{\mathcal B}$ and $\mathcal C$ are both strong $k$-wise eventowns and $\overline{\mathcal B}$ is not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown, a moment’s thought reveals that the family $$\mathcal A = \{B\cup C: B\in \overline{\mathcal B}, C\in \mathcal C\}$$ is a strong $k$-wise eventown in $[n]$ of size $$|\mathcal A|= 2^{k+2}\cdot 2^{\lfloor (n-2^{k+1})/2\rfloor} = 2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor-(2^{k}-k-2)}$$ which is not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown.
When $n=2^{k+1}-1$, note that if we choose the bijection $f$ above such that $f(\emptyset) = 2^{k+1}$ then the sets $B_1,\ldots, B_{k+1}$ are subsets of $[2^{k+1}-1] = [n]$. Therefore, in a similar way as above, we can conclude that the linear closure of $\{B_1,\ldots, B_{k+1}\}$ will be a strong $k$-wise eventown in $[n]$ of size $2^{k+1} = 2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor - (2^{k}-k-2)}$ which is not a $(k+1)$-wise eventown.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:kwiseeventown\]
--------------------------------------
We will use Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\] in order to prove Theorem \[thm:kwiseeventown\]. The reason why we can do this is because, as the next lemma shows, any $k$-wise eventown contains a large strong $k$-wise eventown.
\[lemma:strongsubfamilies\] If $\mathcal A$ is a $k$-wise eventown on $[n]$ then it contains a subfamily $\mathcal A'$ of size $|\mathcal A'|\ge |\mathcal A|-(k-1)n$ which is a strong $k$-wise eventown.
Set $\mathcal A_0 := \mathcal A$ and, for $i\ge 0$, as long as $\mathcal A_{i}$ is not a strong $k$-wise eventown let $A^{i}_1,\ldots,A^{i}_{k_{i}}$ be a maximal collection of less than $k$ distinct sets in $\mathcal A_{i}$ such that $|A^{i}_1\cap\ldots\cap A^{i}_{k_{i}}|\not\equiv 0\pmod 2$ and set $\mathcal A_{i+1}:=\mathcal A_{i}\setminus\{A^{i}_1,\ldots, A^{i}_{k_i}\}$. After a finite number of iterations of this procedure, say $s$ iterations, we obtain a (possibly empty) subfamily $\mathcal A'$ of $\mathcal A$ which is a strong $k$-wise eventown. Since at each step $i<s$ the family $\mathcal A_{i+1}$ is obtained from $\mathcal A_i$ by removing $k_i \le k-1$ sets, we have: $$|\mathcal A'|\ge |\mathcal A|-(k-1)s.$$ Thus, it suffices then to show that $s\le n$.
For each $i\in [s]$ define the sets $R_i:=A_1^{i}\cap\ldots A_{k_i}^{i}$ and $B_i:=A_1^{i}$ and note that:
1. $|R_i\cap B_i|=|A_1^{i}\cap\ldots A_{k_i}^{i}|\not\equiv 0 \pmod 2$ for every $i\in [s]$;
2. $|R_i\cap B_j|=|A_1^{i}\cap\ldots A_{k_i}^{i}\cap A_1^{j}|\equiv 0 \pmod 2$ for $i< j$ since otherwise $A_1^{i},\ldots, A_{k_i}^{i}, A_1^{j}$ would be a collection of $k_i+1$ distinct sets in $\mathcal A_i$ whose intersection has odd size, contradicting the maximality in the choice of the sets $A_1^{i},\ldots, A_{k_i}^{i}$ (note that $k_i + 1 < k$ since $\mathcal A$ is a $k$-wise eventown).
Thus, by Lemma \[lemma:skewoddtown\] it follows that $s\le n$, as desired.
By Lemma \[lemma:strongsubfamilies\], the family $\mathcal A$ contains a subfamily $\mathcal A'$ of size $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sizeofsubfamily}
|\mathcal A'|\ge |\mathcal A|-(k-1)n> \frac{3}{4}2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\end{aligned}$$ which is a strong $k$-wise eventown. Thus, since $2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor -(2^{k}-k-2)}\le \frac{1}{8}2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}\le\frac{3}{4}2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$, it follows from Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\] that there are non-empty disjoint subsets $B_1,\ldots, B_s$ of $[n]$ of even size such that $\mathcal A'\subseteq \mathcal B:=\{\bigcup_{i\in S}B_i : S\subseteq [s]\}$. Note that $|\mathcal A'|\le |\mathcal B|\le 2^{s}$ and so it follows from (\[eq:sizeofsubfamily\]) that $s\ge\lfloor n/2\rfloor$. Furthermore, since the sets $B_1,\ldots, B_s$ are non-empty disjoint subsets of $[n]$ of even size, we must have $s=\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ and $|B_i|=2$ for every $i\in [s]$.
We claim now that for any $A\in \mathcal A$ and $i\in [s]$, if $A\cap B_i\neq \emptyset$ then $B_i\subseteq A$. Suppose that this is not the case and let $A^{*}\in \mathcal A$ and $i\in [s]$ be such that $|A^{*}\cap B_i|=1$. Let $\mathcal A''=\{A\in \mathcal A': B_i\subseteq A\}$ and note that $\mathcal A'\setminus \mathcal A'' \subseteq \{\bigcup_{j\in S}B_j: S\subseteq [s]\setminus \{i\}\}$. Therefore $|\mathcal A'\setminus \mathcal A''|\le 2^{s-1}$ and so by (\[eq:sizeofsubfamily\]): $$|\mathcal A''|\ge |\mathcal A'|-2^{s-1}=|\mathcal A'|-\frac{1}{2}2^{s}> \frac{1}{4}2^{s} = \frac{1}{2}2^{s-1}.$$ Thus, if we define $\mathcal S=\left\{S\subseteq [s]\setminus \{i\}:B_i\cup\left(\bigcup_{j\in S}B_j\right)\in \mathcal A''\right\}$, we see that $\mathcal S\subseteq 2^{[s]\setminus\{i\}}$ and that $|\mathcal S|=|\mathcal A''|>\frac{1}{2}\left|2^{[s]\setminus\{i\}}\right|$. Hence, there must exist two distinct disjoint sets $S_{1},S_{2}\subseteq [s]\setminus \{i\}$ such that $A_1:=B_i\cup\left(\bigcup_{j\in S_{1}}B_j\right)\in \mathcal A''$ and $A_2:=B_i\cup\left(\bigcup_{j\in S_{2}}B_j\right)\in \mathcal A''$. Since $S_1$ and $S_2$ are disjoint, this implies that $A_1\cap A_2=B_i$. Finally, let $A_3,\ldots, A_{k-1}$ be $k-3$ distinct sets in $\mathcal A''\setminus \{A_1,A_2\}$ and note that $$|A^{*}\cap A_1\cap A_2\cap\ldots\cap A_{k-1}|=|A^{*}\cap B_i|=1$$ contradicting the fact that $\mathcal A$ is a $k$-wise eventown. Thus, we conclude that for any $A\in \mathcal A$ and $i\in [s]$ if $A\cap B_i\neq \emptyset$ then $B_i\subseteq A$.
If $n$ is even then $\bigcup_{j\in [s]}B_j=[n]$ and so it follows that $\mathcal A\subseteq \mathcal B$, the latter being a family in Construction \[cons:maxkwiseeventown\]. If $n$ is odd, then $\bigcup_{j\in [s]}B_j=[n]\setminus \{i\}$ for some $i\in [n]$, and thus $\mathcal A\subseteq \mathcal B\cup\{C\cup \{i\}:C\in \mathcal B\}$. Since the intersection of any number of sets of the form $\{C\cup\{i\}\}_{C\in \mathcal B}$ has odd size, and since $\mathcal A$ is a $k$-wise eventown, we conclude that there are at most $k-1$ sets $C\in \mathcal B$ such that $C\cup\{i\}\in\mathcal A$. Thus, we conclude that $\mathcal A$ is a subfamily of a family in Construction \[cons:maxkwiseeventown\].
**Remark:** In the proof of Theorem \[thm:kwiseeventown\] we implicitly use the fact that $|\mathcal A''|\ge k-1$ when we consider $k-3$ distinct sets $A_3,\ldots, A_{k-1}$ from $\mathcal A''\setminus \{A_1,A_2\}$. This follows from the fact that $|\mathcal A''|\ge \frac{1}{4}2^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ and the condition $n\ge 2\lceil \log_{2}(k-1)\rceil+4$ in the theorem statement.
$d$-defect $\ell$-oddtowns {#section:ddefectloddtowns}
==========================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:ddefectloddtown\]
----------------------------------------
Given a family of sets $\mathcal A=\{A_1,\ldots, A_{m}\}$ we define its $\ell$-auxiliary graph $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$ to be the simple graph with vertex set $\mathcal A$ where $A_iA_j$ is an edge if and only if $|A_i\cap A_j|\not\equiv 0\pmod \ell$. We will often abuse notation slightly and refer to the properties of $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$ as being properties of $\mathcal A$. In particular, we use $\Delta(\mathcal A)$, $\chi(\mathcal A)$ and $\alpha(\mathcal A)$ to denote the maximum degree, chromatic number and independence number of $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$, respectively.
Let $\mathcal A$ be a $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtown in $[n]$, where $\ell$ is a prime number. Note that $\Delta(\mathcal A)\le d$ and so, in particular, $\alpha(\mathcal A)\ge |\mathcal A|/(d+1)$. Moreover, observe crucially that an independent set in $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$ corresponds to an $\ell$-oddtown inside $\mathcal A$, which as we discussed in the introduction has size at most $n$. Hence, we conclude that $|\mathcal A|\le (d+1)n$. We now wish to improve this simple upper bound to $(d+1)(n-t)$ where $t=2\left(\lceil\log_{2}(d+2)\rceil-1\right)$. We consider the following two cases:
1. $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$ contains at most $t$ copies of $K_{d+1}$
2. $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$ contains more than $t$ copies of $K_{d+1}$
and show that in any case we have $|\mathcal A|\le (d+1)(n-t)$.
We consider case (a) first. Let $\mathcal A'$ be a family obtained from $\mathcal A$ by removing one set from each copy of $K_{d+1}$ in $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$. We claim that $\alpha(\mathcal A')\ge |\mathcal A'|/\left(d+\frac{1}{2}\right)$. Indeed, note that the graph $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A')$ does not contain a copy of $K_{d+1}$. Therefore, if $d\neq 2$, it follows from Brooks’ Theorem (Theorem \[thm:Brooks\]) that $\chi(\mathcal A')\le d$, which implies that $\alpha(\mathcal A')\ge |\mathcal A'|/d\ge |\mathcal A'|/\left(d+\frac{1}{2}\right)$. If $d=2$ then, since $\Delta(\mathcal A')\le 2$, the graph $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A')$ is a disjoint union of cycles of length at least $4$ (recall that $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A')$ is $K_3$-free) and paths. A path of length $\ell$ has an independent set of size at least $\ell/2$ and a cycle of length $\ell \ge 4$ has an independent set of size at least $2\ell/5$. Thus, for $d=2$, it follows that $\alpha(\mathcal A')\ge 2|\mathcal A'|/5=|\mathcal A'|/\left(d+\frac{1}{2}\right)$. Since an independent set in $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A')$ corresponds to an $\ell$-oddtown inside $\mathcal A'$ and since an $\ell$-oddtown in $[n]$ has at most $n$ sets, we conclude that $|\mathcal{A'}|/\left(d+\frac{1}{2}\right)\le n$ and hence: $$|\mathcal{A}|\le t+|\mathcal A'|\le t+ \left(d+\frac{1}{2}\right)n\le (d+1)(n-t)$$ provided $n\ge Cd\log d$ for some constant $C>0$.
We consider now case (b). Let $C_1,\ldots, C_{r}$ denote the connected components of the graph $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$. For each $A\in \mathcal A$, let $v_{A}$ denote its characteristic vector in $\mathbb{F}_{\ell}^{n}$ and consider the $n\times |\mathcal A|$ matrix $M$ whose column vectors are the vectors $\{v_{A}\}_{A\in \mathcal A}$, ordered according to the connected components $C_1,\ldots, C_r$. Note that the matrix $\mathcal M=M^{T}M$ is a square matrix of dimension $|\mathcal A|$ and that the entry corresponding to two sets $A,B\in \mathcal A$ in $\mathcal M$ is precisely $v_{A}\cdot v_{B}=|A\cap B|\pmod \ell$. Moreover, since the rows and columns of $\mathcal M$ are ordered according to the connected components of $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$ and since $|A\cap B|=0\pmod \ell$ for $A,B\in \mathcal A$ in different connected components, it follows that $\mathcal M$ is a block diagonal matrix, with each block $\mathcal M_i$ corresponding to a connected component $C_i$. Thus, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: sum of ranks}
\sum_{i=1}^{r} \text{rank}(\mathcal M_i)=\text{rank}(\mathcal M)\le \text{rank}(M)\le n.\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $\mathcal I=\{A_1,\ldots, A_{|\mathcal I|}\}$ is an independent set in $C_i$ then $v_{A_{j}}\cdot v_{A_{j'}}=|A_{j}\cap A_{j'}|\neq 0\pmod \ell$ if and only if $j=j'$, implying that the submatrix of $\mathcal M_i$ whose rows and columns correspond to the sets in $\mathcal I$ has full rank $|\mathcal I|$. Thus, since $\Delta(\mathcal A)\le d$ it follows that for each $i\in [r]$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq: bound on rank}
\text{rank}(\mathcal M_i)\ge \alpha(C_i)\ge |C_i|/(d+1).\end{aligned}$$
We claim now that there is at least one component $C_i$ which is a copy of $K_{d+1}$ such that $\text{rank}(\mathcal M_i)=1$, or else $|\mathcal A|<(d+1)(n-t)$. Indeed, since we are looking at case (b), we know that more than $t$ components of $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$ are copies of $K_{d+1}$. Moreover, if all the corresponding blocks have rank at least $2$ then there are more than $t$ values of $i\in [r]$ for which inequality (\[eq: bound on rank\]) can be improved to $\text{rank}(\mathcal M_i)\ge 1+|C_i|/(d+1)$. Thus, in that case it follows from (\[eq: sum of ranks\]) that: $$n\ge \sum_{i=1}^{r}\text{rank}(\mathcal M_i)> t+\sum_{i=1}^{r}|C_i|/(d+1)=t+|\mathcal A|/(d+1) \Rightarrow |\mathcal A|<(d+1)(n-t)$$
Thus, we may assume that there is one connected component $C_{i^{*}}$ of $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A)$ which is a copy of $K_{d+1}$ and whose corresponding block matrix $\mathcal M_{i^{*}}$ in $\mathcal M$ has rank $1$. Note that this implies that any two rows/columns in $\mathcal M_{i^{*}}$ are multiples of one another. Let $B_1,\ldots, B_{d+1}$ be the sets in $\mathcal A$ corresponding to such a connected component. Note that since $b_i\cdot b_i = |B_i| \neq 0 \pmod \ell$ for any $i\in [d+1]$ and since the rows of $\mathcal M_{i^{*}}$ are multiples of one another, it follows that $b_i\cdot b_j\neq 0 \pmod \ell$ for any $i,j\in [d+1]$ and that $(b_1\cdot b_1)(b_i\cdot b_j) = (b_1\cdot b_i)(b_1\cdot b_j)$.
Now, let $\mathcal A'$ denote the family $\mathcal A\setminus \{B_1,\ldots, B_{d+1}\}$ and let $A_1,\ldots, A_{s}$ be sets corresponding to an independent set of maximum size in $G_{\ell}(\mathcal A')$. Since $\Delta(\mathcal A')\le d$ it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bound}
s=\alpha(\mathcal A')\ge \frac{|\mathcal A'|}{d+1} =\frac{|\mathcal A|}{d+1}-1.\end{aligned}$$ Let $a_1,\ldots, a_{s}$ and $b_1,\ldots,b_{d+1}$ be the characteristic vectors in $\mathbb{F}_{\ell}^{n}$ of $A_1,\ldots, A_{s}$ and $B_1,\ldots, B_{d+1}$, respectively. Because of the choices of these sets, it follows that:
1. For every $i,j\in [s]$: $a_i\cdot a_j\neq 0$ if and only if $i=j$.
2. For every $i,j\in [d+1]$: $(b_1\cdot b_1)(b_{i}\cdot b_j)=(b_1\cdot b_i)(b_1\cdot b_j)\neq 0$.
3. For every $i\in [s]$ and $j\in [d+1]$: $a_i\cdot b_j=0$.
Denoting by $U$ the space generated by $a_1,\ldots, a_{s}$, it follows from (i) that $U$ is a non-degenerate subspace of $\mathbb{F}_{\ell}^{n}$ (see Section \[section:auxiliaryresults\] for the definition) and that $\dim U=s$. Furthermore, by Lemma \[lemma:linearalgebra\] we know that $U^{\perp}$ is non-degenerate and that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dimension}
s+\dim U^{\perp} = \dim U + \dim U^{\perp}=n\end{aligned}$$ Since the vectors $b_1,\ldots, b_{d+1}$ are distinct $\{0,1\}$-vectors satisfying (ii) and are in $U^{\perp}$ by (iii), we obtain by Lemma \[lemma:dimension\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lowerbounddimension}
\dim U^{\perp}\ge 2\lceil\log_{2}(d+2)\rceil-1 = t+1.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, putting (\[eq:bound\]), (\[eq:dimension\]) and (\[eq:lowerbounddimension\]) together, we conclude that $$\left(\frac{|\mathcal A|}{d+1}-1\right)+(t+1)\le n\; \Leftrightarrow\; |\mathcal A|\le (d+1)(n-t)$$ as claimed. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[thm:ddefectloddtown\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:1defectloddtown\]
----------------------------------------
We start by giving constructions of $1$-defect $\ell$-oddtowns of size $2n-4$ for infinitely many values of $n$, when $\ell$ is a prime number. Our constructions rely on the use of Hadamard matrices. A Hadamard matrix of order $n$ is an $n \times n$ matrix whose entries are either $+1$ or $-1$ and whose rows are mutually orthogonal. A necessary condition for a Hadamard matrix of order $n > 2$ to exist is that $n$ is divisible by $4$. The most important open question in the theory of Hadamard matrices, known as the Hadamard conjecture, is whether this condition is also sufficient. For more on Hadamard matrices see e.g. [@H07].
Suppose a Hadamard matrix $H$ of order $n-1$ exists. We may assume the last column has every entry equal to $1$, by multiplying some rows by $-1$ if necessary. For $j\in [n-2]$ define sets $A_j, B_j\subseteq [n-1]$ by taking $i \in A_j$ if and only if $H_{i,j} = 1$ and setting $B_j=[n-1]\setminus A_j$. The fact that $H$ is a Hadamard matrix of order $n-1$ with the last column being the all-$1$ vector ensures that for any $j$: $$|A_{j}|=|B_{j}|=\frac{n-1}{2}\;\;\text{and}\;\;|A_{j}\cap B_{j}|=0$$ and for $j_{1}\neq j_{2}$: $$|A_{j_1}\cap A_{j_2}|=|A_{j_1}\cap B_{j_2}|=|B_{j_1}\cap B_{j_2}|=\frac{n-1}{4}$$ Thus, one can easily check that $$\mathcal A=\{A_{1}\cup\{n\},B_1\cup\{n\},\ldots, A_{n-2}\cup \{n\},B_{n-2}\cup\{n\}\}$$ is a $1$-defect $\ell$-oddtown in $[n]$ of size $2n-4$, provided $n\equiv 5 \pmod 8$ if $\ell=2$ or $\ell\mid n+3$ if $\ell>2$. Thus, a $1$-defect $\ell$-oddtown in $[n]$ of order $2n-4$ exists provided a Hadamard matrix of order $n-1$ exists and these divisibility conditions on $n$ are satisfied. We claim now that there are infinitely many values of $n$ for which this holds.
For $\ell=2$, this is ensured by a construction of Paley [@P33] of Hadamard matrices of order $q+1$ for any odd prime power $q$. For $\ell>2$, this is ensured by a result of Wallis [@W76] which states that for any $q\in\mathbb{N}$ there is $s_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that a Hadamard matrix of order $2^{s}q$ exists for any $s\ge s_0$ (just take $n$ to be of the form $2^{s}q+1$, where $q=\ell-1$ and $s$ is any sufficiently large multiple of $\ell-1$). We conclude that for any prime $\ell$ there are $1$-defect $\ell$-oddtowns in $[n]$ of size $2n-4$ for infinitely many values of $n$.
Now we prove that any $1$-defect $\ell$-oddtown in $[n]$ has size at most $\max\{n,2n-4\}$ if $\ell$ is a prime number. Suppose $\mathcal A$ is a $1$-defect $\ell$-oddtown in $[n]$. If all pairwise intersections of sets in $\mathcal A$ have size $= 0\pmod \ell$ then $\mathcal A$ is an $\ell$-oddtown and so, as discussed in the introduction, we have $|\mathcal A|\le n$. Otherwise, we can label the sets in $\mathcal A$ as $A_1,B_1,\ldots, A_{t},B_{t},A_{t+1},\ldots,A_{s}$ ($1\le t\le s$) such that the pairs $(A_i,B_i)$ have pairwise intersection of size $\neq 0\pmod \ell$ and all other pairwise intersections have size $= 0 \pmod \ell$. Let $a_1,\ldots,a_{s}$ and $b_1,\ldots, b_{t}$ be the characteristic vectors in $\mathbb F_{\ell}^{n}$ corresponding to the sets $A_1,\ldots, A_{s}$ and $B_1,\ldots, B_{t}$, respectively. Note crucially that for $i\neq j$ we have $a_i\cdot a_j = |A_i\cap A_j| = 0 \pmod \ell$, $a_i\cdot b_j = |A_i\cap B_j| = 0\pmod \ell$, $b_i\cdot b_j = |B_i\cap B_j| = 0\pmod \ell$, $a_i\cdot a_i = |A_i| \neq 0 \pmod \ell$, $a_i\cdot b_i = |A_i\cap B_i| \neq 0 \pmod \ell$ and $b_i\cdot b_i = |B_i| \neq 0 \pmod \ell$.
We consider now two separate cases:
1. $(a_1\cdot a_1)(b_1\cdot b_1)=(a_1\cdot b_1)^2$
2. $(a_1\cdot a_1)(b_1\cdot b_1)\neq (a_1\cdot b_1)^2$.
In each case, we will either show that $|\mathcal A|\le n$ or we will find $s+2$ linearly independent vectors in $\mathbb{F}_{\ell}^{n}$. This then implies that if $|\mathcal A| >n$ then $s+2 \le n$ and so: $$|\mathcal A|=s+t\le 2s\le 2(n-2)=2n-4.$$
We consider case 1 first. Let $v=(a_1\cdot a_1)b_1-(a_1\cdot b_1)a_1$ and note that $v\cdot a_i=0$ for any $i\in [s]$. Indeed, we have $v\cdot a_1 = (a_1\cdot a_1)(b_1\cdot a_1) - (a_1\cdot b_1)(a_1\cdot a_1) = 0$ and for $i>1$ we have $a_1 \cdot a_i = 0 $ and $b_1\cdot a_i = 0$, implying that $v\cdot a_i = 0$. Moreover, since $a_1$ and $b_1$ are distinct $\{0,1\}$-vectors one has $v\neq 0$, and $$v\cdot v=(a_1\cdot a_1)\left[(a_1\cdot a_1)(b_1\cdot b_1)-(a_1\cdot b_1)^2\right]=0.$$ Since $v\neq 0$, we can find a vector $v_{1}\in \mathbb{F}_{\ell}^{n}$ so that $v\cdot v_1\neq 0$. Define $v_{2}:=v-v_{1}$ and note that $v\cdot v_2=-v\cdot v_1$ since $v\cdot v=0$. We claim now that the vectors $a_1,\ldots, a_{s},v_{1},v_{2}$ are linearly independent. Indeed, if $$\sum_{i=1}^{s}\alpha_{i}a_i+\beta_{1} v_{1}+\beta_{2} v_{2}=0$$ is a linear combination of these vectors, then doing the dot product with $v$ allows us to conclude that $$0=\beta_{1}(v\cdot v_{1})+\beta_{2}(v\cdot v_2)=(\beta_1-\beta_2)(v\cdot v_1)$$ and therefore, since $v\cdot v_1 \neq 0$, we must have $\beta_1=\beta_2$. Then, since $\beta_{1}v_{1}+\beta_{2}v_{2}=\beta_1 v$, doing the dot product with $a_{i}$ for $i\in [s]$ we can deduce that $\alpha_{i}=0$. Finally, since $v\neq 0$ we can conclude then that $\beta_{1}=\beta_{2}=0$, and so the vectors $a_1,\ldots, a_s,v_1,v_2$ are linearly independent as claimed.
We now consider case 2 and assume for the moment that $t\ge 2$. We claim that the vectors $a_1,\ldots, a_{s},b_1,b_2$ are linearly independent. Indeed, if $$\sum_{i=1}^{s}\alpha_{i}a_i+\beta_{1} b_{1}+\beta_{2} b_{2}=0$$ is a linear combination of these vectors, then doing the dot product of the above with $a_{i}\in [s]\setminus \{1,2\}$ allows us to conclude that $\alpha_{i}=0$ and so $$\alpha_{1}a_1+\alpha_2a_2+\beta_{1}b_{1}+\beta_{2}b_2=0.$$ Now, doing the dot product of the latter with $a_1$ and $b_1$ we see that: $$\begin{bmatrix}
(a_1\cdot a_1) & (a_1\cdot b_1)\\
(a_1\cdot b_1) & (b_1\cdot b_1)
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\alpha_1\\
\beta_1
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
0\\
0
\end{bmatrix}$$ Since the determinant of this matrix is non-zero (because we are in case 2), we conclude that $\alpha_1=\beta_1=0$. Then, since $a_2$ and $b_2$ are distinct $\{0,1\}$-vectors we conclude that $\alpha_2=\beta_2=0$ and so the vectors $a_1,\ldots, a_s,b_1,b_2$ are linearly independent as claimed. Finally, if $t=1$ then one can show, similarly to the above, that the $s+1$ vectors $a_1,\ldots,a_{s},b_1$ are linearly independent, implying that $|\mathcal A|=s+1\le n$. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[thm:1defectloddtown\].
Further remarks and open problems {#section:concludingremarks}
=================================
Theorems \[thm:vukwiseeventown\], \[thm:kwiseeventown\] and \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\] establish the maximum size of (strong) $k$-wise $\ell$-eventowns and characterize their structure for $\ell = 2$. Far less is known for (strong) $k$-wise $\ell$-eventowns with $\ell > 2$. A natural analogue of Construction \[cons:maxkwiseeventown\] for $\ell>2$ arises from the next construction:
\[cons:strongkwiseleventown\] Let $B_1,\ldots, B_{\lfloor n/\ell\rfloor}$ be $\lfloor n/\ell\rfloor$ disjoint subsets of $[n]$ of size $\ell$. Then the family $\mathcal A=\left\{\bigcup_{i\in S} B_i: \;S\subseteq \left[\lfloor n/\ell\rfloor\right]\right\}$ is a strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventown of size $2^{\lfloor n/\ell\rfloor}$ for every $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
Construction \[cons:strongkwiseleventown\] provides a strong $k$-wise $2$-eventown of maximum possible size for any $k\ge 2$, and, in light of Theorem \[thm:strongkwiseeventown\], this is the unique such family for $k\ge 3$, up to the choice of the sets $B_1,\ldots, B_{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$. Surprisingly, for $\ell > 2$, Construction \[cons:strongkwiseleventown\] is far from best possible. As mentioned in the introduction, Frankl and Odlyzko [@FO83] constructed a strong $2$-wise $\ell$-eventown of size $2^{\Omega(\log \ell/\ell)n}$, as $n\rightarrow \infty$, which is significantly larger than the families in Construction \[cons:strongkwiseleventown\] for large $\ell$.
Interestingly, this phenomena does not hold only for $k=2$. Indeed, Frankl and Odlyzko’s construction can be used to construct a strong $3$-wise $\ell$-eventown of size $2^{\Omega(\log \ell/\ell)n}$, as $n\rightarrow \infty$. This follows from the next simple lemma which shows how to create a large strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventown from a large strong $(k-1)$-wise $\ell$-eventown if $k$ is odd. We leave its proof as an exercise to the interested reader.
\[lemma:stepup\] Suppose $\mathcal A=\{A_1,\ldots, A_m\}$ is a strong $(k-1)$-wise $\ell$-eventown on the universe $[n]$. For each $i\in [m]$ define the sets $A^{*}_{i}=(([n]\setminus A_i)+n)\subseteq [2n]\setminus [n]$ and $B_i=A_i\cup A^{*}_{i}$. If $\ell\mid n$ and $k$ is odd then $\mathcal B=\{B_1,\ldots, B_m\}$ is a strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventown on the universe $[2n]$ of size $|\mathcal B|=|\mathcal A|$.
We can also show that for any fixed $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ there are strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventowns of size $2^{\Omega(\log \ell/\ell)n}$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$ when $\ell$ is a power of $2$:
\[lemma:beatingblockfamilies\] For any $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\ell$ a power of $2$, there are strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventowns in the universe $[n]$ of size $\left(2^{k+1}\ell\right)^{\lfloor n/(2^k\ell)\rfloor}$.
We give a brief sketch on how to construct such families. We start by recursively defining for $r\ge 0$ a family $\mathcal A^{r}$ with $2^{r+1}$ subsets $A_1^{r},\ldots, A_{2^{r+1}}^{r}$ of $[2^{r}]$ with the property that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:property}
2^{r-|S|}\; \text{ divides }\; \left|\bigcap_{i\in S}A_i^{r}\right| \;\text{ for any set }\; S\subseteq [2^{r+1}]\; \text{ of size } \;|S|\le r.\end{aligned}$$ For $r=0$ we define $A_{1}^{0} = \emptyset$ and $A_{1}^{1}=\{1\}$. For $r> 0$, define for $1\le i\le 2^{r}$ the sets $A_{i}^{r}:= A_i^{r-1}\cup (A_{i}^{r-1}+2^{r-1})$ and $A_{i+2^{r}}^{r}=A_{i}^{r-1}\cup \left(([2^{r-1}]\setminus A_{i}^{r-1})+2^{r-1} \right)$. Finally, define $\mathcal A^{r} =\{A_1^{r},\ldots, A_{2^{r+1}}^{r}\}$. One can prove by induction on $r$ that this family satisfies property (\[eq:property\]).
Now, suppose $\ell = 2^{a}$. Property (\[eq:property\]) implies that $\mathcal A^{k + a}$ is a strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventown in $[2^{k+a}] = [2^{k}\ell]$ of size $2^{k+a+1} = 2^{k+1}\ell$. For $j \in [\lfloor n/(2^{k}\ell)\rfloor]$ let $\mathcal B_j = \{A + (j-1)2^{k}\ell : A\in \mathcal A^{k+a}\}$ and define $$\mathcal B = \left\{\bigcup_{j\in [\lfloor n/(2^{k}\ell)\rfloor]} B_j : B_j \in \mathcal B_j \text{ for } j\in [\lfloor n/(2^{k}\ell)\rfloor]\right\}$$ A moment’s thought shows that $\mathcal B$ is a strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventown in $[n]$ of size $|\mathcal B| = (2^{k+1}\ell)^{\lfloor n/(2^{k}\ell)\rfloor}$.
Frankl and Odlyzko conjectured in [@FO83] that for any $\ell\in {\mathbb{N}}$ there exists $k(\ell)\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that if $k\ge k(\ell)$ then any $k$-wise $\ell$-eventown has size at most $2^{(1+o(1))n/\ell}$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$ (which would be asymptotically tight by Construction \[cons:strongkwiseleventown\]). Lemma \[lemma:beatingblockfamilies\] implies that if such $k(\ell)$ exists then $k(\ell) \ge (1-o(1))(\log_2\log_2\ell)$, at least when $\ell$ is a power of $2$.
Note that Lemma \[lemma:beatingblockfamilies\] shows that at least when $\ell$ is a power of $2$ we have strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventowns in $[n]$ of size roughly $2^{C(k)\left(\log \ell/\ell\right) n}$, where $C(k)\sim k2^{-k}$. Moreover, if there were an analogue of Lemma \[lemma:stepup\] for any $k$ (not just $k$ odd) then for any $\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}$ one could start from Frankl and Odlyzko’s construction and iterate such lemma $k-2$ times in order to obtain a strong $k$-wise $\ell$-eventown in $[n]$ of size roughly $2^{C(k)\left(\log \ell/\ell\right) n}$ where $C(k) \sim 2^{-k}$. We find it plausible that such families exist for any $k,\ell\in{\mathbb{N}}$, provided $n$ is sufficiently large (depending on $k$ and $\ell$).
In Theorem \[thm:ddefectloddtown\] we showed that for any $d\in {\mathbb{N}}$ and $\ell$ a prime number, any $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtown in the universe $[n]$, for $n$ large, has size at most $(d+1)(n-2(\lceil\log_{2}(d+2)\rceil-1))$, improving Vu’s upper bound of $(d+1)n$ described at the beginning of Section \[section:ddefectloddtowns\]. Vu [@V99] also showed that there exist $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtowns in $[n]$ of size $(d+1)(n-\ell\lceil \log_{2}(d+1)\rceil)$. These families come from the following construction:
\[cons:ddefectloddtown\] Let $t = \lceil\log_{2}(d+1)\rceil$, $s=\ell t$ and $\mathcal S$ be a collection of $d+1$ subsets of $[t]$. Moreover, let $B_1,\ldots, B_{t}$ be $t$ disjoint subsets of $[s]$, each of size $\ell$. For each $S\in \mathcal S$ let $B_{S}=\cup_{i\in S} B_i$ and define $\mathcal B =\{B_S:S\in\mathcal S\}$. Then, the family $\mathcal A$ defined by $$\mathcal A=\{B\cup \{i\}:B\in\mathcal B, i\in [n]\setminus [s]\}$$ is a $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtown of size $ |\mathcal A|=(d+1)(n-s)$. Indeed, for $B,B'\in\mathcal B$ and $i,i'\in [n]\setminus [s]$ we have $$|(B\cup \{i\})\cap (B'\cup \{i'\})|=|B\cap B'|+|\{i\}\cap \{i'\}|\equiv |\{i\}\cap \{i'\}| \pmod \ell$$ and the latter is non-zero modulo $\ell$ if and only if $i= i'$.
This construction can be improved for some values of $\ell$ and $d$. Notice, that the only relevant property of family $\mathcal B$ in Construction \[cons:ddefectloddtown\] is that it is an $\ell$-eventown on the universe $[s]$ of size at least $d+1$. Thus, if there exists an $\ell$-eventown of size $d+1$ in a universe of size smaller than $\ell\lceil \log_{2}(d+1)\rceil$ then we can improve Vu’s lower bound on the maximum size of a $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtown. Frankl and Odlyzko’s construction mentioned earlier shows that an $\ell$-eventown in the universe $[s]$ of size at least $2^{c\left(\log\ell/\ell\right)s}$ exists for some constant $c>0$ as $s\rightarrow \infty$. Since $2^{c\left(\log \ell /\ell\right)s}\ge d+1$ if $s\ge c^{-1}\left(\ell/\log \ell\right)\log_{2}(d+1)$, this implies that there are $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtowns of size $(d+1)(n-C\left(\ell/\log \ell\right)\log_{2}(d+1))$ for some constant $C>0$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$, provided $d$ is big enough as a function of $\ell$. It is unclear to us whether the maximum size of a $d$-defect $\ell$-oddtown should depend on $\ell$. We remark that for $d=1$, as Theorem \[thm:1defectloddtown\] shows, this is not the case.
In [@SV05] Szabó and Vu considered the related problem of maximizing the size of a $k$-wise oddtown, i.e., a family of odd-sized sets such that the intersection of any $k$ has even size. They showed that if $k-1$ is a power of $2$ then for large $n$ the answer is $(k-1)(n-2\log_{2}(k-1))$. An example of a $k$-wise oddtown of this size is the one in Construction \[cons:ddefectloddtown\] with $d = k-2$ and $\ell = 2$. For the natural generalization of this problem modulo $\ell>2$, Szabó and Vu believed that Construction \[cons:ddefectloddtown\] with $d= k-2$ provided a $k$-wise $\ell$-oddtown in $[n]$ of maximum possible size, namely, $(k-1)(n-\ell\lceil \log_{2}(k-1)\rceil)$. This turns out not to be the case. Indeed, as described in the previous paragraph, by making a more appropriate choice of $\mathcal B$ in Construction \[cons:ddefectloddtown\] one can obtain for suitable values of $k$ and $\ell$ a $k$-wise $\ell$-oddtown of size $(k-1)(n-C\left(\ell/\log \ell\right)\log_{2}(k-1))$ for some constant $C>0$ and $n$ sufficiently large.
**Acknowledgements.** We would like to thank Shagnik Das for helpful discussions and comments.
[9]{} L. Babai and P. Frankl, , , 1992.
E. R. Berlekamp, On subsets with intersections of even cardinality, *Canad. Math. Bull*, Vol. 12 (4), pp. 471–477, 1969.
R. L. Brooks, On colouring the nodes of a network, *Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society*, Vol. 37, pp. 194–197, 1941.
R. Diestel, **Graph Theory**, fourth Ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 173, Springer, Heidelberg, 2010.
P. Frankl and A. M. Odlyzko, On subsets with cardinalities of intersections divisible by a fixed integer, *European J. Combin.*, Vol. 4, pp. 215–220, 1983.
J. E. Graver, Boolean designs and self-dual matroids, *Linear algebra and its applications*, Vol. 10 (2), pp. 111–128, 1975.
K. J. Horadam, **Hadamard matrices and their applications**, Princeton university press, 2007.
S. Lang, **Algebra**, revised third edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 211, Springer-Verlag New York, 2002.
A. M. Odlyzko, On the ranks of some (0,1)-matrices with constant row sums, *Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society (Series A)*, Vol. 31 (2), pp. 193–201, 1981.
R. E. Paley, On orthogonal matrices, *Journal of Mathematics and Physics*, Vol. 12 (1), pp. 311–320, 1933.
T. Szabó and V. H. Vu, Exact k-wise intersection theorems, *Graphs and Combinatorics*, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 247–261, 2005.
V. H. Vu, Extremal set systems with weakly restricted intersections, *Combinatorica*, Vol. 19 (4), pp. 567–587, 1999.
V. H. Vu, Extremal Systems with Upper-Bounded Odd Intersections, *Graphs and Combinatorics*, Vol. 13 (2), pp. 197–208, 1997.
J. S. Wallis, On the existence of Hadamard matrices, *Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A*, Vol. 21 (2), pp. 188–195, 1976.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, ETH, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]. Research supported in part by SNSF grant 200021-149111.
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, ETH, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate that enhanced fluctuations in the charging energy of chaotic semiconductor quantum dots result from strongly scarred wave functions. We demonstrate that strong scars linger at the Fermi surface due to their enhanced Coulomb interaction between spin up and spin down states. We present density functional and spin density functional calculations to elucidate the temperature, dot shape and spin polarization dependencies of the fluctuations.'
address: |
RIKEN (The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research) 2-1, Hirosawa, Wako-Shi Saitama 351-01, Japan\
e-mail [email protected]
author:
- 'M. Stopa'
title: Fluctuations in quantum dot charging energy
---
[2]{} \[
\]
A simple, physically appealing paradigm for the statistical behaviour of the ground state of chaotic, interacting systems does not yet exist. Based on the concept of level repulsion, the behaviour of eigenvalues and vectors of complex systems has been successfully treated for many years via random matrix theory (RMT) [@Brody]. As recent experiments on quantum dots demonstrate however [@Sivan], fluctuations in the ground state energy as a function of electron number $N$, are not well described by RMT since the required hypothesis of constant interaction (CI) appears to be violated. On fundamental grounds this failure is to be expected since the ergodicity implicit in RMT is unconstrained by any minimization principle which must be an essential ingredient of any theory of the ground state.
The charging energy $E_C$ of a quantum dot, defined below in terms of the ground state energy at differing $N$, provides an important archetype of an interacting system insofar as particle number, disorder [@LP1], the “chaoticity” [@Marcus] and size can be varied. Attempts to understand the scale and behaviour of fluctuations in the charging energy in quantum dots have included numerical studies of tight binding Hamiltonians for small particle number [@Sivan; @Berkovits] as well as study of the statistical behaviour of electron-electron interactions in a circular, disordered dot based on the random phase approximation (RPA) for the screened interaction and a sigma model calculation for the eigenfunction correlator [@Blanter].
Exact diagonalization studies such as in Refs. [@Sivan; @Berkovits] give valuable insight into trends in the ground state energy, but they are necessarily limited to small particle number and in addition they depend on a reduction of a complicated set of matrix elements to a small set of energy parameters. Reference [@Blanter], on the other hand, considers explicitly direct and exchange Coulomb matrix elements, however the distribution of these elements are evaluated using a wave function correlator for a non-interacting disordered system. Consequently there is no minimization principle and no self-consistency in the theory. Furthermore, both the diagonalization approach and the method of Ref. [@Blanter] provide only statistical information on the charging energy. Neither method can realistically incorporate a varying gate voltage and therefore the physical [*process*]{} whereby fluctuations occur is unapproachable.
By contrast, a detailed study of the evolving, self-consistent eigenfunctions, free energy and level structure of a realistic dot via density functional (DF) theory, which we present here, reveals the specific mechanism whereby $E_C$ fluctuations deviate from the “RMT+CI”
predictions. We show that large fluctuations in $E_C$ are related to strong scars; remnants of periodic orbits in the classical confining potential. When located at the Fermi surface $E_F$ these states, being quasi-one dimensional, tend to create an inhomogeneous potential, in contrast to other more “chaotic” states which occupy more smoothly the entire dot area. Consequently, when a scar is at the Fermi surface a gap is created to the next state which results in additional gate voltage spacing to the next Coulomb oscillation. Furthermore, we find that the direct Coulomb matrix element between a state and itself (up spin and down spin), denoted $W_{pp} \equiv U_p$, is generally greater than between different spatial states $W_{pq}, \; p \ne q$, and that $U_p$ for scars is particularly large. Therefore, as we verify via full spin density functional (SDF) calculations for certain parameter regions, the dot is almost always spin polarized [@Marcus2]. Further, scars tend to remain, half filled, at $E_F$ (as $V_g$ is varied) due to their large $U_p$, while other, more homogeneous states pass through the Fermi surface [@correlation] (in the process gradually screening the scar state). Finally, when it becomes energetically impossible to draw down a still higher state to $E_F$, the filling of the second spin state of the scar does occur, leaving a gap to the next state, as mentioned above. At this point not only the scar, but all states are doubly occupied and spin polarization of the dot collapses.
We calculate the self-consistent electronic structure [@LP1] for a small quantum dot with the wafer profile and gate pattern of the device used by Sivan [*et al.*]{} [@Sivan]. The nominal two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) density is $3.1 \times 10^{-11} cm^{-2}$. Typical values for the average level spacing (not assuming spin degeneracy) and charging energy are $\Delta \sim 0.012 \; Ry^*$ and $E_C \sim 0.18 \; Ry^*$, respectively ($1 \; Ry^* \approx 5.8 \; meV$). The gate pattern is rectangular (inset Fig. 1) but due to excess metal in one gate the effective confining potential is classically chaotic, a fact which is substantiated by the statistics of the single particle level spacings (not shown). As in the experiment we vary the “plunger” gate voltage $V_g$ (inset Fig. 1), typically in steps of $5 \; mV$, the other gates being fixed to isolate the dot from source and drain. For each $V_g$ the electronic structure is calculated at three values of dot chemical potential $\mu_{dot}= 0.0,\pm 0.2 \; Ry^*$. States are filled (and $N$ thereby determined) according to a Fermi function, which except for very small dots is expected to give a good approximation to the full grand canonical ensemble [@Jovanovic]. Thus, in the calculation $N$ is not necessarily an integer. The values of $\mu_{dot}$ are chosen to change $N$ by about $\pm 1$, relative to the “equilibrium” value ($\mu_{dot} = \mu_{leads} \equiv 0$). The free energy $F(N,V_g)$ is calculated according to ref. [@LP1] and $E_C$ is [*defined*]{} as [$\partial^2 F(N,V_g)/\partial N^2$]{}, which we compute discretely.
Traces of $E_C (N)$ ($N$ from $\mu_{dot}=0$ solution) are shown in Fig. 1. The quasi-periodic peaks are associated with the onset (e.g. $N = 87, \; 114$) or completion ($N=92, \; 96, \; 102, \;
124$) of scar filling, the former being accompanied by downward fluctuation of states below the scar state, the latter with gaps above the scar state. Changing “non-plunger” gates varies the precise pattern of oscillations, but not the basic structure. Varying a “back gate” (not shown) also produces qualitatively similar characteristics.
Standard DF theory is a spin degenerate mean field theory. Even when exchange-correlation $E_{xc}$ is included in the local density approximation (LDA) it is known that some uncorrected self-interaction remains [@Slater_Zunger]. The tendency (Fig. 1) for levels to cluster at $E_F$ results from the energetic advantage of occupying several states partially rather than one or two states fully. At finite temperature $T$ such partial occupancy can be justified as an approximation to the weighted ensemble of many-body states. Further, in this regime, Wigner crystallization is unimportant. Nonetheless, a more precise description, where the role of spin polarization is made manifest, can be obtained via SDF calculations. As these are numerically more intensive we only calculate the behaviour for various representative parameter regions. Our main physical conclusion is that the electrostatically driven tendency for levels to cluster, partially filled, at $E_F$ in ordinary DF theory is replaced by an electrostatically driven spin polarization in SDF (e.g. it is energetically favorable to occupy two different spatial states singly as opposed to occupying either of them doubly).
The spectrum for the SDF case is illustrated in the upper right panel of Fig. 1. The $E_C$ fluctuations (not shown) occur at the same $N$ values as in the DF calculations and coincide with the arrows. Note that the fluctuation at $N=87$, which corresponds to the filling of the first spin state of a scar, is qualitatively different from those at $N=92$ and $96$, where scars become doubly occupied. In the latter cases, since $U_p$ of the scar is much greater than that of other states, double filling generally only occurs when all other states are either doubly filled or empty. Therefore [@Pablo], when this state fills, all states of the dot become identically spin degenerate.
Figure 2 shows wave functions and Coulomb matrix elements in the vicinity of a typical $E_C$ fluctuation, $N \approx 124$. Coulomb matrix elements are calculated using the kernel of Poisson’s equation from the self-consistent calculation. Thus screening by the gates is included automatically [@future]. We have identified four stable orbits for this device of which two are observable in Fig. 2. Here $n_{62}=2$ ($n_p \equiv $ occupancy of state $p$) and $n_{63}=0$. The grey scale plot of Coulomb matrix elements shows that this state, as well as $p=60$, another scar along a slightly different orbit, have higher values of $U_p$ [@Bfield]. Scars occur in families as additional nodes are added along the same orbit (compare $p=62$ and $p=50$ and note their interaction). The Coulomb matrix elements given here
are between self-consistent states [@note1]. Thus, even though $W_{62,63}$ is relatively small ($\sim 0.18 \; Ry^*$), it is the interaction of these two states which produces the gap at $E_F$ and the fluctuation of $E_C$ at this $N$. The strong 1-d scar $p=62$ at $E_F$ acts like a single atomic valence electron and strongly influences the potential (Fig. 3), creating a central “ridge” which modifies $p=63$, reducing the Coulomb interaction between $p=62$ and $p=63$.
A comparison between our calculations and the experimental results of Sivan [*et al.*]{} [@Sivan] shows a striking discrepancy. While the gate voltage spacing fluctuations ($\Delta_2$ in Ref. [@Sivan]) are symmetric, the fluctuations of $E_C$ computed here all proceed upward from a smoothly decreasing base. Furthermore, a comparison of the histograms of the fluctuations (not shown) reveals that the fluctuations in $E_C$ have an r.m.s. deviation of only about $5 \% $ of $E_C$, a result that is smaller by a factor of two or three from the data for $\Delta_2$. These discrepancies emphasize the importance, heretofore not fully appreciated, of distinguishing between the “inverse compressibility” (what we call the charging energy) at fixed $V_g$ and the gate voltage spacing (normalized by the capacitance ratio $\alpha$, see below) between Coulomb oscillations. These two quantities are equivalent only within the constant interaction model and, as we now show, small, upward variations in $E_C$ can produce much larger, symmetric variations in $\Delta V_g$.
To a reasonable approximation we can write $F(N,V_g)=\frac{1}{2} E_C(V_g) N^2 + b(V_g)N +c$, i.e. $F$ is quadratic in $N$ at each $V_g$. In the CI model, $b(V_g)=-e \alpha V_g$ where $\alpha$ is the ratio of the dot-gate capacitance $C_{dg}$ to the dot self-capacitance $C$, and $E_C = \frac{e^2}{C}
+ \sum_p^N \epsilon^0_p$ (at $T=0$). $C$, $\alpha$ and $\epsilon^0_p$ (the single particle level energies) are all assumed to be independent of $V_g$. $\Delta V_g$ is determined by writing $F(N,V_g)=F(N+1,V_g)$ and $F(N+1,V_g^{\prime})=F(N+2,V_g^{\prime})$ and subtracting, resulting in: $$e \alpha \Delta V_g = \frac{e^2}{C} +
\epsilon^0_{N+2}-\epsilon^0_{N+1} \label{eq:std}.$$ However when $C$, $\alpha$ and $\epsilon^0_p$ depend on $V_g$, the procedure for deriving Eq. \[eq:std\] leads to $$\begin{aligned}
e \alpha(V_g^{\prime}) V_g^{\prime} - e \alpha(V_g) V_g & = &
\frac{(N+3/2)e^2}{C(V_g^{\prime})} \nonumber \\
- \frac{(N+1/2)e^2}{C(V_g)} & &
+\epsilon^0_{N+2}(V_g^{\prime}) - \epsilon^0_{N+1} (V_g). \label{eq:compl}\end{aligned}$$ When, in particular, $C$ fluctuates appreciably from $V_g$ to $V_g^{\prime}$ the influence on $\Delta V_g$ can be magnified, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Here we have calculated $F(N,V_g)$ on sufficiently fine grids to determine $\Delta V_g$ numerically.
To complete the picture we note that the frequency of scars in the spectrum, and hence the number of large oscillations in $E_C$, decrease with $N$. This is somewhat evident in Fig. 1 in that the spacing of oscillations increases with $N$. The scars are remnants of closed orbits and are thus effectively one dimensional. Their density of states (DOS) decreases as $1/\sqrt{E}$, in contrast to the constant DOS for the 2D dot as a whole. Thus the overall frequency of scars in the spectrum will diminish. In addition, the extent to which a scar at $E_F$ pushes up the ensuing state should also diminish with $N$. (Again, the oscillations in Fig. 1 for larger $N$ appear to grow smaller). The reason is twofold. First, screening by the dot electrons increases with $N$. Second, the influence of the inhomogeneous potential fluctuation produced by the scar on the energy of a typical chaotic state should depend on the wavelength of that state $\lambda$ in comparison to the dot size, i.e. the kinetic energy cost of avoiding the scar decreases with $\lambda$.
When one considers larger dots with complicated scars occupying much of the dot area, the distinction between scars and non-scars, in terms of Coulomb matrix elements, tends to disappear [@note2]. In this case the fluctuations in $E_C$ will depend on the dot size, the fraction of the dot area occupied by the states near $E_F$, the screening length $\lambda_{sc}$ and perhaps dot geometry.
Sivan [*et al.*]{} found that while the fluctuations in $e \alpha \Delta V_g$ were much greater than the average single particle level spacing $\Delta$, the temperature dependence of these fluctuations was, seemingly, governed by $\Delta/k_B T$ [@Sivan]. We have argued that the fluctuations in $E_C$ should decrease with $N$ due to decreasing frequency of scars and their
decreasing influence on neighboring states. We cannot say definitively, however, whether these fluctuations should scale with $\Delta$ (dot area) or with $E_C$ (dot radius), though since $\lambda_{sc} \sim \Delta^{-1}$, the former seems more likely in the large dot limit. Empirically, however, the fluctuations in $E_C$ are comparable to $\Delta$ and, as noted, the enhancement of fluctuations in $\Delta V_g$ (Eq. \[eq:compl\]) derives from $V_g$ dependence of capacitances and energy levels. Consequently, (Fig. 4 inset), the fluctuations essentially vanish by $600 \; mK$ ($\approx 0.75 \Delta$) even though this is a factor of twenty smaller than $E_C$ itself.
Finally, in recent studies by Patel [*et al.*]{}, citation in [@Marcus2], no correlation was found to exist between peak heights and spacings. We propose that a stadium geometry, with quantum point contacts (QPCs) placed along the long axis, should indeed show this correlation. Certainly one stable periodic orbit will be that which simply oscillates along the central axis, so that these states will give greatly enhanced peak heights. Since, according to our discussion, scars associated with this orbit will float at $E_F$ for certain ranges of $V_g$, one should find corresponding groups of large Coulomb oscillations separated by a large $V_g$ spacing from neighboring oscillations.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that strongly scarred, quasi-1d states, by virtue of their strong Coulomb interactions, produce quasi-periodic fluctuations in the charging energy of chaotic quantum dots. We have shown that the scale of those fluctuations is consistent with the single particle level spacing, but that fluctuations in gate voltage spacings of Coulomb oscillations are, due to $V_g$ dependence of capacitances and energy levels, substantially greater and differently (symmetrically) distributed. Finally, we have proposed a simple experimental arrangement which could elucidate the role of self-consistency in chaotic systems discussed herein.
I wish to thank Dr. Uri Sivan for providing me with details of his devices and measurement. I wish to acknowledge a particularly helpful conversation with Oded Agam. I have also had helpful conversations with Y. Alhassid and co-workers, S. Das Sarma, F. Stern, C. Marcus, S. Patel, N. Wingreen Y. Aoyagi and T. Sugano. Support from Riken Computing Center - Fujitsu VPP500 Supercomputer are gratefully acknowledged. This work supported by grants from the Japan Ministries of Education and Science and Technology.
T. A. Brody [*et al.*]{} Rev. Mod. Phys. [**53**]{}, 385 (1981); F. Haake, [*Quantum Signatures of Chaos*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
U. Sivan [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1123 (1996).
M. Stopa, Phys. Rev. B, [**54**]{}, 13767 (1996).
J. A. Folk [it et al.]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1699 (1996).
R. Berkovits and Y. Avishai, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**8**]{} 389 (1996).
Ya.M. Blanter [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2449 (1997).
This explains the absence of an even-odd symmetry which would be expected in a spin degenerate version of the CI model, S. R. Patel [*et al.*]{}, preprint, cond-mat/9708090.
The self-consistent tendency for multiple levels to be partially occupied near $E_F$ for non-zero $T$ also provides a physical explanation for unexpected correlation of peak heights; see M. Stopa, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 18340 (1993) and, more recently, J. A. Folk [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 1699 (1996).
D. Jovanovic and J. P. Leburton, Phys. Rev B, [**49**]{}, 7474 (1994).
J. C. Slater, [*The Self-Consistent Field for Molecules and Solids*]{}, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974. More recent techniques on elimination of self-interaction effects in DF theory are discussed in M. M. Rieger and P. Vogl, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{} 16567 (1995) and references therein.
P. I. Tamborenea, R. J. Radtke and S. Das Sarma, preprint, cond-mat/9604099.
M. Stopa, (to be published).
We note that the application of a magnetic field $B$, by reducing the effective dimensionality of all eigenstates also imparts structure to the Coulomb matrix elements. The influence of $B$ on the spectrum can be seen in Ref. [@LP1], Fig. 13.
This is to be distinguished from the Coulomb matrix elements, between bare levels, screened by the dot electrons themselves, as determined, for example, via RPA.
For larger $N$ one expects scars to be associated with groups of eigenstates rather than our small dot case where they are represented by single eigenfunctions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have studied a holographically dual description of superconductor in $(2+1)$-dimensions in the presence of applied magnetic field, and observed that there exists a critical value of magnetic field, below which a charged condensate can form via a second order phase transition.'
author:
- Eiji Nakano
- 'Wen-Yu Wen'
bibliography:
- 'apssamp.bib'
title: ' Critical magnetic field in AdS/CFT superconductor'
---
Introduction
============
The holographic correspondence between a gravitational theory and a quantum field theory, first emerged under the AdS/CFT correspondence[@Maldacena:1997re], has been proved useful to study various aspects of nuclear physics such as RHIC and condensed matter phenomena, particularly in those recent studies [@Herzog:2007ij; @Hartnoll:2007ih; @Hartnoll:2007ip; @Hartnoll:2008hs; @Minic:2008an].
In the papers [@Gubser:2005ih; @Gubser:2008px], the author proposed a gravity model in which Abelian symmetry of Higgs is spontaneously broken by the existence of black hole. This mechanism was recently incorporated in the model of superconductivity and critical temperature was observed[@Hartnoll:2008vx], and later on non-Abelian gauge condensate[@Gubser:2008zu]. In this paper, we would like to extend the work to include the magnetic field and will show the existence of critical magnetic field as expected from physics of superconductor.
To implement a magnetic field at finite temperature, we introduce a Reissner-Nordstrom charged black hole and a condensate through a charged scalar field. In the superconducting phase, the scalar field takes different values at the horizon for different condensate expectation value at the boundary, indicating the existence of a scalar hair; while in the normal phase, vanishing scalar field tells the ordinary tale of a black hole with no hair.
The model with applied magnetic field
=====================================
Several important unconventional superconductors, such as the cuprates and organics, are layered in structure and interesting physics can be captured by studying a $(2+1)$ dimensional system. We are now interested in building up a gravity model (in coupled with other matter fields) in $(3+1)$ dimensions which is holographically dual to the desired planar system which develops superconductivity below critical temperature and critical magnetic field. We start with a model composed of the gravity sector and the matter sector. The gravity sector is given by the following Lagrangian density, $$e^{-1}{\cal L}_g=R-\frac{6}{L^2}-\frac{1}{4}{\cal F}^{\mu\nu}{\cal F}_{\mu\nu},$$ together with a solution of [*magnetically*]{} charged black hole in $AdS_4$, where[@Romans:1991nq] $$\begin{aligned}
&&ds^2=-f(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}+r^2(dx^2+dy^2),\\\nonumber\\
&&f(r)=\frac{r^2}{L^2}-\frac{M}{r}+\frac{H^2}{r^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Through the paper we set radius of curvature $L=1$ for numerical computation. By assumption the only nonzero electro-magnetic field is the magnetic component ${\cal F}_{xy}=\frac{H}{r^2}$, of which the energy density at any fixed radius coordinate $r$ is always finite and constant, that is, ${\cal F}^{\mu\nu}{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}\propto H^2$. This serves the purpose of constant applied magnetic field at the boundary. The black hole is censored by a horizon provided the condition $27M^4-256H^6\ge 0$ and the temperature, as a function of $M$ and $H$, is determined via the relation $$T=\frac{f'(r_+)}{4\pi},$$where $r_+$ is the most positive root of $f(r)=0$ (outer horizon). We expect that the gravity sector, implied by its given name, can be easily obtained from a pure gravity theory of higher dimensions by appropriate reduction.
For the matter sector, we will use the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) action for a Maxwell field and a charged complex scalar, which does not back react on the metric [@Gubser:2008px; @Hartnoll:2008vx], $$e^{-1}{\cal L}_m=-\frac{1}{4}F^{ab}F_{ab}+\frac{2}{L^2}|\Psi|^2-|\partial \Psi-iA\Psi|^2.$$ This action differs from the usual GL theory by two places: the coefficient of $|\Psi|^2$ term appears to be negative in both ordinary and superconducting phase, and a $|\Psi|^4$ term is not included. The AdS bulk geometry, however, plays the role of stabilization and we still expect some kind of Higgs mechanism triggered outside the horizon[@Gubser:2008px]. Enough for our purpose, we will also assume the planar symmetry ansatz for the scalar potential $A_t=\Phi(r)$ and the complex scalar $\Psi(r)$, where we have already fixed the phase to be constant. Then we need to solve a pair of coupled second order differential equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:2ode}
&&\Psi''+(\frac{f'}{f}+\frac{2}{r})\Psi'+\frac{\Phi^2}{f^2}\Psi+\frac{2}{L^2f}\Psi=0,\nonumber\\
&&\Phi''+\frac{2}{r}\Phi'-\frac{2\Psi^2}{f}\Phi=0\end{aligned}$$ with appropriate boundary conditions at the horizon and at asymptotic infinity. They can be solved numerically regardless of difficulty which appears in finding nontrivial analytic solutions. In particular, for normalizable scalar potential, we require at the horizon[@Gubser:2008px; @Hartnoll:2008vx] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{\Psi'}{\Psi}\bigg|_{r=r_+}=\frac{-2r_+}{3r_+^2-\frac{H^2}{r_+^2}},\nonumber\\
&&\Phi(r_+)=0.\end{aligned}$$
\[fig\_1\] {width="45.00000%"}
Nevertheless we still have freedom for two parameter family of solutions by assigning $\Phi'$ and $\Psi$ at the horizon, therefore we have a scalar hair from black hole for non-vanishing $\Psi$. At the boundary, the solutions behave like $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Psi=\frac{\Psi_{(1)}}{r}+\frac{\Psi_{(2)}}{r^2}+\cdots,\nonumber\\
&&\Phi=\mu-\frac{\rho}{r}+\cdots,\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ and $\rho$ are interpreted as chemical potential and charge density in the dual field theory. We are interested in the case where either $\Psi_{(1)}$ or $\Psi_{(2)}$ vanishes for stability concern at asymptotic AdS region, then read off the pairing operator $\cal O$ dual to $\Psi$ from the bulk-boundary coupling [@Hartnoll:2008vx], $$\langle{\cal O}_i\rangle=\sqrt{2}\Psi_{(i)}.$$
To gain a better intuition of how a condensate is realized in this gravity setup, we may investigate the effective mass of $\Psi$ field along the radius direction, that is $$m^2_{eff}(r)=-\frac{2}{L^2}-\frac{\Phi^2}{f}.$$ We recall that there exists the Bretenlohner-Freedman (BF) bound[@Breitenlohner:1982bm], i.e. $m^2L^2>-9/4$, which guarantees that the AdS vacuum is stable under perturbations of $\Psi$. We observe that in the Figure 1 that provided fixed temperature and boundary condition at the horizon, the effective mass dives below the BF bound for wider range of $r$ for smaller magnetic field. In the other words, condensate happens more easily while the magnetic field is smaller. This implies the existence of critical magnetic field below which the condensation can take place.
\[fig\_2\] {width="45.00000%"}
critical magnetic field
=======================
In the normal phase, we always have solutions to the equations (\[eqn:2ode\]), that is $\Psi=0$ and $\Phi=\mu-\frac{\rho}{r}$; while in the superconducting phase, we may have nontrivial $\Psi(r)$ and its boundary value serves as an order parameter for condensate. In the absence of applied magnetic field, for any fixed $\rho$, there exists a critical temperature $T_c$, above which there is no more nontrivial solution[@Hartnoll:2008vx]. In the presence of applied magnetic field, however, the Meissner effect is expected and there exists both $T_c$ and a critical magnetic field $H_c$, above which the nontrivial solution is again not admissible. As argued in the previous section, we expect that the stronger applied magnetic field $H$ is, the lower is critical temperature $T_c$. This statement is supported by our numerical results for $\langle{\cal O}_2\rangle$ as shown in the Figure 2. The operator ${\cal O}_{2}$ corresponds to a pair of fermions, while ${\cal O}_{1}$ to a pair of bosons[@Hartnoll:2008vx]. We have also found similar results for $\langle{\cal O}_1\rangle$ only at a small $H$ region.
In the Figure 3 we also plot the phase diagram of critical magnetic field against critical temperature.
\[fig\_3\] {width="45.00000%"}
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we have considered a hybrid model for AdS/CFT superconductors in the presence of magnetic field. Several comments are in order: At first, a magnetic field is provided in the gravity sector as a background, independent of the probed sector. We argue that this is perfectly fine as long as we only consider a constant magnetic field at the boundary. Secondly, the matter sector has no back reaction to the gravity sector, therefore the equation of motion for total Lagrangian is not satisfied. Although this may not be crucial to the occurrence of superconducting phase, it is still interesting to investigate a fully back-reacted action which can be derived from some higher-dimensional theory such as String theory or M-theory. Thirdly, in order to discuss possible formation of vortex lattice and distinguish between type I and II superconductors, one is tempted to relax the ansatz of planar symmetry. This will complicate the construction and analysis and we hope to report it in the near future. At last, this construction is a tractable model of strongly coupled system which may capture some physics of unconventional superconductors, in contrast to the conventional superconductors well described by GL theory macroscopically and BCS theory microscopically. Though we do not see fermionic degree of freedom from this macroscopic construction, the complex scalar, serving as order parameter, seems sufficient to explain such a critical phenomenon as good as the usual GL theory. In order to pursue a microscopic model along this line of reasoning, one may still need to understand better how to realize underlying fermionic degree of freedom in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence.
The authors are partially supported by the Taiwan’s National Science Council and National Center for Theoretical Sciences under Grant No. NSC96-2811-M-002-018, NSC97-2119-M-002-001, and NSC96-2811-M-002-024.
[99]{}
J. M. Maldacena, “The large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998) \[Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**38**]{}, 1113 (1999)\] \[arXiv:hep-th/9711200\]. C. P. Herzog, P. Kovtun, S. Sachdev and D. T. Son, “Quantum critical transport, duality, and M-theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 085020 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-th/0701036\]. S. A. Hartnoll, P. K. Kovtun, M. Muller and S. Sachdev, “Theory of the Nernst effect near quantum phase transitions in condensed Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 144502 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.3215 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\]. S. A. Hartnoll and C. P. Herzog, “Ohm’s Law at strong coupling: S duality and the cyclotron resonance,” Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 106012 (2007) \[arXiv:0706.3228 \[hep-th\]\]. S. A. Hartnoll and C. P. Herzog, “Impure AdS/CFT,” arXiv:0801.1693 \[hep-th\]. D. Minic and J. J. Heremans, “High Temperature Superconductivity and Effective Gravity,” arXiv:0804.2880 \[hep-th\]. S. S. Gubser, “Phase transitions near black hole horizons,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**22**]{}, 5121 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0505189\]. S. S. Gubser, “Breaking an Abelian gauge symmetry near a black hole horizon,” arXiv:0801.2977 \[hep-th\]. S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, “Building an AdS/CFT superconductor,” arXiv:0803.3295 \[hep-th\]. S. S. Gubser, “Colorful horizons with charge in anti-de Sitter space,” arXiv:0803.3483 \[hep-th\]. L. J. Romans, “Supersymmetric, cold and lukewarm black holes in cosmological Einstein-Maxwell theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**383**]{}, 395 (1992) \[arXiv:hep-th/9203018\].
P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, “Positive Energy In Anti-De Sitter Backgrounds And Gauged Extended Supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B [**115**]{}, 197 (1982).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We examine the singular behavior from the endpoint region $x \to 1$ in parton distributions unintegrated in both longitudinal and transverse momenta. We identify and regularize the singularities by using the subtraction method, and compare this with the cut-off regularization method. The counterterms for the distributions with subtractive regularization are given in coordinate space by compact all-order expressions in terms of eikonal-line operators. We carry out an explicit calculation at one loop for the unintegrated quark distribution. We discuss the relation of the unintegrated parton distributions in subtractive regularization with the ordinary parton distributions.'
author:
- 'F. Hautmann'
title: Endpoint singularities in unintegrated parton distributions
---
Parton distributions unintegrated in both longitudinal and transverse momenta are used in QCD to analyze hadron scattering problems with multiple hard scales and to describe infrared-sensitive processes. See [@jccrev03; @jeppe06; @metz] for reviews and references. These distributions represent less inclusive versions of the ordinary parton distributions. Accordingly, due to the lack of complete KLN [@kln] cancellation, they are affected by singularities from the region $x \to 1$ [@jccrev03; @brodsky01; @collsop81] corresponding to the exclusive phase-space boundary.
In traditional applications these singularities are handled by placing a cut-off on the endpoint region. The cut-off can be implemented as the Minkowski-space angle obtained by moving away from the lightcone the eikonal line in the matrix element that defines the parton density, as in [@korch] and in the method of [@collsop81], recently revisited in [@jiyuan; @ji06]. It can also be implemented in terms of the infrared cut-off associated with parton showering algorithms, as in Monte-Carlo event generators that make use of unintegrated densities [@junghgs; @lonn; @marchweb92]. But while the cut-off regularization is well-suited for leading order calculations, it makes it difficult to go beyond leading accuracy. Furthermore, with this method the connection with ordinary parton distributions and the lightcone limit are not so transparent.
A more systematic approach is based on subtractive regularization. A formulation of the subtraction method, suitable for treating eikonal-line matrix elements to all orders, is given in [@jccfh]. In this approach the eikonal line attached to the field operator in the original matrix element remains lightlike, but the singularities are cancelled by counterterms provided by certain gauge-invariant eikonal correlators. The purpose of this paper is to study the unintegrated quark distribution using the method [@jccfh]. To this end we analyze the structure of the endpoint singularity in coordinate space. We carry out an explicit calculation at one loop. This allows us to identify the counterterms, and provides support for an all-order operator formula with subtractive regularization. We present the analysis for the quark distribution, as this contains the main aspects of the endpoint dynamics, but this treatment can also be given in the case of the gluon distribution.
The analysis is given in terms of nonlocal operators. The techniques of [@balbra] are used to make contact with the operator product expansion in local operators. Expressing the integral of unintegrated parton distributions in terms of ordinary distributions involves in general nontrivial coefficient functions, as discussed in [@jcczu] for $ \phi^3 $ theory in dimension $d = 6$ and in [@cchlett93] for the $x \to 0$ gluon density. The subtractive-method result that we find has the distinctive feature that the dependence on the regularization parameters introduced by the counterterms drops out in the integrated parton distribution.
Let us first recall the basic behavior near the endpoint for fixed transverse momentum $k_\perp$ and lightcone momentum fraction $x$ [@jccrev03]. The unintegrated quark distribution $f(x , k_\perp)$, computed in a quark target with an infrared regulator $\rho$ [@jccrev03; @brodsky01], has the one-loop form $$\label{strucx1_1}
f_{(1)} (x , k_\perp) = P_R (x , k_\perp) - \delta (1 - x) \,
\delta (k_\perp )
\int d x^\prime \ d k_\perp^\prime \
P_R (x^\prime , k_\perp^\prime)
\hspace*{0.3 cm} ,$$ where $$\label{strucx1}
P_R (x , k_\perp) \sim \alpha_s \left[ {1 \over {
1-x } } \
{ 1 \over { k_\perp^2 + \rho^2} } + \{ {\rm{regular}}
\;\;\; {\rm{at}} \;\;\; x \to 1 \} \right]
\hspace*{0.3 cm} .$$ The $x \to 1$ singularity is the endpoint singularity, and is present for any $k_\perp$. A physical observable ${\cal O}$ is constructed by integrating $f$ against a test function $\varphi$ (specifying the final state, hard subprocess, etc.), which yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{physobs}
{\cal O} &=& \int dx \ d k_\perp \
f_{(1)}(x,k_\perp) \ \varphi(x,k_\perp)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\int dx \ d k_\perp \ [\varphi(x,k_\perp)
-\varphi(1,0_\perp)]\, P_{R}(x,k_\perp)
\hspace*{0.3 cm} . \end{aligned}$$ While in the inclusive case, with $\varphi$ independent of $k_\perp$, the $x \to 1$ behavior in Eq. (\[physobs\]) simply corresponds to the familiar $1/(1 - x)_+$ distribution from real/virtual cancellation, in the general case uncancelled divergences are expected from the endpoint region.
We now proceed as follows. We compute this singularity in coordinate space, we apply the subtractive regularization method [@jccfh], and then going back to momentum space we see the generalization of Eq. (\[physobs\]) associated with it.
We begin by considering the matrix element $$\label{coomatrel}
{\widetilde f} ( y ) =
{1 \over 2} \ \sum_s \
\langle p, s | {\overline \psi} (y )
V_y^\dagger ( n ) \gamma^+ V_0 ( n )
\psi ( 0 ) |
p, s \rangle \hspace*{0.3 cm} .$$ Here the $\psi$’s are the two quark fields evaluated at distance $y = ( 0 , y^- , y_\perp )$ with arbitrary $y^-$ and $y_\perp$, $p$ and $s$ are the momentum and spin of the target, taken to be a quark with $p^\mu = ( p^+, m^2 /(2 p^+), 0_\perp)$, and $V$ is the path-ordered exponential $$\label{defofV}
V_y ( n ) = {\cal P} \exp \left( i g_s \int_0^\infty d \tau \
n^\mu A_\mu (y + \tau \ n) \right)
\hspace*{0.3 cm} .$$ In Eq. (\[defofV\]) $n$ is the direction of the eikonal line and $A$ is the gauge field, $A_\mu = A_\mu^a t^a$, with $t^a$ the color generators in the fundamental representation. The unintegrated quark distribution is obtained from the Fourier transform $$\label{doublefou}
f(x, k_\perp ) =
\int {{d y^-} \over { 2 \pi} }
{{d^{d-2} y_\perp } \over { (2 \pi)^{d-2} } }
\ e^{-i x p^+ y^- + i
k_\perp \cdot y_\perp } \ {\widetilde f} ( y)
\hspace*{0.3 cm} ,$$ with $d = 4 - 2 \epsilon$ the space-time dimension.
Let us expand the matrix element (\[coomatrel\]) to one loop. In Feynman gauge, the endpoint behavior results from graphs with gluons coupling to the eikonal line, Fig. \[fig:w-loop\](a) and (b). We calculate these contributions working in dimensional regularization with dimension $d$, and regulating the collinear and soft divergences by keeping finite quark mass $m$ and gluon mass $\lambda$. We take $n$ to be lightlike, $n = (0, 1, 0_\perp )$, as is the case for ordinary parton distributions, and will give later the extension of the result to $n^2 \neq 0$. Because we work in covariant gauge we need not consider the contribution from the gauge link at infinity.
We expand the path-ordered exponential in Eq. (\[coomatrel\]) to first order in $g A$, and represent the gauge-field two-point correlator as $$\label{protimerep1}
\langle A_\mu^a (z_1) A_\nu^b (z_2) \rangle =
\delta^{a b} \ \int_0^\infty d \alpha
\ \int {{ d^4 \ell} \over { (2 \pi )^4 } } \ d_{\mu \nu } ( \ell ) \
e^{i [ \alpha (\ell^2 - \lambda^2 + i \varepsilon )
+ \ell \cdot (z_2 - z_1) ] }
\hspace*{0.3 cm} .$$ Similarly, for quarks $$\label{protimerep2}
\langle \psi_i (z_1) {\overline \psi}_k (z_2) \rangle =
\delta_{i k} \ \int_0^\infty d \beta
\ \int {{ d^4 q} \over { (2 \pi )^4 } } \ ({\hat q} + m) \
e^{i [ \beta (q^2 - m^2 + i \varepsilon) + q \cdot (z_2 - z_1) ] }
\hspace*{0.3 cm} .$$ We switch to new integration variables $v, \sigma$ by setting $$\label{vandsigma}
\alpha = v \ \sigma \hspace*{0.2 cm} , \hspace*{0.4 cm}
\beta = (1-v) \ \sigma
\hspace*{0.3 cm} ,$$ with $ 0 \leq v \leq 1$, $ 0 \leq \sigma < \infty$. Then the integrals in the momenta $\ell, q$ and $\tau , \sigma$ variables can be carried out explicitly for the graphs in Fig. \[fig:w-loop\] in terms of Bessel functions. We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Koneloop}
{\widetilde f}_{(a) + (b)} &=&
{{ \alpha_s C_F } \over { 4^{d/2-2} \pi^{d/2-1} } }
\ p^+
\int_0^1 dv \ { v \over { 1 - v + i \varepsilon}}
\ \left[ e^{ i p \cdot y v} \ 2^{d/2-1} \ \left( {\rho^2 \over {\mu^2
}} \right)^{d/4
-1} \ \right.
\nonumber\\
&\times& \left.
{1 \over
{[(-y^2 + i \varepsilon ) \mu^2 ]^{d/4-1} }}
K_{d/2 - 2}
( \sqrt{\rho^2 (-y^2 + i \varepsilon )} )
- e^{ i p \cdot y } \ \Gamma ( 2 - { d \over 2} ) \
({ \mu^2 \over \rho^2} )^{2 - d/2}
\right] \ , \hspace*{0.9 cm}\end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is the modified Bessel function, $\Gamma$ is the Euler gamma function, $\mu$ is the dimensional-regularization scale, and we have defined $$\label{rhodef}
\rho^2 = (1-v)^2 m^2 + v \lambda^2 \hspace*{0.3 cm} .$$ The singularity for $v \to 1$ in the integrand of Eq. (\[Koneloop\]) is the endpoint singularity. From the Fourier transform (\[doublefou\]) we see that $v$ has the meaning of plus momentum fraction $(p^+ - \ell^+) / p^+$, where $\ell^+$ is the gluon’s plus momentum. The $y^-$ integral from Eq. (\[doublefou\]) produces a $\delta (v - x)$ in the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[Koneloop\]) and a $\delta (1 - x)$ in the second term, thus leading to the singularity structure for $x \to 1$ schematized in Eq. (\[strucx1\]). Eq. (\[Koneloop\]) shows in particular that the $v \to 1$ singularity is present even with finite $\lambda$ and $m$ regulating the soft and collinear regions.
We can see the relation of this result with ordinary parton distributions by expanding the answer (\[Koneloop\]) in powers of the distance $y^2$ from the lightcone. This step is analogous to the technique [@balbra] to analyze nonlocal string-like operators. We use the representation of $K$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kexpand}
&& \left( {\rho^2 \over {-y^2 +
i \varepsilon}} \right)^{d/4
-1} \ K_{d/2 - 2}
( \sqrt{\rho^2 (-y^2 + i \varepsilon )} )
=
2^{1-d/2} \ \Gamma ( 2 - { d \over 2} ) \
(\rho^2 )^{d/2-2} \
\\
&\times&
\left[ 1 + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} b_k
\left( - {{y^2 \rho^2} \over 4} \right)^k \right]
+
2^{d/2-3} \Gamma ( { d \over 2} - 2 ) \
(- y^2 + i \varepsilon )^{2 - d/2} \
\left[ 1 + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} c_k
\left( - {{y^2 \rho^2} \over 4} \right)^k \right]
,
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with $$\label{bkck}
b_k = { { \Gamma( d/2 -1 ) } \over
{ k! \ \Gamma( k + d/2 -1) }}
\hspace*{0.2 cm} , \hspace*{0.4 cm}
c_k = { { \Gamma( 3-d/2 ) } \over
{ k! \ \Gamma( k + 3 - d/2 ) }} \hspace*{0.4 cm} .$$ Inserting Eqs. (\[Kexpand\]),(\[bkck\]) in Eq. (\[Koneloop\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EbmEaexpand}
{\widetilde f}_{(a) + (b)} &=&
{{ \alpha_s C_F } \over { 4^{d/2-2} \pi^{d/2-1} } }
\ p^+
\int_0^1 dv \ { v \over { 1 - v + i \varepsilon}} \
\left\{
\left[ e^{ i p \cdot y v} - e^{ i p \cdot y } \right]
\ \Gamma ( 2 - { d \over 2} ) \
( {\mu^2 \over \rho^2} )^{2-d/2}
\right.
\nonumber\\
&+&
e^{ i p \cdot y v} \ 4^{d/2-2} \
\Gamma ( { d \over 2} - 2 ) \
[(- y^2 + i \varepsilon ) \mu^2]^{2 - d/2}
\nonumber\\
&+&
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}
{ { \Gamma (2- { d / 2} ) \
\Gamma( d/2 -1 )} \over { k! \ 4^k \ \Gamma( k + d/2 -1) }} \
e^{ i p \cdot y v} \ ({\rho^2 \over \mu^2})^{ d/2+k-2}
(- y^2 \mu^2 )^{k}
\nonumber\\
&+& \left. \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}
{ { 4^{d/2-2-k} \ \Gamma ( { d / 2} - 2 ) \
\Gamma( 3-d/2 )} \over { k! \ \Gamma( k + 3- d/2 ) }} \
e^{ i p \cdot y v} \ ({\rho^2 \over \mu^2})^k
(- y^2 \mu^2 )^{2 - d/2+k}
\right\} \hspace*{0.2 cm} .\end{aligned}$$ The expansion (\[EbmEaexpand\]) separates long-distance contributions in $ \ln (\mu^2/\rho^2)$ and short-distance contributions in $ \ln (y^2 \mu^2)$. The first line of Eq. (\[EbmEaexpand\]) shows that the endpoint singularity $v \to 1$ cancels for ordinary parton distributions. At leading power the endpoint singularity is associated with the coefficient function in the second line of Eq. (\[EbmEaexpand\]). The higher order terms in the expansion are ${\cal O}(y^2)^k$, with $k \geq 1$.
Consider now $n^2 \neq 0$ in the matrix element (\[coomatrel\]). In this case the integrals in $\tau$ and $\sigma$ are not elementary, and lead to formulas in terms of parabolic cylinder functions. The result can alternatively be given as the following integral representation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EbmEa}
{\widetilde f}_{(a) + (b)} &=&
{{ i\ e^{- i \pi d /4} }
\over { 4^{d/2-3/2} \pi^{d/2-1} } } \ \alpha_s \ C_F
\ ( \mu^2 )^{2-d/2} \
\int_0^1 dv \int_0^\infty d \tau \
e^{ i \tau p \cdot n (1-v) }
\int_0^\infty d\sigma \ \sigma^{1 - d/2}
e^{-i \sigma \rho^2 } \hspace*{0.4 cm}
\nonumber\\
&\times&
\left[ \left( 2 \ p \cdot n \ v +
{{\tau n^2} \over {2 \sigma} } \right) p^+ +
(1-v) \ m^2 \ n^+
\right]
\nonumber\\
&\times&
\left\{ e^{ i p \cdot y }
\ e^{- i n^2 \tau^2 /(4 \sigma)} - e^{ i p \cdot y v}
\ e^{- i (y- n \tau)^2 /(4 \sigma) } \right\} . \end{aligned}$$ This can be used to study the two lightcone limits $y^2 \to 0$ and $n^2 \to 0$. In Eq. (\[EbmEa\]) the behavior of the integrand at $v \to 1$, resulting from the $\tau$ integration over the eikonal line (see Eq. (\[defofV\])), is regularized by $n^2 \neq 0$. This is precisely the method [@collsop81; @jiyuan] to handle the endpoint singularity, giving a cut-off in $x$ at fixed $k_\perp$ of order $ 1- x \greatersim k_\perp / \sqrt{4 \eta} $, where $\eta = ( p\cdot n )^2 / n^2$. The parton distribution obeys renormalization-group evolution equations in the cut-off parameter [@collsop81; @korch; @korchangle] and depends on $\eta$, also after integration over transverse momenta.
The subtractive method [@jccfh], which we now apply, works differently. This is reviewed in [@jccrev03]. The matrix element (\[coomatrel\]) is still evaluated at $n$ lightlike. It is multiplied however by vacuum expectation values of eikonal lines, which provide counterterms for the subtraction of the endpoint singularity. The counterterms contain in general both lightlike and non-lightlike eikonals. For this reason we introduce the vector $$\label{upum}
u^\mu = ( u^+ , u^- , 0_\perp )$$ and the path-ordered exponentials $V_y ( u )$, $V_{ {\bar y}} ( u )$, where $V$ is given in Eq. (\[defofV\]) and $ {\bar y}$ is the lightcone projection ${\bar y} = ( 0 , y^- , 0_\perp )$. We consider the matrix element (Fig. \[fig:subtr\]) $$\label{defsub}
{\widetilde f}^{\rm{(subtr)}} ( y ) =
{1 \over 2} \ \sum_s \
{ {
\langle p, s | {\overline \psi} ( y )
V_y^\dagger ( n ) \gamma^+ V_0 ( n ) \psi ( 0 ) |
p, s \rangle
} \over {
\langle 0 |
V_y ( u ) V_y^\dagger ( n ) V_0 ( n ) V_0^\dagger ( u ) |
0 \rangle
\ / \ { \langle 0 |
V_{ {\bar y}} ( u ) V_{ {\bar y}}^\dagger ( n )
V_0 ( n ) V_0^\dagger ( u ) | 0 \rangle }
}} \; ,$$ where $n = (0, 1, 0_\perp )$. The numerator in Eq. (\[defsub\]) coincides with Eq. (\[coomatrel\]). The denominator is the subtraction factor designed to cancel the endpoint singularity. Below we verify the cancellation explicitly at one loop. The subtraction factor is constructed using the technique [@jccfh] and depends on both the lightlike eikonal in direction $n$ and the non-lightlike eikonal in the auxiliary direction $u$. The unintegrated quark distribution with subtractive regularization is obtained as the Fourier transform (\[doublefou\]) of the matrix element (\[defsub\]). This distribution depends on the direction $u$. However, the dependence on $u$ cancels in Eq. (\[defsub\]) for $y_\perp =0$.
We now go back to momentum space. We evaluate the Fourier transform (\[doublefou\]) of Eq. (\[defsub\]), expanding to one loop. We introduce the regularization parameter $\zeta$, defined by the supplementary eikonal in direction $u$, $$\label{zetaparam}
\zeta = { p^{+ 2} \over 2 } \ { u^- \over u ^+}
\hspace*{0.2 cm} .$$ At one loop the result from the matrix element in the numerator is of the form in Eq. (\[strucx1\_1\]), while the vacuum expectation values in the denominator contribute subtraction terms. Explicit calculation gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{subtr1loo}
\hspace*{0.5 cm} f^{\rm{(subtr)}}_{ (1)} (x, k_\perp ) &=&
P_R (x , k_\perp) - \delta (1 - x) \, \delta (k_\perp )
\int d x^\prime d k_\perp^\prime
P_R (x^\prime , k_\perp^\prime)
\nonumber\\
&-& W_R (x , k_\perp , \zeta)
+ \delta (k_\perp ) \int d k_\perp^\prime
W_R (x , k_\perp^\prime, \zeta)\end{aligned}$$ where, restoring now also the contributions of finite $(1-x)$ and including non-eikonal graphs, we have $$\label{prsubtr2}
P_R (x , k_\perp ) =
{ {\alpha_s C_F} \over { 2 \pi^2 }}
\left\{ { { (1-x) [(k_\perp^2 +
m^2 (1 -x)^2 - 2 x m^2] }
\over { [k_\perp^2 + m^2 (1-x)^2 ]^2 }}
+ { { 2 x /{ (1-x )} }
\over {[k_\perp^2 + m^2 (1-x)^2 ]
}} \right\} \hspace*{0.2 cm} ,$$ and $$\label{prsubtr3}
W_R (x , k_\perp , \zeta) =
{ {\alpha_s C_F} \over { 2 \pi^2 } }
\left\{ - { { 8 \zeta (1-x) }
\over { [k_\perp^2 + 4 \zeta (1-x)^2 ]^2 } }
+ { { 2 /{ (1-x )} }
\over {[k_\perp^2 + 4 \zeta (1-x)^2 ]
}} \right\} \hspace*{0.2 cm} .$$ Here we have set $\lambda = 0$, $d = 4$. Note the endpoint singularity $(1-x)^{-1} \times \alpha_s C_F /( \pi^2 k_\perp^2 )$ for $x \to 1$ in $P_R$, and the corresponding subtraction term in $W_R$. The specific form of the counterterms in the second line of Eq. (\[subtr1loo\]) comes from the subtraction factors in Fig. \[fig:subtr\]. In particular, terms in $\delta (1 - x)$ cancel between the vacuum expectation values in Eq. (\[defsub\]). This reflects the fact that in the coordinate-space results (\[Koneloop\]),(\[EbmEa\]) only the terms in $e^{ i p \cdot y v}$ depend on $y_\perp$, while those in $e^{ i p \cdot y}$ do not.
Observe that the unintegrated distribution in Eq. (\[subtr1loo\]) depends on the parameter $\zeta$ of Eq. (\[zetaparam\]), but upon integration in $k_\perp$ the $\zeta$-dependence cancels between the two terms in the second line of Eq. (\[subtr1loo\]). This implementation of the subtraction method is to be contrasted with the cut-off method [@collsop81; @jiyuan], where a residual dependence on the cut-off parameter is left in the integrated distribution.
We may now consider the analogue of Eq. (\[physobs\]) for a physical observable $\cal O$. Similarly to Eq. (\[physobs\]), suppose integrating a test function $\varphi$ over the distribution $f^{\rm{(subtr)}}$. Using Eq. (\[subtr1loo\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{physobsbis}
{\cal O} &=& \int dx \ d k_\perp \
f^{\rm{(subtr)}}_{(1)}(x,k_\perp) \ \varphi(x,k_\perp)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\int dx \ d k_\perp \ \left\{
( P_{R} - W_R ) \ \varphi(x,k_\perp)
-
P_{R} \
\varphi(1,0_\perp)
+ W_{R} \ \varphi(x,0_\perp) \right\}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\int dx \ d k_\perp \ \left\{
P_{R} \
[\varphi(x,0_\perp) -\varphi(1,0_\perp)]
+
( P_{R} - W_{R} ) \
[\varphi(x,k_\perp)
-\varphi(x,0_\perp)]\, \right\}
\hspace*{0.2 cm} . \end{aligned}$$ Unlike Eq. (\[physobs\]), the endpoint behavior in Eq. (\[physobsbis\]) is regularized. For $x \to 1$ the first term in the last line of Eq. (\[physobsbis\]) corresponds to the $1/(1 - x)_+$ distribution, while in the second term the endpoint singularity in $P_R$ is cancelled by $W_R$.
In conclusion, we verify at one loop that the subtractive method, implemented in Eq. (\[defsub\]), provides a well-prescribed technique to identify and regularize the endpoint singularities in unintegrated parton distributions. This is accomplished while keeping the eikonal in direction $n$ exactly lightlike, in contrast with approaches based on cut-off regularization [@collsop81; @korch; @jiyuan; @ji06], and canceling the singularities instead by multiplicative, gauge-invariant factors. The one-loop counterterms in Eqs. (\[subtr1loo\]),(\[physobsbis\]), generated from the expansion of these factors, correspond to an extension for $k_\perp \neq 0$ of the plus-distribution regularization, characteristic of the inclusive case. In general, the operator expression in coordinate space given by Eq. (\[defsub\]) can be used to any order.
The subtractive method provides an alternative to the cut-off method, most commonly used in this context. In the cut-off method the eikonal $n$ is moved away from the lightcone, as in Eq. (\[EbmEa\]) above, and the cut-off is given by $\eta = (p \cdot n)^2 / n^2$. The lightcone limit is not smooth, so that one does not simply recover the ordinary parton distribution by integrating over $k_\perp$ and taking $\eta \to \infty$ [@collsop81]. This behavior can be compared with the dependence on the “gauge-invariant cut-off" parameter (\[zetaparam\]) in the case of the subtractive method. As noted below Eq. (\[defsub\]) and below Eq. (\[prsubtr3\]), the dependence on the non-lightlike eikonal, introduced in Eq. (\[upum\]) to regularize the endpoint at unintegrated level, drops out of the distribution integrated over transverse momenta, where such regularization occurs independently by KLN cancellation.
Different methods of regularizing the endpoint singularities in the unintegrated parton distributions will result in different coefficient functions for the $y^2$ expansion of the kind in Eq. (\[EbmEaexpand\]). The observed cancellation of the $\zeta$ dependence in the integrated density could be seen as corresponding to a particular scheme choice, which may be advantageous for applications such as the construction of event-generation methods [@jcczu; @fhproc; @bauermc]. It can also be helpful for studying the re-expansion of unintegrated distributions in terms of ordinary distributions [@balbra; @jcczu; @cchlett93]. The possibility of constructing one such scheme appears to be a distinctive feature of the subtractive method compared to the cut-off method.
0.6 cm
[**Acknowledgments**]{}. I thank V. Braun, M. Ciafaloni and J. Collins for valuable discussions.
J.C. Collins, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**34**]{} (2003) 3103. J.R. Andersen et al., Eur. Phys. J. C[**48**]{} (2006) 53. A. Metz, talk at DESY Workshop, Hamburg, September 2006. T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys. [**3**]{} (1962) 650; T.D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev. [**133**]{} (1964) 1549. S.J. Brodsky, D.S. Hwang, B.Q. Ma and I. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. [**B593**]{} (2001) 311. J.C. Collins, in [*Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics*]{}, ed. A.H. Mueller, World Scientific 1989, p. 573; J.C. Collins and D.E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. [**B193**]{} (1981) 381. G.P. Korchemsky, Phys. Lett. B [**220**]{} (1989) 629. X. Ji, J. Ma and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 034005; JHEP [**0507**]{} (2005) 020. P. Chen, A. Idilbi and X. Ji, Nucl. Phys. [**B763**]{} (2007) 183. H. Jung, Mod. Phys. Lett. A19 (2004) 1. G. Gustafson, L. L[" o]{}nnblad and G. Miu, JHEP [**0209**]{} (2002) 005; L. L[" o]{}nnblad and M. Sj[" o]{}dahl, JHEP [**0402**]{} (2004) 042, JHEP [**0505**]{} (2005) 038. G. Marchesini and B.R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. [**B386**]{} (1992) 215. J.C. Collins and F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B [**472**]{} (2000) 129; JHEP [**0103**]{} (2001) 016. I.I. Balitsky and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. [**B361**]{} (1991) 93. J.C. Collins and X. Zu, JHEP [**0503**]{} (2005) 059. S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni and F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B [**307**]{} (1993) 147; S. Catani and F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. [**B427**]{} (1994) 475. G.P. Korchemsky and G. Marchesini, Phys. Lett. B [**313**]{} (1993) 433; G.P. Korchemsky and A. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B [**279**]{} (1992) 359. F. Hautmann, hep-ph/0101006, in Proceedings of Linear Collider Workshop LCWS2000, Fermilab, Batavia 2000 (p.408). C.W. Bauer and M.D. Schwartz, hep-ph/0607296.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $G$ be a non-Engel group and let $L(G)$ be the set of all left Engel elements of $G$. Associate with $G$ a graph $\mathcal{E}_G$ as follows: Take $G\backslash L(G)$ as vertices of $\mathcal{E}_G$ and join two distinct vertices $x$ and $y$ whenever $[x,_k y]\not=1$ and $[y,_k x]\not=1$ for all positive integers $k$. We call $\mathcal{E}_G$, the Engel graph of $G$. In this paper we study the graph theoretical properties of $\mathcal{E}_G$.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan 81746-73441, Iran'
author:
- Alireza Abdollahi
title: Engel graph associated with a group
---
[^1]
**Introduction**
================
Let $G$ be a group and $x_1,\dots,x_n\in G$. For all $n>0$ we define inductively $[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ as follows: $[x_1]=x_1$ and $$[x_1,\dots,x_n]
=[x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}]^{-1}x_n^{-1}[x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}]x_n
\;\;\text{for all}\;\; n>1.$$ If $x_2=\dots=x_n$, then we denote $[x_1,\dots,x_{n}]$ by $[x_1,_{n-1} x_2]$. Note that $[x_1]=[x_1,_0 x_2]=x_1$ and $[x_1,x_2]=x_1^{-1}x_2^{-1}x_1x_2$.\
An element $x$ of $G$ is called [*left Engel*]{} if for every element $a \in G$, there exists a positive integer $k$ such that $[a,_k x]=1$. If the integer $k$ is fixed for any element $a$, then the element $x$ is called [*left $k$-Engel*]{}. An element $x$ is called [*bounded left Engel*]{} if it is [*left $k$-Engel*]{} for some positive integer $k$. The sets of all left Engel and bounded left Engel elements of $G$ are denoted by $L(G)$ and $\overline{L}(G)$, respectively. A group $G$ is called an [*Engel*]{} group, if $L(G)=G$.\
Associate with a non-Engel group $G$ a (simple) graph $\mathcal{E}_G$ as follows: Take $G\backslash L(G)$ as vertices of $\mathcal{E}_G$ and join two distinct vertices $x$ and $y$ whenever $[x,_k y]\not=1$ and $[y,_k x]\not=1$ for all positive integers $k$. We call $\mathcal{E}_G$, the Engel graph of $G$.
\
Figure 1
In this paper we study the graph theoretical properties of $\mathcal{E}_G$. One of our motivations for associating with a group such kind of graph is a problem posed by Erdös: For a group $G$, consider a graph $\Gamma$ whose vertex set is $G$ and join two distinct elements if they do not commute. Then he asked: is there a finite bound for the cardinalities of cliques in $\Gamma$, if $\Gamma$ has no infinite clique? (By a clique of a graph $\Delta$ we mean a set of vertices of $\Delta$ which are pairwise adjacent. The largest size (if it exists) of cliques of $\Delta$ is called the clique number of $\Delta$; it will be denoted by $\omega(\Delta)$).\
Neumann [@Neu] answered positively Erdös’ problem by proving that such groups are exactly the centre-by-finite groups and the index of the centre can be considered as the requested bound in the problem.\
In fact, groups with some conditions on cliques of their Engel graphs have been already studied, without explicitly specifying that such a graph had been under consideration. For example, Longobardi and Maj [@LonMaj] (also Endimioni [@End]) proved that if $G$ is a finitely generated soluble group in which every infinite subset contains two distinct elements $x$ and $y$ such that $[x,_k y]=1$ for some integer $k=k(x,y)$, then $G$ is finite-by-nilpotent. The following result is an easy consequence of the latter which may be considered as an answer to a Erdös like question on Engel graphs.
If $G$ is a non-Engel finitely generated soluble group, then $\mathcal{E}_G$ has no infinite clique if and only if the clique number of $\mathcal{E}_G$ is finite.
In [@A1], the condition $\mathcal{E}(n)$ ($n\in\mathbb{N}$) on groups was considered by the author: Every subset of elements consisting of more than $n$ elements possesses a pair $x,y$ such that $[x,{}_ky]=1$ for some $k=k(x,y)\in\mathbb{N}$. This simply means that we were studying groups $G$ such that every clique of $\mathcal{E}_G$ has size at most $n$. It is shown in [@A1] that all finite groups and all finitely generated soluble groups satisfying $\mathcal{E}(n)$ are nilpotent for $n\leq 2$ and that all finite groups in $\mathcal{E}(n)$ are soluble for $n\leq 15$. Therefore we can summarize the latter results in terms of Engel graph as following.
\[thm1\] Let $G$ be a finite or a finitely generated soluble non-Engel group. Then $\omega(\mathcal{E}_G)\geq 3$. If $G$ is finite and $\omega(\mathcal{E}_G)\leq 15$, then $G$ is soluble.
In [@A2], it is proved that if $G$ is a finitely generated soluble group satisfying $\mathcal{E}(n)$, then the index of the hypercentre of $G$ is bounded by a function of $n$. Also it is proved that if $G$ is a finite group satisfying $\mathcal{E}(n)$, then the index of the Fitting subgroup of $G$ is bounded by a function of $n$. Note that if $G$ is either a finite group or a soluble group, then $L(G)$ is a subgroup and coincides with the Fitting subgroup of $G$ (see [@Baer] and [@Gr Proposition 3]).
Let $G$ be a finite or a finitely generated soluble non-Engel group such that $\omega(\mathcal{E}_G)$ is finite. Then the index of the Fitting subgroup of $G$ is finite and bounded by a function of $\omega(\mathcal{E}_G)$.
Also in [@A2] finite centerless groups $G$ satisfying the condition $\mathcal{E}(n)$ for $n\leq 15$ are characterized. This of course implies that we have a characterization of all finite centerless groups $G$ with $\omega(\mathcal{E}_G)\leq 15$.\
In section 2, we study the connectedness of $\mathcal{E}_G$ for a non-Engel group $G$. We do not know whether there is a non-Engel group $G$ such that $\mathcal{E}_G$ is not connected. We give some classes of groups whose Engel graphs are connected. Throughout section 2 we generalize some known results on the set of left Engel elements by defining new types of Engel elements. Most of the results are about the connectedness of certain subgraphs of a non-Engel group. In section 3, we characterize finite groups whose Engel graphs are planar. In section 4 we shortly study groups with isomorphic Engel graphs and we show that the Engel graph of a finite group cannot be isomorphic to the Engel graph of an infinite one.
**Connectedness of Engel graph**
=================================
In this section, we study the connectedness of the Engel graph $\mathcal{E}_G$ for a non-Engel group $G$. Before starting to show the results, we recall some concepts for a simple graph $\Delta$. A [*path*]{} $P$ in $\Delta$ is a sequence $v_0-v_1-\cdots-v_k$ whose terms are vertices of $\Delta$ such that for any $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$, $v_{i-1}$ and $v_i$ are adjacent. In this case $P$ is called a path between $v_0$ and $v_k$. The number $k$ is called the [*length*]{} of $P$. If $v$ and $w$ are vertices in $\Delta$, then by definition $d(v,v)=0$ and whenever $v\not=w$, $d(v,w)$ denotes the length of the shortest path between $v$ and $w$ if a path exists, otherwise $d(v,w)=\infty$ and we call $d(v,w)$ the distance between $v$ and $w$ in $\Delta$. We say that $\Delta$ is [*connected*]{} if there is a path between each pair of vertices of $\Delta$. If $\Delta$ is connected, then the largest distance between all pairs of the vertices of $\Delta$ is called the [*diameter*]{} of $\Delta$, and it is denoted by $\text{diam}(\Delta)$.\
Some results and examples suggest that the Engel graph of any finite non-Engel group must be connected. We have checked the Engel graphs of all non-Engel finite groups of orders at most 570 (except ones of order 384!) by GAP [@GAP] using the package GRAPE and the following programme written in GAP. All these groups have connected Engel graphs with diameter 1 or 2.
c:=function(a,b,G) local n,L,s,i,A,M; n:=Size(G); M:=1; s:=0; if
Comm(a,b)=Identity(G) then s:=1; fi; A:=a;
while s=0 do
A:=Comm(A,b); M:=M+1; if A=Identity(G) then s:=1; fi; if M>n and
A<>Identity(G) then s:=-1; fi; od; if s=0 or s=-1 then L:=true;
fi; if s=1 then L:=false; fi; return L; end;
c2:=function(a,b,G)
return c(a,b,G) and c(b,a,G); end;
LoadPackage("GRAPE");
EngelGraph:=function(G)
return
Graph(G,Difference(G,FittingSubgroup(G)),OnPoints,function(x,y)
return c2(x,y,G); end); end;
DiametersOfEngelGraphs:=function(n,m) return
Union(List([n..m],j->List(AllSmallGroups(j,IsNilpotent,false),
i->Diameter(EngelGraph(i))))); end;
The difficulty to settle the question of whether Engel graphs of finite non-Engel groups are connected, is that the relation $\sim$ on $G$ defined as $$x \sim y \Leftrightarrow [x,_k y]=1 \;\text{for some}\; k\in\mathbb{N}$$ is not symmetric, for example in the symmetric group of degree 3, we have $(1,2)\sim(1,2,3)$ but $(1,2,3)\not\sim(1,2)$. Indeed, if it is true that $\mathcal{E}_G$ is connected, it should be true that $\mathcal{E}_G$ has no isolated vertex, i.e. a vertex $v$ such that $d(v,w)=\infty$ for every vertex $w\not=v$. We were unable to prove the latter for all groups, but we shall prove it for some wide classes of groups. Our results generalize some well-known results on left Engel elements and Engel sets, as we consider a new type of Engel elements in groups. In the definition of edges of the complement of an Engel graph, since we want to have a simple graph, we use the symmetrized of the relation $\sim$, i.e. $$x \sim' y \Leftrightarrow \text{either}\;
[x,_k y]=1 \;\text{or}\; [y,_k x]=1 \;\text{for some}\;
k\in\mathbb{N}.$$ This motivates to consider the following types of Engel conditions on elements of a group.\
Let $G$ be a group. An element $a$ of $G$ is called [*randomly power Engel*]{} if for every $g\in G$, there exists a sequence $a_1,\dots,a_k$ of elements of $\left<a\right>$ with $\left<a\right>=\left<a_i\right>$ for all $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ such that either $[a_1^g,a_2,\dots,a_k]=1$ or $[a_1,a_2^g,\dots,a_k^g]=1$. The word “randomly” has been selected for the name of such an element, because of the “either...or” sentence involved in the definition and the word “power” is for the fact that, the elements $a_1,\dots,a_n$ are indeed powers of $a$. If the integer $k$ in above is the same for all $g\in G$, then we say that $a$ is a [*randomly power $k$-Engel*]{} element. If all the elements $a_1,\dots,a_k$ can be always chosen equal to $a$, then $a$ is called a [*randomly Engel element*]{} of $G$, [*randomly $k$-Engel*]{} if $k$ is the same for all $g\in G$. An element $a$ of $G$ is called [*bounded randomly [(]{}power[)]{} Engel*]{} if it is randomly (power) $k$-Engel for some positive integer $k$. The set of randomly power Engel elements in a group $G$ is denoted by $\mathcal{L}(G)$ and we denote by $\overline{\mathcal{L}}(G)$ the set of bounded randomly power Engel elements of $G$. Clearly we have $L(G)\subseteq \mathcal{L}(G)$, $\overline{L}(G)\subseteq
\overline{\mathcal{L}}(G)$ and these sets are invariant under conjugation of elements of $G$.\
We need the following lemma in the sequel.
\[lem0\] Let $a$ and $g$ be elements of a group such that the normal closure of $a$ in $\left<a,g\right>$ is abelian. If $[a,g^{t_1},\dots,g^{t_k}]=1$ for some $t_1,\dots,t_k
\in\mathbb{N}$, then $[a,_k g^{m}]=1$, where $m$ is any positive integer divisible by the least common multiple of $t_1,\dots,
t_k$.
Since $\left<a\right>^{\left<a,g\right>}$ is abelian, we may write $$\begin{aligned}
[a,g^{m},g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]=[[a,g^{t_1}]^{(g^{t_1})^{\frac{m}{t_1}-1}+(g^{t_1})^{\frac{m}{t_1}-2}+\cdots+g^{t_1}+1},g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]&\\
[a,g^{t_1},g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]^{(g^{t_1})^{\frac{m}{t_1}-1}+(g^{t_1})^{\frac{m}{t_1}-2}+\cdots+g^{t_1}+1}=1.&\end{aligned}$$ Now since the normal closure of $[a,g^{m}]$ in $\left<a,g\right>$ is also abelian, by induction on $k$, we have that $[a,_k g^m]=1$. This completes the proof.
\[lem1\] Let $A$ be a normal abelian subgroup of a group $G$ and let $g\in G$.
1. If $g\in \mathcal{L}(A\left<g\right>)$, then $A\left<g\right>$ is locally nilpotent.
2. If $g$ is a randomly power $k$-Engel element of $A\left<g\right>$, then $A\left<g\right>$ is nilpotent of class at most $k+1$.
Let $K=A\left<g\right>$. To prove (1) and (2) it is enough to show that $g\in L(K)$ and $g$ is a left $k$-Engel element, respectively.\
Let $a\in A$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t_1,t_2,\dots,t_k \in \mathbb{Z}$. Then, since $A$ is a normal abelian subgroup of $G$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
[(g^{t_1})^a,g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]=[[g^{t_1},a],g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]=& \\
[[a,g^{t_1}]^{-1},g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]=[a,g^{t_1},g^{t_2},\dots,&g^{t_k}]
^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
[g^{t_1},(g^{t_2})^a,\dots,(g^{t_k})^a]=[(g^{t_1})^{a^{-1}},g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]^{a}=& \\
[[g^{t_1},a^{-1}],g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]^a=[a,g^{t_1},g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}].\end{aligned}$$ Since $g\in \mathcal{L}(K)$, it follows from these equalities that for any $a\in A$, there exists a sequence $t_1,\dots,t_k$ of integers with $\left<g^{t_i}\right>=\left<g\right>$ for every $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ such that $$[a,g^{t_1},g^{t_2},\dots,g^{t_k}]=1. \eqno{(*)}$$ Now if $g$ is of infinite order, then $t_1,\dots,t_k
\in\{1,-1\}$ and by $(*)$ it is easy to see that for any $a\in
A$, there exists a positive integer $k$ such that $[a,_k g]= 1$. Since $A$ is abelian and normal in $K$, it follows that $g \in
L(K)$. Now assume that $g$ is of finite order and let $m$ be the product of all positive integers $t\leq |g|$ such that $\gcd(t,|g|)=1$. It follows from $(*)$ and Lemma \[lem0\] that $[a,_k g^m]=1,$ which implies that $g^m \in L(K)$. Now by a result of Gruenberg [@Gr Proposition 3], $L(K)$ is a subgroup of $G$ and so $g\in L(K)$. This shows that, in any case $g\in L(K)$. The above argument also shows that if $g$ is a randomly power $k$-Engel element of $K$, then $g$ is a left $k$-Engel element of $K$. This completes the proofs of (1) and (2).
\[Nil-Ab\] Let $G$ be a nilpotent-by-abelian non-Engel group. If $\mathcal{E}_{\frac{G}{H'}}$ is connected for some nilpotent subgroup $H$ containing $G'$, then $\mathcal{E}_G$ is connected. Moreover, in this case, the diameter of $\mathcal{E}_G$ is at most $\max\{\text{diam}(\mathcal{E}_{\frac{G}{H'}}),2\}$.
For every $a\in G$, $a\in L(G)$ if and only if $aH'\in
L(\left<a\right>H/H')$; for if $aH'\in L(\left<a\right>H/H')$, then $\left<a\right>H/H'$ is locally nilpotent by Lemma \[lem1\]. Since $H$ is nilpotent, a Hall-type result of Plotkin [@plot] (see also [@Rob4]) implies that $\left<a\right>H$ is locally nilpotent. Since $G'\leq H$, $\left<a\right>^G\leq
\left<a\right>H$ and so $a\in L(G)$. It follows that $xH'$ is a vertex of $\mathcal{E}_{\frac{G}{H'}}$ if and only if $x$ is a vertex of $\mathcal{E}_{G}$. Now let $x$ and $y$ be two distinct vertices in $\mathcal{E}_G$. If $xH'=yH'$, then there exists $z\in G$ such that $zH'$ is an adjacent vertex to $xH'$. It follows that $x-z-y$ is a path of length 2 between $x$ and $y$ in $\mathcal{E}_G$. Now if $xH'\not=yH'$, then there exists a path $P$ of length $d\leq \text{diam}(\mathcal{E}_{\frac{G}{H'}})$ between $xH'$ and $yH'$ in $\mathcal{E}_{\frac{G}{H'}}$. Now any set of preimages of the vertices of $P$ in $G$ (under the natural epimorphism $G\rightarrow \frac{G}{H'}$) forms a path of length $d$ between $x$ and $y$ in $G$. This completes the proof.
\[nil-cyc\] If $G$ is a nilpotent-by-cyclic non-Engel group, then $\mathcal{E}_G$ is connected and its diameter is at most $6$. If $G$ is nilpotent-by-abelian and $x\not\in L(G)$, then $\left<x\right>^G$ is non-Engel, $\mathcal{E}_{\left<x\right>^G}$ is connected with diameter at most $6$, and the induced subgraph of $\mathcal{E}_{G}$ on the conjugacy class of $x$ in $G$ is connected with diameter at most $2$.
Let $G=A\left<g\right>$, where $A$ is a normal nilpotent subgroup of $G$ and $g\in G$. By Theorem \[Nil-Ab\] we may assume that $A$ is abelian. Let $g_1$ and $g_2$ be two distinct vertices of $\mathcal{E}_G$ such that $g_1=a_1g^{n}$ and $g_2=a_2g^{n}$ for some $a_1,a_2\in A$ and $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. Since $A$ is a normal abelian subgroup of $G$, $g_1$ is adjacent to $g_2$ if and only if $$[a_1a_2^{-1},_k g^n]\not=1 \;\;\text{for all}\;\; k\in \mathbb{N}.$$ Since $g_1$ is a vertex of $\mathcal{E}_G$, $g_1\not\in \mathcal{L}(G)$ by Lemma \[lem1\]. Thus $g_1$ is adjacent to $g_1^y$ for some $y\in G$. Note that $g_1^y=a_3 g^n$ for some $a_3\in A$. Therefore $[a_1a_3^{-1},_k
g^n]\not=1$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Now if $g_1$ and $g_2$ are not adjacent, then $[a_1a_2^{-1},_m g^n]=1$ for some $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Thus $[a_2a_3^{-1},_k g^n]\not=1$ for all $k\geq
m$ and so clearly we have that $[a_2a_3^{-1},_k g^n]\not=1$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Hence $g_2$ is adjacent to $g_1^y$ and $g_1-g_1^y-g_2$ is a path of length 2 between $g_1$ and $g_2$. This implies that any two distinct vertices of $\mathcal{E}_G$ of forms $a_1g^n$ and $a_2g^n$ are either adjacent or there is a path of length 2 between them so that the middle vertex in this path can be a suitable conjugate of either $g_1$ or $g_2$ (\*).\
Now we prove that if $a_1g^n$ is a vertex of $\mathcal{E}_G$ (with $a_1\in A$ and $n\in\mathbb{Z}$), then there is a path of length at most 3 between $a_1g^n$ and $g$. As $g^n\not\in\mathcal{L}(G)$ by Lemma \[lem1\], there exists $a\in A$ such that $(g^n)^a$ is adjacent to $g^n$. This is equivalent to $[a,_k g^n]\not=1$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Now Lemma \[lem0\] implies that $[a,g^n,_k
g]\not=1$ and $[a,g,_k g^n]\not=1$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Therefore $[(g^n)^a,_k g]\not=1$ and $[g,_k (g^n)^a]\not=1$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and so $(g^n)^a$ is adjacent to $g$. By the previous part, there is a path of length at most 2 between $a_1g^n$ and $(g^n)^a$ and so there is a path of length 3 between $a_1g^n$ and $g$.\
Now let $a_2g^m$ be another vertex in $\mathcal{E}_G$, where $a_2\in A$. Therefore by the latter paragraph, there is a path of length $3$ between $a_2g^m$ and $g$. Thus $d(a_1g^n,a_2g^m)\leq
6$. This completes the proof of the first statement of the theorem.\
Suppose now that $G$ is nilpotent-by-abelian and $x\not\in L(G)$. Then $x\not\in L(\left<x\right>^G)$, otherwise, by a result of Gruenberg [@Gr Proposition 3], $x$ lies in the Hirsch-Plotkin radical of $\left<x\right>^G$, and since the latter subgroup is normal in $G$, $x$ lies in the Hirsch-Plotkin radical of $G$, which contradicts $x\not\in L(G)$. This implies that $\left<x\right>^G$ is non-Engel. As $\left<x\right>^G\leq
\left<x\right>G'$, we have that $\left<x\right>^G$ is nilpotent-by-cyclic, and so by the previous part $\mathcal{E}_{\left<x\right>^G}$ is connected and $\text{diam}(\mathcal{E}_{\left<x\right>^G})\leq 6$.\
The last part of the theorem easily follows from (\*).
As far as we know, it is an open problem whether the set of left Engel elements of an arbitrary group $G$ forms a subgroup. However there are classes of groups $G$ in which not only $L(G)$ and $\mathcal{L}(G)$ are subgroups but also they are very well-behaved. We shall see some of these classes in the following.
\[GR\] Let $G$ be a soluble group.
1. $\mathcal{L}(G)$ coincides with the Hirsch-Plotkin radical of $G$ and is a Gruenberg group. In particular, $\mathcal{L}(G)=L(G)$.
2. $\overline{\mathcal{L}}(G)$ coincides with the Baer radical of $\; G$. In particular, $\overline{\mathcal{L}}(G)=\overline{L}(G)$.
Let $g_1\in \mathcal{L}(G)$ and $g_2\in
\overline{\mathcal{L}}(G)$. By a result of Gruenberg [@Gr Proposition 3] (see also [@Rob 12.3.3]), it is enough to show that $g_1\in L(G)$ and $g_2\in \overline{L}(G)$. We argue by induction on the derived length $d$ of $G$. If $d\leq
1$, then $G$ is abelian and $g_1,g_2\in \overline{L}(G)$; thus we can assume $d>1$ and write $A=G^{(d-1)}$. Now obviously $g_1A \in
L(G/A)$ and $g_2A \in \overline{L}(G/A)$. It remains to prove that $g_1 \in L(\left<A,g_1\right>)$ and $g_2 \in
\overline{L}(\left<A,g_2\right>)$: this immediately follows from Lemma \[lem1\].
In [@Baer] Baer proved that in every group $G$ satisfying the maximal condition on all subgroups, $L(G)$ coincides with the Fitting subgroup of $G$, and in [@Peng], Peng by using an argument of Baer, generalized the latter result as following.
\[Peng\] If $G$ is a group satisfying the maximal condition on abelian subgroups, then $L(G)$ coincides with the Fitting subgroup of $G$.
Recently a weaker version of Theorem \[Peng\] has been proved in [@Mamontov Theorem 1]. In the following we generalize Theorem \[Peng\] to randomly power Engel elements.
\[main\] If $G$ is a group satisfying the maximal condition on abelian subgroups, then $L(G)=\mathcal{L}(G)$. In particular, $\mathcal{L}(G)$ coincides with the Fitting subgroup of $G$.
Let $a\in \mathcal{L}(G)$. It is enough to show that $\left<a\right>^G$ is nilpotent.\
The proof is similar (mostly [*mutatis mutandis*]{}) to that given for [@Rob1 Part 2, Lemma 7.22], but it needs some little change. With the notation of that proof, one has to consider the subgroups $$W_U = \langle N_U(I)\cap a^G\rangle \;\;\text{and}\;\;
W_V=\langle N_V(I)\cap a^G\rangle,$$ where $a^G$ denotes the set of all conjugates of $a$ in $G$, and fix elements $v\in
(N_V(I)\cap a^G)\backslash I$ and $u\in (N_U(I) \cap
a^G)\backslash I$. Then make use of Theorem \[GR\] and of the fact that if $\langle a^t\rangle= \langle a\rangle$ for some integer $t$, then $\langle u^t\rangle=\langle u\rangle$ and $\langle v^t\rangle=\langle v\rangle$.
In [@Rob1 Part 2, page 55], a subset $S$ of a group $G$ is called an [*Engel set*]{} if given $x$ and $y$ in $S$ there is an integer $n=n(x,y)$ such that $[x,_n y]=1$. As a corollary to [@Rob1 Part 2, Lemma 7.22] (Theorem \[Peng\], here), normal Engel sets in a group $G$ satisfying the maximal condition on abelian subgroups are characterized in [@Rob1 Part 2, Theorem 7.23] as the subsets of the Fitting subgroup of $G$. Recall that a normal set in a group is a set closed under conjugation. We call a subset $R$ of a group $G$ a [*randomly Engel set*]{} if given $x$ and $y$ in $R$ there is an integer $n=n(x,y)$ such that either $[x,_n y]=1$ or $[y,_n x]=1$. Generally a randomly Engel set is not an Engel set, consider for example $\{(1,2),(1,2,3)\}$ in the symmetric group of degree 3, but we shall see in the following result that the normal ones are the same in certain groups.
\[maincor\] Let $G$ be a group satisfying the maximal condition on abelian subgroups [(]{}so $G$ may be a finite group[)]{}. Then a normal subset of $G$ is a randomly Engel set if and only if it is contained in the Fitting subgroup of $G$. In particular, an element $x$ of $G$ lies in the Fitting subgroup of $G$ if and only if for every $g\in G$, there exists a positive integer $k$ such that either $[x^g,_k x]=1$ or $[x,_k x^g]=1$.
Suppose that the normal subset $S$ of $G$ is a randomly Engel set and let $a\in S$. If $g\in G$, then $a^g\in S$ and so either $[a^g,_n a]=1$ or $[a,_n a^g]=1$ for some integer $n$. It follows that $a$ is a randomly Engel element of $G$ and so Theorem \[main\] implies that $\left<a\right>^G$ is nilpotent. Therefore $S$ is contained in the Fitting subgroup of $G$. The converse is clear.
Now using Theorem \[maincor\], it is easy to generalize [@Held Satz 1] (see also [@Rob1 Part 2, Theorem 7.24]). The proof is mostly [*mutatis mutandis*]{} the proof of [@Rob1 Part 2, Theorem 7.24] so we will omit it.
\[min\] Let $G$ be a group satisfying the minimal condition on subgroups and suppose that the elements whose orders are powers of $p$ form a randomly Engel set for each prime $p$. Then $G$ is a hypercentral $\check{\text{C}}$ernikov group.
\[min-max-sol\] Let $G$ be a group in which every two-generated subgroup of $G$ is either soluble or satisfies the maximal condition on its abelian subgroups. Then $L(G)=\mathcal{L}(G)$. In particular, if $G$ is non-Engel, then $\mathcal{E}_G$ has no isolated vertex.
The first part follows from Theorems \[GR\] and \[main\].\
If $G$ is non-Engel and $a$ is a vertex of $\mathcal{E}_G$, then $a$ is not a randomly power element of $G$. Thus there is a conjugate of $a$ which is adjacent to $a$. This completes the proof.
The following result, which is of independent interest, generalizes [@Ho Theorem 1 (1)].
Let $G$ be a finite group and $p$ a prime number. Let $x$ be a $p$-element and $P$ a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ such that for every $y\in G$ with $x^y\in P$, the set $\{x,x^y\}$ is a randomly Engel set. If $G$ is $p$-soluble, then $x\in P$.
Suppose that $G$ is a counterexample of minimum order. Hence $O_p(G)=1$ and $G=\left<P,x\right>$. Let $S$ be any minimal normal subgroup of $G$. By minimality of $G$, we have that $G=PS$. Since $G$ is $p$-soluble and $O_p(G)=1$, $S$ is a normal subgroup of order relatively prime to $p$. There exists $s\in S$ such that $x^s\in P$. Thus $[x^s,_k x]=1$ or $[x,_k x^s]=1$ for some $k\in
\mathbb{N}$. Suppose that $[x^s,_k x]=1$ and $k$ is the least non-negative integer with this property; obviously $k>0$. Then $$[[x,s],_k x]=1 \eqno{(1)}$$ and $[[x,s],_{k-1} x]\not=1$. Now we prove that if $k\geq 1$, then we lead to a contradiction. Put $|x|=q$, then using $(1)$ we can write $$1=[[x,s],_{k-1} x^q]=[[x,s],_{k-1}
x]^{q(x^{q-1}+\cdots+x+1)^{k-2}}= [[x,s],_{k-1}x]^{q^{k-1}}.$$ Since $[[x,s],_{k-1}x]\in S$ and $S$ is a $p'$-group, it follows that $[[x,s],_{k-1}x]=1$ which contradicts the minimality of $k$. This completes the proof, in this case. If $[x,_k x^s]=1$, then $[x^{s^{-1}},_kx]=1$ and a similar argument completes the proof.
\[dim=1\] Let $G$ be a non-Engel group.
1. If $L(G)$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $x$ is a vertex of $\mathcal{E}_G$ such that $x$ is adjacent to every vertex of $\mathcal{E}_G$, then $x^2=1$ and $C_G(x)=\left<x\right>$.
2. If $L(G)$ is a subgroup of $G$, then [$\text{diam}(\mathcal{E}_G)=1$]{} if and only if $L(G)$ is a normal abelian subgroup of $G$ without elements of order $2$ and for any vertex $x$ of $\mathcal{E}_G$ we have $G=L(G)\left<x\right>$, $L(G)\cap \left<x\right>=1$, $x^2=1$ and $g^x=g^{-1}$ for all $g\in L(G)$.
3. If $L(G)$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $G$ is periodic, then $\mathcal{E}_G$ contains a vertex which is adjacent to all other vertices in $\mathcal{E}_G$ if and only if [$\text{diam}(\mathcal{E}_G)=1$.]{}
\(1) Since $L(G)\leq G$, $x^{-1}$ is also a vertex and since $x$ is adjacent to all vertices, then $x=x^{-1}$. Now let $y\in
C_G(x)$ and $y\not=x$. Since $[x,y]=1$ and $x$ is adjacent to every vertex, $y$ is not a vertex and so $y\in L(G)$. If $y$ is non-trivial, then $yx\not=x$ and by a similar argument, $yx\in
L(G)$. As $L(G)$ is a subgroup of $G$, it follows that $x\in
L(G)$, a contradiction. Hence $C_G(x)=\left<x\right>$.\
(2) Let $\text{diam}(\mathcal{E}_G)=1$. By part (1), $a^2=1$ for every vertex $a$ of $\mathcal{E}_G$. Now suppose $a$ and $b$ are two distinct vertices of $\mathcal{E}_G$. Then $\left<ab\right>$ is a normal subgroup in the dihedral group $\left<a,b\right>$ and so if $ab$ is a vertex of $\mathcal{E}_G$, then it is not adjacent to $a$. It follows that $G/L(G)$ is of order 2 which implies that $G=L(G)\left<x\right>$ and $L(G) \cap \left<x \right>=1$, for every vertex $x$ of $\mathcal{E}_G$. If $g\in L(G)$, then $gx$ is a vertex of $\mathcal{E}_G$. It follows that $(gx)^2=1$, or $g^x=g^{-1}$.\
The converse in straightforward.\
(3) Let $x$ be a vertex of $G$ adjacent to all other vertices of $\mathcal{E}_G$. By part (1), we have $C_G(x)=\left<x\right>$ and $x^2=1$. It follows that $\left<x\right>\cap
\left<x\right>^g=1$ for all $g\in G\backslash \left<x\right>$. Now by Theorem 5 of [@Sh], $A=G\backslash \{x^g \;|\; g\in G\}$ is a normal abelian subgroup of $G$, such that $G=A\left<x\right>$ and obviously $A\cap \left<x\right>=1$. Thus $G$ is a solvable periodic group which implies that $G$ is locally finite. Let $a\in A$ be a non-trivial element of $A$, then $B=\left<a,a^x\right>$ is a finite abelian normal subgroup of $G$. Hence $x$ induces a fixed-point-free automorphism of order 2 in $B$, which implies that $B$ is an abelian group of odd order and $b^x=b^{-1}$ for all $b\in B$. Therefore $a^x=a^{-1}$ for all $a\in A$. Obviously we have that $L(G)=A$. Now part (2) completes the proof.
Is the hypothesis “$L(G)\leq G$” necessary in Theorem [\[dim=1\]]{}?
Let $G$ be a finite non-nilpotent group. Is it true that $\mathcal{E}_G$ is connected? If so, is it true that [$\text{diam}(\mathcal{E}_G)\leq 2$]{}?
In which classes of groups, the Engel graph of every non-Engel group has no isolated vertex?
**Groups whose Engel graphs are planar**
========================================
A [*planar graph*]{} is a graph which can be drawn in the plane so that its edges intersect only at end vertices.\
In this section we prove
Let $G$ be a finite non-Engel group. Then $\mathcal{E}_G$ is planar if and only if $G\cong S_3$, $D_{12}$ or $T=\left<x,y\;|\;
x^6=x^3y^{-2}=x^yx=1\right>$.
Suppose that $\mathcal{E}_G$ is planar. Then $\mathcal{E}_G$ has no subgraph isomorphic to $K_5$ (the complete graph with 5 vertices) or $K_{3,3}$ (the complete bipartite graph whose parts have the same size 3) (see [@Di Corollary 4.2.11]). This implies that $\omega(\mathcal{E}_G)\leq 4$. Now it follows from Proposition 1.4 of [@A2] and Theorem \[thm1\], that $\overline{G}=\frac{G}{Z^*(G)}\cong S_3$ or $A_4$, where $Z^*(G)$ is the hypercentre of $G$. As we see in Figure 1, $\mathcal{E}_{A_4}$ has a subgraph isomorphic to $K_{3,3}$. Thus $\overline{G}\cong S_3$. Now put $\bar{x}=xZ^*(G)$ for every $x\in
G$ and let $a,b\in G$ such that $\overline{G}=\left<\bar{a},\bar{b}\right>\cong S_3$ where $\bar{a}^3=\bar{b}^2=\bar{1}$. Then since every element of $Z^*(G)$ is a right Engel element of $G$, we have that $L(G)=\left<a\right>Z^*(G)$ and $$G\backslash L(G)=bZ^*(G) \cup
abZ^*(G) \cup a^2bZ^*(G).$$ Now because $\{\bar{b},\bar{a}\bar{b},\bar{a}^2\bar{b}\}$ is a clique in $\mathcal{E}_{\overline{G}}$ (see Figure 1) and every element of $Z^*(G)$ is right Engel, we have that every element in $a^ib
Z^*(G)$ is adjacent to every element in $a^j bZ^*(G)$ for distinct $i,j\in\{0,1,2\}$. It follows that $|Z^*(G)|\leq 2$, otherwise $\mathcal{E}_G$ contains a subgraph isomorphic to $K_{3,3}$. Thus $G$ is a non-nilpotent group of order $6$ or a non-nilpotent group of order 12 with $|Z^*(G)|=2$. Since $Z(A_4)=1$, the proof of “only if” part is complete.\
Conversely, in Figure 1 we have the Engel graph of $S_3$; the Engel graphs of $D_{12}=\left<s,r\;|\; s^6=r^2=s^rs=1\right>$ and $T$ are isomorphic to the following graph:
\
Figure 2
where $(A,B,C,D,E,F)$ is equal to $(r,rs,rs^2,rs^4,rs^5,rs^3)$ in $\mathcal{E}_{D_{12}}$ and $(y,yx,yx^2,yx^4,yx^5,y^3)$ in $\mathcal{E}_T$, respectively. These graphs are visibly planar. This completes the proof.
We end this section with the following question.
Is there an infinite non-Engel group whose Engel graph is planar?
**Groups with the same Engel graph**
====================================
In this section we study groups with isomorphic Engel graphs. In fact we consider the following question.
\[mainqu\] Let $G$ and $H$ be two non-Engel groups such that $\mathcal{E}_G\cong \mathcal{E}_H$. For which group property $\mathcal{P}$, if $G$ has $\mathcal{P}$, then $H$ also has $\mathcal{P}$?
At the moment we give the positive answer to Question \[mainqu\], when $\mathcal{P}$ is the property of being finite.
\[thmfinte\] Let $G$ and $H$ be two non-Engel groups such that $\mathcal{E}_G\cong \mathcal{E}_H$. If $G$ is finite, then $H$ is also a finite group. Moreover $|L(H)|$ divides $|G|-|L(G)|$.
Since $\mathcal{E}_G \cong \mathcal{E}_H$, $|H\backslash
L(H)|=|G\backslash L(G)|$. Then $H\backslash L(H)$ is finite. If $h\in H\backslash L(H)$, then $\{h^x \;|\; x\in H\}\subseteq
H\backslash L(H)$, since $L(H)$ is closed under conjugation. Thus every element in $H\backslash L(H)$ has finitely many conjugates in $H$. It follows that $K=C_H(H\backslash L(H))$ has finite index in $H$. By Corollary \[min-max-sol\], $\mathcal{E}_H$ has no isolated vertex. Thus there exist two adjacent vertices $h_1$ and $h_2$ in $\mathcal{E}_H$. Now if $s\in K$, then $s\in
C_H(h_1,h_2)$. It follows that $$[sh_1,_k h_2]=[h_1,_k h_2]\not=1
\;\;\text{and}\;\; [h_2,_k sh_1]=[h_2,_k h_1]\not=1 \;\text{for
all} \; k\in\mathbb{N}.$$ Therefore $Kh_1 \subseteq H\backslash
L(H)$ and so $K$ is finite. Hence $H$ is finite and we have that $|H|-|L(H)|=|G|-|L(G)|$. Now since $H$ is finite, it follows from [@Baer] that $L(H)$ is a subgroup of $H$ and so $|L(H)|$ divides $|H|$. This completes the proof.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The author is indebted to the referee for his valuable comments. The author thanks the Centre of Excellence for Mathematics, University of Isfahan.
[99]{} A. Abdollahi, [*Some Engel conditions on finite subsets of certain groups*]{}, Houston J. Math. [**27**]{} (2001), No. 3, 511–522. A. Abdollahi, [*Groupes satisfaisant une condition d’Engel*]{}, J. Algebra [**283**]{} (2005), No. 2, 431–446. R. Baer, [*Engelsche Elemente Noetherscher Gruppen*]{}, Math. Ann. [**133**]{} (1957), 256–270. R. Diestel, [*Graph theory*]{}, Second edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 173. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000. G. Endimioni, [*Groups covered by finitely many nilpotent subgroups*]{}, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. [**50**]{} (1994), No. 3, 459–464. The GAP Group, *GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.4*; 2005, `(http://www.gap-system.org)`. K. W. Gruenberg, [*The Engel elements of a soluble group*]{}, Illinois J. Math. [**3**]{} (1959) 151-168. D. Held, [*Nilpotenz- und Verstreutheitskriterien für artinsche Gruppen*]{}, Math. Z. [**87**]{} (1965), 49-61. C.Y. Ho,[*On the $p$-elements of a finite group*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**48**]{} (1975) No. 1, 61-66. P. Longobardi and M. Maj, [*Finitely generated soluble groups with an Engel condition on infinite subsets*]{}, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova [**89**]{} (1993), 97–102. A. S. Mamontov, [*An Analog of the Baer-Suzuki theorem for infinite groups*]{}, Siberian Math. Journal, [**45**]{} (2004) No. 2 327–330. B. H. Neumann, [*A problem of Paul Erdös on groups*]{}, J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A [**21**]{} (1976), No. 4, 467–472. T. A. Peng, [*Engel elements of groups with maximal condition on abelian subgroups*]{}, Nanta Math. [**1**]{} (1966) 23-28. B.I. Plotkin, [*Some properties of automorphisms of nilpotent groups*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR [**137**]{} (1961) 1303-1306. D. J.S. Robinson, [*A course in the theory of groups*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982. D. J. S. Robinson, [*Finiteness conditions and generalized soluble groups, Parts 1 and 2,*]{} Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972. D. J. S. Robinson, [*A property of lower central series of a group*]{}, Math. Z. [**107**]{} (1968) 225-231. V. P. Šunkov, [*On a periodic group with an almost regular involution,*]{} Algebra i Logika [**7**]{} (1968) no. 1, 113–121. M. Zorn, [*Nilpotency of finite groups*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**42**]{} (1936) 485-486.
[^1]: This research was in part supported by a grant from IPM (No. 86200021).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper presents a technique for reduced-order Markov modeling for compact representation of time-series data. In this work, symbolic dynamics-based tools have been used to infer an approximate generative Markov model. The time series data are first symbolized by partitioning the continuous measurement space of the signal and then, the discrete sequential data are modeled using symbolic dynamics. In the proposed approach, the size of temporal memory of the symbol sequence is estimated from spectral properties of the resulting stochastic matrix corresponding to a first-order Markov model of the symbol sequence. Then, hierarchical clustering is used to represent the states of the corresponding full-state Markov model to construct a reduced-order (or size) Markov model with a non-deterministic algebraic structure. Subsequently, the parameters of the reduced-order Markov model are identified from the original model by making use of a Bayesian inference rule. The final model is selected using information-theoretic criteria. The proposed concept is elucidated and validated on two different data sets as examples. The first example analyzes a set of pressure data from a swirl-stabilized combustor, where controlled protocols are used to induce flame instabilities. Variations in the complexity of the derived Markov model represent how the system operating condition changes from a stable to an unstable combustion regime. In the second example, the data set is taken from NASA’s data repository for prognostics of bearings on rotating shafts. We show that, even with a very small state-space, the reduced-order models are able to achieve comparable performance and that the proposed approach provides flexibility in the selection of a final model for representation and learning.'
author:
- |
Devesh K. Jha$^{a,1}$, Nurali Virani$^{a,2}$, Jan Reimann$^{b}$, Abhishek Srivastav$^{c}$, Asok Ray$^{a, b}$ [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4] [^5]\
**Keywords**: Symbolic Analysis, Markov Modeling, Order reduction, Combustion Instability
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
[ **Symbolic Analysis-based Reduced Order\
Markov Modeling of Time Series Data** ]{}
---
Motivation and Introduction
===========================
Hidden Markov model (HMM) is a widely used statistical learning tool for modeling uncertain dynamical systems [@B06], where the associated temporal data are used to infer a Markov chain with unobserved states. In this setting, the learning task is to infer the states and the corresponding parameters of the Markov chain. In addition to HMM, several other nonlinear techniques have been proposed for Markov modeling of time-series data. Symbolic time-series analysis-based Markov modeling is a recently proposed technique [@R04] where the states of a Markov chain are represented as a collection of words (i.e., symbol blocks, also referred to as memory words) of different lengths, which can be identified from the time-series data on a discrete space with finite cardinality [@SS04; @R04; @MR14; @CL13]. The symbols are created from the continuously varying time-series data by projecting the data to a set with finite cardinality. A common ground among all these tools of Markov modeling as discrete sequences, is that the Markov chain is induced by probabilistic representation of a deterministic finite state auotmaton (DFSA), often called probabilistic finite state automata (PFSA) [@VTDCC05]. While the PFSA-based inference provides a consistent, deterministic graph structure for learning, the deterministic algebraic structure is generally not a very compact representation and may often lead to large number of states in the induced Markov model. To circumvent this problem attempts have been made to reduce the state-space by merging statistically similar states of the model [@MR14]. The problem is, however, that as these models are constructed by partitioning of phase space of the dynamical system, merging states that are statistically similar leads to algebraic inconsistency. On the other hand, if the states are merged to preserve the algebraic consistency, it leads to statistical impurity in the final models (i.e., states which have different statistics could be merged together). Other approaches for state aggregation in Markov chains could be found in [@GPKK15; @V12; @XSB14]. However, these papers do not consider inference of the Markov model from the data which may not be suitable for analysis of data-driven systems [@D05].
The state space for Markov models, created by using symbolic analysis, increases exponentially with increase in memory or order of the symbolic sequence. Estimating the right memory is critical for temporal modeling of patterns observed in the sequential data. However, some of the states may be statistically similar and thus merging them can reduce the size of state-space. This paper presents reduced-order Markov modeling of time-series data to capture temporal patterns, where we estimate the size of temporal memory of the symbolic data using the spectral properties of a PFSA whose states are words of length one [@Srivastav2014; @JSMR15]. The constraint of deterministic algebraic structure is not imposed by the end objective, but due to the choice of the data representation model. Thus we propose to merge the states and remove the constraint of deterministic algebraic properties associated with PFSA, where the states of the Markov chain are now collection of words from its alphabet of length estimated in the last step. This state aggregation induces a non-determinism in the finite state model. The parameters of the reduced-order Markov model are estimated by a Bayesian inference technique from the parameters associated with the higher-order Markov model. The final model for data representation is selected using information-theoretic criteria, and thus, we get a unique stopping point to terminate the state-merging procedure. We also present a bound on the distortion of the predictive capability of the models up on reduction in the size of the state-space. The final model obtained is a generative model for the data; however, some predictive capability is lost as we remove the deterministic algebraic structure of a DFSA.
The proposed technique of state merging is inspired by time-critical applications where it is imperative to arrive at a reliable decision quickly as the dynamics of the process being monitored is really fast. In such applications, there are strict constraints on accuracy as well as the time needed to come to a decision. In this paper, we illustrate the concepts using two different datasets. We discuss in detail the example of combustion instability which is a highly nonlinear and complex phenomena and results in severe structural degradation in jet turbine engines. Some good surveys on the current understanding of the mechanisms for the combustion instability phenomena could be found in [@OAL15; @SSDC03; @CDSBM14; @HY09; @MBDSC12]. Active combustion instability control (ACIC) with fuel modulation has proven to be an effective approach for reducing pressure oscillations in combustors [@BMJK06; @BMH07]. Based on the work available in literature, one can conclude that the performance of ACIC is primarily limited by the large delay in the feedback loop and the limited actuator bandwidth [@BMJK06; @BMH07]. Early detection of combustion instability can potentially alleviate the problems with delay in the ACIC feedback loop and thus possibly improve the performance. Some recent work for detection and prediction of combustion instabilities could be found in [@JSR16; @VJR16; @SCRR16; @NTS14; @MS15]. While the results in these papers are encouraging, there is no interpretation of the expected changes in the data-driven model that could be observed during changes in the operating regime of the underlying process. In contrast to the work reported in literature, we have presented an overall idea of changes in the underlying stochastic model structure and parameters during the complex instability phenomenon.
**Contributions.** This paper presents a technique for Markov modeling of time series data using a PFSA with nondeterministic algebraic structure. Nondeterminism is induced by merging states of a PFSA with deterministic algebraic structure inferred from discrete sequential data, which in turn allows very compact representation of temporal data. In contrast to the approach in [@MR14], we present a method to use information-theoretic criteria to arrive at a consistent stopping criterion for model selection. The resulting reduced-order model has fewer parameters to estimate; this is turn leads to faster convergence rates and thus faster decisions during test (or operation). We also present a bound on the distortion in the predictive capability of the models due to state-space reduction using Hamming distance between the sequences generated by the original and final model. The algorithms presented in the paper are validated on two different datasets– pressure data obtained from a swirl-stabilized combustor to monitor thermo-acoustic instability and a public data set for bearing prognostics. We show changes in the complexity of the pressure data as the process moves from stable to unstable through the transient phase which is then used to arrive at a criterion that provides perfect class separability. Apart from the results on Markov modeling, the results on combustion instability could be of independent interest in combustion community.
Background and Mathematical Preliminaries
=========================================
Symbolic analysis of time-series data is a recent approach where continuous sensor data are converted to symbol sequences via partitioning of the continuous domain [@SAX07; @R04]. The dynamics of the symbols sequences are then modeled as a probabilistic finite state automaton (PFSA), which is defined as follows:
\[defn:PFSA\] A probabilistic finite state automaton (PFSA) is a tuple ${G}=( {\mathcal{Q}}, {\mathcal{A}}, {\delta}, {\bm{M}})$ where
- ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is a finite set of states of the automata;
- ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a finite alphabet set of symbols ${a}\in {\mathcal{A}}$;
- ${\delta}: {\mathcal{Q}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{Q}}$ is the state transition function;
- [${\bm{M}}: {\mathcal{Q}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\rightarrow [0, 1]$ is the ${\left|{\mathcal{Q}}\right|}\times{\left|{\mathcal{A}}\right|}$ emission matrix. The matrix ${\bm{M}}= [{m}_{ij}]$ is row stochastic such that ${m}_{ij}$ is the probability of generating symbol ${a}_{j}$ from state ${q}_{i}$]{}.
The PFSA defined above has a deterministic algebraic structure which is governed by the transition function ${\delta}$; thus a symbol emission from a particular state will lead to a fixed state. However, the symbol emissions are probabilistic (represented by the emission matrix). On the other hand, the transition function for a non-deterministic finite state automaton is given by a map, ${\delta}: {\mathcal{Q}}\times {\mathcal{A}}\rightarrow 2^{\mathcal{Q}}$ where, $2^{\mathcal{Q}}$ denotes the power set of ${\mathcal{Q}}$ and includes all subsets of ${\mathcal{Q}}$. The idea is also presented in Figure \[fig:NonDeterminism\] where we show that the same symbol can lead to multiple states, however in a probabilistic fashion. This allows more flexibility in modeling at the expense of some predictive accuracy.
![Graphical model showing non-determinism in a PFSA. The symbol $1$ emitted from state $q_1$ leads to different states with fixed probabilities indicating non-deterministic behavior.[]{data-label="fig:NonDeterminism"}](figures/fig1_eps.eps){width="90.00000%"}
For symbolic analysis of time-series data, a class of PFSAs called the ${D}$-Markov machine have been proposed [@R04] as a sub-optimal but computationally efficient approach to encode the dynamics of symbol sequences as a finite state machine.
(**$D$-Markov Machine** [@R04; @MR14]) \[def:D-Markov\] A $D$-Markov machine is a statistically stationary stochastic process $S= \cdots a_{-1} a_{0} a_{1} \cdots $ (modeled by a PFSA in which each state is represented by a finite history of $D$ symbols), where the probability of occurrence of a new symbol depends only on the last $D$ symbols, i.e., $$\label{eq:D-Markov}
{\text{Pr}}(s_n \mid \cdots s_{n-{D}} \cdots s_{n-1} ) = {\text{Pr}}(s_n \mid s_{n-{D}} \cdots s_{n-1}) \nonumber
$$ where ${D}$ is called the depth of the Markov machine.
A $D$-Markov machine is thus a ${D}^{th}$-order Markov approximation of the discrete symbolic process. For most stable and controlled engineering systems that tend to forget their initial conditions, a finite length memory assumption is reasonable. The ${D}$-Markov machine is represented as a PFSA and states of this PFSA are words over alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}$ of length ${D}$ (or less); the state transitions are described by a sliding block code of memory ${D}$ and anticipation length of one [@LM95].
For systems with fading memory it is expected that the predictive influence of a symbol progressively diminishes. In this context, depth is defined as follows.
\[def:depth\] Let ${\vec{{s}}}= {s}_{1}\dots{s}_{k}{s}_{k+1}{s}_{k+2}\dots$ be the observed symbol sequence where each ${s}_{j}\in{\mathcal{A}}\;\forall\; j \in
{\mathds{N}}$. Then, the depth of the process generating ${\vec{{s}}}$ is defined as the length ${D}$ such that: $$\label{eq:depthTrueDefn}
{\text{Pr}}({s}_{k}|{s}_{k - 1},\dots,{s}_{1}) = {\text{Pr}}({s}_{k}|{s}_{k - 1},\dots,{s}_{k - {D}})$$
An accurate estimation of depth for the symbolic dynamical process is required for the precise modeling of the underlying dynamics of the discrete sequence. Next we introduce an information-theoretic metric which is used for merging the states of the Markov model later in next section.
\[def:KLD\] [@G90] The Kullback-Leibler (K-L) divergence of a discrete probability distribution $P$ from another distribution $\tilde{P}$ is defined as follows. $$D_{\textrm {KL}}(P\|\tilde{P})=\sum_{x\in X} {p}_X(x)\log\bigg(\frac{{p}_X(x)}{\tilde{p}_X(x)}\bigg) \nonumber$$ It is noted that K-L divergence is not a proper distance as it is not symmetric. However, to treat it as a distance it is generally converted into symmetric divergence as follows, $d(P,\tilde{P})= D_{\textrm {KL}}(P\|\tilde{P})+D_{\textrm {KL}}(\tilde{P}\|P)$. This is defined as the K-L distance between the distributions $P$ and $\tilde{P}$.
This distance is used to find out the structure in the set of the states of the PFSA-based Markov model whose states are words, over the alphabet of the PFSA, of length equal to the depth estimated for the discretized sequence.
Technical Approach
==================
In this section, we present the details of the proposed approach for inferring a Markov model from the time series data. As discussed earlier, the first step is the discretization of the time-series data to generate a discrete symbol sequence. While it is possible to optimize the symbolization of time-series using some optimization criterion, we do not discuss such a technique here. The data is discretized using the unbiased principle of entropy maximization of the discrete sequence using maximum entropy partitioning (MEP) [@RR06]. The proposed approach for Markov modeling then consists of the following four critical steps
- Estimate the approximate size of temporal memory (or order) of the symbol sequence.
- Cluster the states of the high-order Markov model.
- Estimate the parameters of the reduced-order Markov model (i.e., the transition matrix).
- Select the final model using information theoretic scores (described below, Section \[subsec:MDL\]).
Memory of the discrete sequence is estimated using a recently introduced method based on the spectral analysis of the Markov model with depth $1$. induced by a PFSA [@Srivastav2014; @JSMR15]. It is noted that these steps are followed during training to estimate the approximate model for data and during test, the parameters are estimated for the reduced-order model. The key ideas behind these steps are explained in the next section.
Estimation of Reduced-Order Markov Model {#subsec:reducedorder}
----------------------------------------
Depth ${D}$ of a symbol sequence has been redefined in [@Srivastav2014] as the number of time steps after which probability of current symbol is independent of any past symbol i.e.: $$\label{eq:depthDefn}
{\text{Pr}}({s}_{k}|{s}_{k - n}) = {\text{Pr}}({s}_{k}) \ \forall n>{D}$$ Note that dependence in the proposed definition (eq. \[eq:depthDefn\]) is evaluated on individual past symbols using ${\text{Pr}}({s}_{k}|{s}_{k - n})$ as opposed to the assessing dependence on words of length ${D}$ using $
{\text{Pr}}({s}_{k}|{s}_{k - 1},\dots,{s}_{k - {D}})$. It is shown that if the observed process is [*forward causal*]{} then observing any additional intermediate symbols ${s}_{k- 1},\dots,{s}_{k - n + 1}$ cannot induce a dependence between ${s}_{k }$ and ${s}_{k - n}$ if it did not exist on individual level [@Srivastav2014].
Let ${\bm{\Pi}}= [{\pi}^{(1)}_{ij}]$ be the one-step transition probability matrix of the PFSA ${G}$ constructed from this symbol sequence i.e. $$\label{eq:stateTransition1step}
{\bm{\Pi}}= {\text{Pr}}({s}_{k}|{s}_{k - 1})$$ Then using the distance of the transition matrix after steps from the stationary point, depth can be defined as a length ${D}$ such that $$\label{eq:depthTrace}
{\left|{\text{trace}\left({\bm{\Pi}}^{n}\right)} - {\text{trace}\left({\bm{\Pi}}^{\infty}\right)}\right|} \leq \sum_{j = 2}^{J}
{\left|{\lambda}_{j}\right|}^n < \epsilon \ \forall n > {D}$$ where $J$ is number of non-zero eigenvalues of ${\bm{\Pi}}$. Thus, the depth ${D}$ of the symbol sequence is estimated for a choice of $\epsilon$ by estimating the stochastic matrix for the one-step PFSA. Next, another pass of data is done to estimate the PFSA parameters whose states are words over ${\mathcal{A}}$ of length ${D}$, i.e., ${\bm{\Pi}}= {\text{Pr}}({s}_{k}|{s}_{k - 1},\dots, {s}_{k - D})$. It is noted that this step is critical for modeling accuracy.
The states of the reduced-order Markov model are then estimated by partitioning the set of words over ${\mathcal{A}}$ of length ${D}$ estimated in the last step. This is done by using an agglomerative hierarchical clustering approach. The advantage of using the hierarchical clustering approach is that it helps visualize the structure of the set of the original states using an appropriate metric. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering is a bottom-up clustering approach [@XW05] that generates a sparse network (e.g., a binary tree) of the state set ${\mathcal{Q}}$ (where $|Q|=|{\mathcal{A}}|^{D}$) by successive addition of edges between the elements of ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Initially, each of the states ${q}_1,{q}_2,\dots,{q}_n$ is in its own cluster $C_1,C_2,\dots, C_n$ where $C_i\in \mathcal{C}$, which is the set of all clusters for the hierarchical cluster tree. The distance between any two states in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ is measured using the K-L distance between the symbol emission probabilities conditioned on them, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kldistance}
d({q}_i,{q}_j)& = D_{\textrm{KL}}({\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}|{q}_i)\|{\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}|{q}_j))\nonumber \\
&+D_{\textrm{KL}}({\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}|{q}_j)\|{\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}|{q}_i))\end{aligned}$$ where the terms on the right have the following meaning. $$\begin{aligned}
& D_{\textrm{KL}}({\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}|{q}_i)\|{\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}|{q}_j)) \nonumber \\
& = \sum_{{s}\in {\mathcal{A}}}{\text{Pr}}({s}|q_i)\log\bigg( \frac{{\text{Pr}}({s}|q_i)}{{\text{Pr}}({s}|q_j)}\bigg) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In terms of the distance measured by eq. , the pair of clusters that are nearest to each other are merged and this step is repeated till only one cluster is left. The tree structure displays the order of splits in the state set of the higher-order Markov model and is used to aggregate the states close to each other. For clarification of presentation, we show an example of a Markov chain with $27$ states and $3$ symbols on a simplex plane in Figure \[fig:Simplexcluster\], where each red pentagon on the simplex represents one row of the symbol emission matrix. The hierarchical clustering is used to find the structure of the state set on the simplex place using the K-L distance. The set of states clustered together could be obtained based on the number of final states required in the final Markov model.
The overall algorithm is presented as a pseudo-code in Algorithm \[algorithm:Modeling\]. This algorithms is used to find the parameters of the models during training. The parameters during test are estimated using the clustering map $f_{N_{\textrm{max}}}$ and is further discussed in next section. In the later sections we show how an information theoretic criterion could be used to select the appropriate model to terminate the state merging algorithm or select a final model from the set of reduced-order models. Through numerical experiments using two different data-sets we also illustrate the main motivation of this work that although the right memory is required for accurate modeling of the symbolic process, the state-space not necessarily consist of all words corresponding to the estimated memory and we can achieve sufficiently-high predictive accuracy even with a smaller state-space. We are able to achieve this trade-off between the model complexity and predictive modeling accuracy using the information-theoretic criteria.
![The symbol emission probabilities for a Markov chain with $3$ symbols are shown on a simplex. Symmetric K-L distance is used to find the structure in the state-set in the information space and the states are clustered based on the revealed structure.[]{data-label="fig:Simplexcluster"}](figures/simplex_fig1_1.eps){width="75.00000%"}
Estimate the ${\bm{\Pi}}$ matrix for 1-step Markov model using frequency counting with an uniform prior Estimate the size of temporal memory, ${D}(\epsilon)$ for ${\vec{{s}}}$ using equation
Estimate ${\bm{M}}$ and ${\bm{\Pi}}$ for the ${D}(\epsilon)$-Markov model using frequency counting with an uniform prior
$\mathcal{C}_{\mid{\mathcal{Q}}\mid}=\{q_i\mid q_i \in {\mathcal{Q}}\}$
$\forall i \in \{1,\dots,\mid{\mathcal{Q}}\mid\}$
Calculate the parameters of reduced model using $\tilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}=\mathcal{C}_{N_{\textrm{max}}}$, $f_{N_{\textrm{max}}}$ and equations through
Calculate the Log-likelihood for models with Equation
The final model is selected using the AIC or BIC criteria explained in Section \[subsec:MDL\]
Parameter Estimation of the Reduced-Order Markov Model {#subsec:DBN}
------------------------------------------------------
The parameters of the Markov model obtained after clustering the states of the original PFSA with $|{\mathcal{A}}|^{D}$ states is obtained using a Bayesian inference technique using the parameters estimated for the PFSA. In this proposed approach, the state transition matrix ${\bm{\Pi}}$, the emission matrix ${\bm{M}}$, and the state probability vector ${\bm{{p}}}$ of the original PFSA model ${G}$ are available, along with the deterministic assignment map $f:{\mathcal{Q}}\rightarrow \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}$ of the state in ${\mathcal{Q}}$ (i.e., state set of original model) to one of the state in $\widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}$ (i.e., state set of the reduced order model). Since the reduced order model can represented by the tuple $\widetilde{{G}} = (\widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}, \widetilde{{\bm{\Pi}}})$, where $\widetilde{{\bm{\Pi}}} = [\tilde{{\pi}}_{ij}]$ is the state transition matrix, we employ a Bayesian inference technique to infer the individual values of transition probabilities $\tilde{{\pi}}_{ij} = {\text{Pr}}(\tilde{{q}}_{k+1} = j \mid \tilde{{q}}_{k} = i)$ for all $i, j \in \widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}$.
Let ${Q}_{k}$ be the random variable denoting the state of PFSA model at some time step $k \in {\mathds{N}}$ and ${S}_{k}$ denotes the symbol emitted from that state, this probabilistic emission process is governed by the emission matrix ${\bm{M}}$. The state of the reduced order model is obtained from a deterministic mapping of the state of the PFSA model, thus the state of this model is also a random variable, which is denoted by $\widetilde{{Q}}_{k} = f({Q}_{k})$. The Bayesian network representing the dependencies between these variables is shown in the recursive as well as unrolled form in the Figure \[fig:DBN\].
{width="75.00000%"}
The conditional density ${\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k} = \tilde{q} \mid {Q}_{k} = q)$ can be evaluated by checking if state $q$ belongs to the state cluster $\tilde{q}$ and assigning the value of 1 if true, else assign it the value of 0. Since we know that $\widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}$ partitions the set ${\mathcal{Q}}$, the conditional density is well-defined. Thus, it can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pc1q1}
{\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k} = \tilde{{q}} \mid {Q}_{k} = {q}) = {\operatorname{I}_{\tilde{{q}}}({q})},\end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{I}$ is the indicator function with ${\operatorname{I}_{\tilde{q}}(q)} = 1$, if element $q$ belongs to the set $\tilde{q}$, else it is $0$. The derivation of the Markov model ${\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k+1}\mid \widetilde{{Q}}_{k})$ using ${\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1}\mid {Q}_{k})$, stationary probability vector ${\bm{{p}}}$, and assignment map $f$ is shown ahead. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ParameterEst}
&{\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k+1}\mid \widetilde{{Q}}_{k}) = \sum_{{q}\in {\mathcal{Q}}} {\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k+1}, {Q}_{k+1} = q \mid \widetilde{{Q}}_{k}) \\
& \text{(Marginalization)}\notag\\
&\phantom{{\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}} = \sum_{{q}\in {\mathcal{Q}}} {\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1} = q \mid \widetilde{{Q}}_{k}) {\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k+1} \mid {Q}_{k+1} = q)\\
& \text{(Factorization using Figure~\ref{fig:DBN})}\notag\\
&\phantom{{\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}} = \sum_{{q}\in {\mathcal{Q}}} {\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1} = q \mid \widetilde{{Q}}_{k}) {\operatorname{I}_{\widetilde{{Q}}_{k+1}}({q})} \\
& \text{(using~\eqref{eq:pc1q1})}\notag\\
&\phantom{{\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}} = \sum_{{q}\in \widetilde{{Q}}_{k+1}} {\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1} = q \mid \widetilde{{Q}}_{k}) \label{eq:pc2c1}.\end{aligned}$$ We can obtain ${\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1} \mid \widetilde{{Q}}_{k})$ from Bayes’ rule as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pq2c1}
{\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1} \mid \widetilde{{Q}}_{k}) = \dfrac{{\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k} \mid {Q}_{k+1}){\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1})}{\sum_{q \in {\mathcal{Q}}}{\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k} \mid {Q}_{k+1}=q){\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1} = q)}.\end{aligned}$$ Following the steps to obtain , we also derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pc1q2}
{\text{Pr}}(\widetilde{{Q}}_{k} \mid {Q}_{k+1}) = \sum_{{q}\in \widetilde{{Q}}_{k}} {\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k} = q \mid {Q}_{k+1}) .\end{aligned}$$ We can obtain ${\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k} \mid {Q}_{k+1})$ from Bayes’ rule as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pq1q2}
{\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k} \mid {Q}_{k+1}) = \dfrac{{\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1} \mid {Q}_{k}){\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k})}{\sum_{q \in {\mathcal{Q}}}{\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1} \mid {Q}_{k}=q){\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k} = q)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, for the distribution ${\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k})$ and ${\text{Pr}}({Q}_{k+1})$, we use the stationary probability ${\bm{{p}}}$. Using the equations , , , and together, one can easily obtain the desired state transition matrix $\widetilde{{\bm{\Pi}}}$ of the reduced order model. Once the state cluster set $\widetilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}$ and state transition matrix $\widetilde{{\bm{\Pi}}}$ are available, the reduced order model is completely defined.
Model Selection using information theoretic criteria {#subsec:MDL}
----------------------------------------------------
In this section, we describe the model selection process during the underlying state merging process for model inference. We compute “penalized” likelihood estimates for different models. Then, the model with the lowest score is selection as the optimal model.
The (unpenalized) log-likelihood of a symbol sequence ${\vec{{s}}}$ given a Markov model ${G}$ is computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:loglikelihood_Markov}
{\mathcal{L}}({\vec{{s}}}| {G}) \cong
\sum_{k=1}^{N}\log {\text{Pr}}\left( {s}_{k} | {q}_k \right)\end{aligned}$$ where the effects of the initial state are ignored because they become negligible for long statistically stationary symbol sequences. It is noted that with a finite symbol sequence, the log-likelihood is always finite. Furthermore, with the Markov models considered in this paper, the sum is simplified to the following form. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:loglikelihood_DMarkov}
{\mathcal{L}}({\vec{{s}}}| {G}) \cong
\sum_{k={D}+1}^{N}\log {\text{Pr}}\left( {s}_{k} | {s}_{k-1},\dots,{s}_{k-{D}} \right)\end{aligned}$$
As discussed earlier, the states are merged using hierarchical clustering and thus, for every desired number of final states we get the deterministic map $f_{N_{\textrm{max}}}$ which determines how the original states are partitioned using the hierarchical clustering. This map is known for every terminal number of states and thus, we can find the log-likelihood of the symbol sequence using the following relationship. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:depth_loglikelihood}
{\mathcal{L}}({\vec{{s}}}| \tilde{{G}}) \cong
\sum_{k={D}+1}^{N}\log {\text{Pr}}\left( {s}_{k} | \tilde{{q}}_k=f_{N_{\textrm{max}}}({q}_k) \right)\end{aligned}$$ where, $\tilde{{q}}_k$ is the state of the reduced model and ${q}_k$ is the state of the original full-order model.
In the next step of the model selection process, a “complexity penalty” is added to the log-likelihood estimates, thereby balancing goodness of fit against the complexity of the model (and hence trying to prevent overfitting). We apply two widely-used such model selection functions, namely the Akaike information criterion (AIC) [@Akaike:1974a] and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) [@Schwarz:1978a]:
1. $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{BIC}}=-2{\mathcal{L}}({\vec{{s}}}| \tilde{{G}})+K\log(N)$, where $K$ is the number of free parameters and $N$ is the number of observations.
2. $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{AIC}}=-2{\mathcal{L}}({\vec{{s}}}| \tilde{{G}})+2K$, where $K$ is the number of free parameters.
The number of free parameters to be estimated from the data is the parameters of the symbol emission parameters, i.e., $K=\mid{\mathcal{A}}\mid \mid\tilde{{\mathcal{Q}}}\mid$. It is noted that this allows model selection for individual symbol sequences. The criterion here allows a terminal condition for state merging; however, different symbol sequences can have different models. The model with the minimum score is selected as the best model. Through the results presented in next sections we illustrate the fact that most of the temporal and predictive capabilities can be preserved for the models with a very small number of states when compared to the original model.
The final Markov model is a finite depth approximation of the original time-series data. However, compared to the PFSA-based D-Markov machines in [@R04; @MR14], the current aggregated model has a non-deterministic algebraic structure, i.e., the same symbol emissions from a state can lead to different states. While this leads to some loss in predictive capability as compared to the models in [@R04; @MR14], this allows us to compress the size of the model as per the requirement at hand. This allows faster convergence rates for the symbol emission probabilities as we only require fewer parameters to estimate from data, which might lead to faster decisions during testing.
In the rest of the paper, we will present a Hamming distance-based bound for distortion in the predictive capabilities of reduced models and demonstrate the utility of these models in practical problems of fault/anomaly detection from time-series data.
Analysis of the Proposed Algorithm {#sec:analysis}
==================================
In this section, we will present a bound on the distortion of the model due to the reduction of state-space of the Markov model using Hamming distance between two symbol sequences. We first present the Pinsker’s inequality [@G90] which relates the information divergence with the variational distance between probability measures defined on arbitrary spaces. This is followed by another theorem which can be used to derive Hamming distance bounds using the informational divergence.
[@G90] Let $P$ and $Q$ be two probability distributions on a measurable space $(\mathds{X},\Sigma)$. Then, the following is true $$\begin{aligned}
d_{TV}(P,Q)\leq \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}D_{\textrm {KL}}(P\|Q)}\end{aligned}$$ where $d_{TV}(P,Q)=\sup\limits_{A\in \Sigma} \{|P(A)-Q(A)|\}$ is the total variation distance.
[@M96] Let $\mathds X$ be a countable set and let us denote by $x^n$ the sequence $(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)\in \mathds{X}^n$. Let $q^n$ be a Markov measure on $\mathds X^n$, that is, $q(x^n)=q(x_1)\prod\limits_{i=2}^n q_i(x_i|x_{i-1})$. Then for any probability measure $p^n$ on $\mathds X^n$, the following is true $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{d}(p^n,q^n)\leq \bigg[\frac{1}{2n}D_{\textrm {KL}}(p^n\|q^n)\bigg]^{1/2}\end{aligned}$$ where, $\bar{d}$ denotes the normed Hamming distance on $\mathds X^n \times \mathds X^n:$ $$\bar{d}(x^n,y^n)=n^{-1}\sum\limits_{n=1}^n d(x_i,y_i),$$ where $d(x_i,y_i)=1$ if $x_i\neq y_i$ and $0$ otherwise. The $\bar{d}$-distance between $p^n$ and $q^n$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{d}(p^n,q^n)=\min E \bar{d}(\hat{X}^n,X^n),\end{aligned}$$ where $\min$ is taken over all joint distributions with marginals $p^n=\mathrm{dist} \hat{X}^n$ and $q^n=\mathrm{dist} {X}^n$ and $E$ denotes the expectation operator.
The above theorem provides us a way to bound Hamming distance between sequences generated by two different distributions. Thus, using the above theorem, we find a bound on the Hamming distance between the symbol sequences generated by the reduced-order Markov model and the original model by estimating the K-L distance between the measure on symbol sequences induced by these models. An approximate estimate of the K-L distance between the original and a reduced model could be expressed and estimated as shown in the following.
Let the original D-Markov model be denoted by $\mathcal{M}$ and the reduced-order model by $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$. The Markov measure on the probability space $(S^n,\mathcal{E},P)$ where the set $S^n$ consists of sequences of length $n$ from an alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}$ could be estimated using the symbol emission probabilities. More explicitly, the Markov measure of a sequence $S_n$ on $S^n$ induced by $\mathcal{M}$ is given by $P_{\mathcal{M}}(S_n)={\text{Pr}}({q}_1)\prod\limits_{i=D+1}^n{\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid {q}_i)$ (where ${D}$ is the depth of the model). Then, the K-L divergence between $\mathcal{M}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{M}}$ is given by the following expression. $$~\label{HammingBound}
D_{\rm {KL}} (P^n_{\mathcal{M}}\|P^n_{\hat{\mathcal{M}}})=\sum\limits_{S_n \in S^n}P_{\mathcal{M}}(S_n) \log\bigg(\frac{P_{\mathcal{M}}(S_n)}{P_{\hat{\mathcal{M}}}(S_n)}\bigg)$$ Then, the above expression can be simplified as follows. $$\log\bigg(\frac{P_{\mathcal{M}}(S_n)}{P_{\hat{\mathcal{M}}}(S_n)}\bigg)=\sum\limits_{i=D+1}^n\log({\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid q_i))-\log({\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid \hat{q}_i)), \nonumber$$ where, $\hat{q}$ is the merged state and $q$ is the original state. Then the expression on the right could be further bounded using the Lipschitz constant for the logarithm function and under the assumption that $\log({\text{Pr}}(s_j\mid q_i))\neq 0$ $\forall q_i \in {\mathcal{Q}}$ and all $s_j \in {\mathcal{A}}$. $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum\limits_{i=D+1}^n\log({\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid q_i))-\log({\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid \hat{q}_i)) \label{eqn:logsum}\\
&\leq \sum\limits_{i=D+1}^n(\frac{{\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid q_i)-{\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid \hat{q}_i)}{{\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid q_i)})\label{eqn:lipschitz}\\
&\leq (n-D-1)\kappa\end{aligned}$$ where, $\kappa=\max\limits_{q\in Q, s\in {\mathcal{A}}}\frac{{\text{Pr}}(s\mid q)-{\text{Pr}}(s\mid \hat{q})}{{\text{Pr}}(s\mid q)}$. In the above inequalities, equation is obtained from equation by using the observation that ${\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid \hat{q}_i)={\text{Pr}}(s_i\mid {q}_i)+\eta$, where $\eta$ is the perturbation in the symbol emission probability from $q_i$ when it is clustered into a new state $\hat{q}_i$. Hence, the K-L distance in equation could be bounded by the following term. $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\rm {KL}} (P^n_{\mathcal{M}}\|P^n_{\hat{\mathcal{M}}})& \leq \sum\limits_{S_n \in S^n} P_{\mathcal{M}}(S_n) (n-D-1)\kappa \nonumber \\
& = (n-D-1)\kappa \sum\limits_{S_n \in S^n} P_{\mathcal{M}}(S_n) \nonumber \\
& =(n-D-1)\kappa\end{aligned}$$ Thus, a uniform bound on the Hamming distance between the original and the final model could then be obtained as follows, $$\label{eqn:bound}
\bar{d}(P_\mathcal{M}(S_n),P_{\mathcal{\hat{M}}}(S_n))\leq \sqrt{\frac{(n-D-1)\kappa}{2n}}$$ The above inequality thus, allows us to compare models with different state-space based on the predictive accuracy of a reduced model when compared to the original model. As compared to the earlier information theoretic criteria, which were based on the efficiency of data compression by different models, the inequality in allows to compare them based on their symbol emission statistics and thus, is computationally efficient. It is possible to find a rather tighter bound in an expected sense by using the stationary distribution of the two Markov chains to find an expected bound on Hamming distance. However, finding the same is left as an exercise for future work. Using the above bound for selection of models could be more efficient than the information theoretic metrics (as it can estimated by using the symbol emission probabilities instead of the penalized likelihoods); however, finding a penalized version of the bound for model selection is also left as a future exercise.
Description of Experimentation and Data Sets {#sec:experiment}
============================================
In this section, we briefly describe the two different data-sets which have been used in this paper to illustrate and validate the proposed concepts. Specifically, we will describe the experiments done at Penn State to investigate instability in lean-premixed combustion and another benchmark data-set for anomaly detection in bearings. An important point to be noted here is that the numerical experiments we present in the following sections is to justify the fact that the reduced-order models obtained by the proposed algorithms are able to achieve the trade-off between predictive accuracy and model complexity. Further results for classification and anomaly detection are to illustrate that this proposed approach of model learning can still achieve good performance for machine learning objectives of class separability and anomaly detection.
Combustion {#subsec:combustionexperiment}
----------
A swirl-stabilized, lean-premixed, laboratory-scale combustor was used to perform the experimental study. Tests were conducted at a nominal combustor pressure of 1 atm over a range of operating conditions, as listed in Table \[tab:par\].
**Parameters** **Value**
------------------- ---------------------------------
Equivalence Ratio 0.525, 0.55, 0.60, 0.65
Inlet Velocity 25-50 m/s i m/s increments
Combustor Length 25-59 inch in 1 inch increments
: Operating conditions
\[tab:par\]
In each test, the combustion chamber dynamic pressure and the global OH and CH chemiluminescence intensity were measured to study the mechanisms of combustion instability. The measurements were made simultaneously at a sampling rate of 8192 Hz (per channel), and data were collected for 8 seconds, for a total of 65536 measurements (per channel). A total of $780$ samples of data were collected from all the tests where in every test the combustion process was driven from stable to unstable by changing either the equivalence ratio, $\phi$. However, as the accurate model of the process is not available, an accurate label of transition of the process to unstable phase is not available. It is noted that the data consists the behavior of the process over a large number of operating condition and thus provides a rich set of data to test the efficacy of the algorithm in detecting classes irrespective of the underlying operating conditions.
Bearing Prognostic Data
-----------------------
This test data has been picked from NASA’s prognostics data repository [@NASAPHM; @TMZT12]. A detailed description of the experiments could be found in [@QLLY06]. The bearing test rig hosts four test bearings on one shaft which is driven by an AC motor at a constant speed. A constant force is applied on each of the bearings and accelerometer data is collected at every bearing at a sampling rate of for about . The tests are carried for $35$ days until a significant amount of debris was found in the magnetic plug of the test bearing. A defect in at least one of the bearings is found at the end of every test. In this paper, we will use the data from a bearing which shows anomalous behavior in the later parts of test. In particular, out of the three data sets, we use set one where an inner race fault occurred on Bearing $3$. In the analysis, we use data from Bearing $3$.
Markov Modeling
===============
![Autocorrelation function of time-series data during the unstable phase of combustion. The time-series data is down-sampled by the lag marked in red square. It is noted that the individual time-series have their own down-sampling lags.[]{data-label="fig:autocorr"}](figures/autocorr.eps){width="75.00000%"}
\
In this section, we present results for modeling and analysis of the time-series data which are presented in this paper.
Combustion {#combustion}
----------
Time-series data is first normalized by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of its elements; this step corresponds to bias removal and variance normalization. Data from engineering systems is typically oversampled to ensure that the underlying dynamics can be captured (in the current experiments, it was $\SI{8192}{\hertz}$ ). Due to coarse-graining from the symbolization process, an over-sampled time-series may mask the true nature of the system dynamics in the symbolic domain (e.g., occurrence of self loops and irrelevant spurious transitions in the Markov chain). Time-series is first down-sampled to find the next crucial observation. The first minimum of auto-correlation function generated from the observed time-series is obtained to find the uncorrelated samples in time. The data sets are then down-sampled by this lag. The autocorrelation function for the time-series data during unstable case is shown in Figure \[fig:autocorr\] where the data are downsampled by the lag marked in red rectangle in Figure \[fig:autocorr\]. To avoid discarding significant amount of data due to downsampling, down-sampled data using different initial conditions is concatenated. Further details of this preprocessing can be found in [@Srivastav2014].
The continuous time-series data set is then partitioned using maximum entropy partitioning (MEP), where the information rich regions of the data set are partitioned finer and those with sparse information are partitioned coarser. In essence, each cell in the partitioned data set contains (approximately) equal number of data points under MEP. A ternary alphabet with ${\mathcal{A}}=\{0,1,2\}$ has been used to symbolize the continuous combustion instability data. As discussed in section \[sec:experiment\], we analyze data sets from different phases, as the process goes from stable through the transient to the unstable region (the ground truth is decided using the RMS-values of pressure).
\
In Figure \[fig:datadistribution\], we show the observed changes in the behavior of the data as the combustion operating condition changes from stable to unstable. A change in the empirical distribution of data from unimodal to bi-modal is observed as the system moves from stable to unstable. We selected $150$ samples of pressure data from the stable and unstable phases each to analyze and compare. First, we compare the expected size of temporal memory during the two stages of operation. There are changes in the eigenvalue decomposition rate for the 1-step stochastic matrix calculated from the data during the stable and unstable behavior, irrespective of the combustor length and inlet velocity. During stable conditions, the eigenvalues very quickly go to zero as compared to the unstable operating condition (see Figure \[fig:spectralprop\]). This suggests that the size of temporal memory of the discretized data increases as we move to the unstable operating condition. This indicates that under the stable operating condition, the discretized data behaves as symbolic noise as the predictive power of Markov models remain unaffected even if we increase the order of the Markov model. On the other hand, the predictive power of the Markov models can be increased by increasing the order of the Markov model during unstable operating condition, indicating more deterministic behavior. An $\epsilon=0.05$ is chosen to estimate the depth of the Markov models for both the stable and unstable phases. Correspondingly, the depth was calculated as $2$ and $3$ for the stable and unstable conditions (see Figure \[fig:databehavior\]). The corresponding $D(\epsilon)$ is used to construct the Markov models next. First a PFSA whose states are words over ${\mathcal{A}}$ of length ${D}(\epsilon)$ is created and the corresponding maximum-likely parameters (${\bm{M}}$ and ${\bm{\Pi}}$) are estimated. Then, the hierarchical clustering algorithm using K-L distance is used to cluster and aggregate the states. It is noted that we create individual models for every sample, i.e., every sample is partitioned individually so that the symbols will have different meaning (i.e., they represent different regions in the measurement space of the signals) for every sample. Consequently, each sample will have a different state-space when viewed in the continuous domain. Thus, we do not show the mean behavior of the samples during any operating regime as the state-space would be inconsistent (even though the cardinality could be the same).
In Figure \[fig:clusterbehavior\], we show the hierarchical cluster tree which details the structure of the state-space for the PFSA with depth ${D}(\epsilon)$ for a typical sample during stable and unstable behavior. The cluster tree also suggests the symbolic noise behavior of the data during the stable regime (the states are very close to each other based on the K-L distance). However, clearly a coarse clustering of states in the model during the unstable behavior would lead to significant information loss (as the states are statistically different). However, to compare the two Markov models, we keep the cardinality of the final models the same. For example, the algorithm is terminated with $3$ states in the final Markov model during the stable as well as the unstable regime. and the final aggregated states are the three clusters depicted in the Figure \[fig:clusterbehavior\]. Once the final aggregated states are obtained, we estimate the parameters of the model using the Bayesian inference discussed in section \[subsec:DBN\].
Next, we present some results for model selection using the information-theoretic criteria discussed earlier in section \[subsec:MDL\]. BIC and AIC are used to select the model which achieves the minimum score. As seen in the Figures \[fig:MDLstable\] through \[fig:MDLunstable\], the model with $5$ states is selected for stable as well as for the unstable case (note that the original model for the stable class had $9$ states for depth $2$ and the unstable model had $27$ states for a depth of $3$). In contrast to cross-validation, the two criteria provide an unsupervised way for model selection. Thus we see that we need much smaller state-space to preserve the temporal statistics of the data and AIC and BIC provide us with a technique to select the compact model.
\
In Figure \[fig:HammingCombustion\], we show the Hamming distance between the sequences generated by the original model and the reduced models for a typical sample each from stable and unstable combustion. The box-plots are generated by simulating the original model and the reduced-order model to generate symbol sequences of length $1000$ from $100$ different initial states (i.e., a total of $100$ strings are generated) and the Hamming distance between them is calculated. A bound on the Hamming distance between the sequences generated by the original model and final model is also calculated using the inequality . The results are shown in Figure \[fig:HammingCombustion\]. It is possible to use the proposed Hamming distance metric to select a final model; however, this measures the distance between the distributions induced by the Markov models, and model selection using it is left as a future work. It is noted that the bounds on Hamming distance can provide a computationally convenient way to select model scores as it can be found from the symbol emission probabilities of the model instead of explicitly looking at the predictive capability by looking at the likelihoods of the symbol sequences.
\
Bearing
-------
The same procedure of downsampling and depth estimation is followed for analysis of bearing data as was described in the previous section for combustion. A ternary alphabet is again chosen to discretize the continuous data after downsampling and the maximum entropy partitioning is used to find the partitions. Using the spectral method, a depth of $2$ (i.e., a total of $9$ states) is estimated for an $\epsilon=0.02$ (we skip the plot of spectral decomposition plot for brevity). The BIC and AIC score for the different models is shown in Figure \[fig:ModelBearing\] and the model with five states is selected using the obtained scores (marked in black rectangle). In Figure \[fig:HammingDistBearing\], we show the Hamming distance between the sequences generated by the original model (with $9$ states) and the reduced models and the corresponding bounds obtained by inequality .
![Model scores using the BIC and AIC criteria; selected models are depicted by black rectangles.[]{data-label="fig:ModelBearing"}](figures/MDL_Bearing.eps){width="75.00000%"}
![Box plot of the Hamming distance between the original and reduced-order models along with the analytical bound presented in Section \[sec:analysis\].[]{data-label="fig:HammingDistBearing"}](figures/HDDistribution.eps){width="75.00000%"}
Classification and Anomaly Detection Results
============================================
In this section, we present some results for anomaly detection and classification using the pressure time-series data to infer the underlying reduced-order Markov model. As we discussed earlier in section \[subsec:combustionexperiment\], the exact transition point of the system from stable to unstable is unknown, we first present results on anomaly detection and clustering of the data into different clusters which can be then associated with the stable and unstable class. We will present two different metrics for anomaly detection that allows models of different state-space and structure to be compared. It is noted that the word metric is used here in a loose sense; it is meant to be a distance that could be used to compare two different Markov models.
Anomaly Detection
-----------------
As individual time-series have different state-space, we define some metrics to compare them. These metrics reflect changes in the information complexity of Markov models and reveal different behavior of combustion process based on the changes in the inferred data model. In particular, the following two metrics are defined.
1. Cluster Divergence: This measure is defined for individual Markov models based on the cluster structure of the state-space of the model. Physically, it represents the maximum statistical difference between the states of the Markov model measures using K-L distance. It is calculated for a particular model $\mathcal{M}$ as follows $$\label{eqn:metric}
\Delta_{\mathcal{M}}=\max\limits_{q_i,q_j \in {\mathcal{Q}}} d(q_i,q_j)$$ where $d$ is defined by equation .
2. Discrepancy Statistics: We measure the discrepancy between the i.i.d. statistics and the Markov statistics for the discretized data. This could be also interpreted as the information gain for Markov models. This measure also represents the information complexity of the data. If the i.i.d. statistics and the Markov statistics are very close, then the data has no temporal statistics; however, an increase in this measure would indicate the information gain by creating a temporal Markov model for the data. This is measured by the following equation. $$H_\mathcal{M}=\sum_{q \in {\mathcal{Q}}} {\text{Pr}}(q) D_{KL}({\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}\mid q)\| {\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}))$$ where ${\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}}\mid q)$ represents the symbol emission probability conditioned on a state $q$ of the Markov model and ${\text{Pr}}({\mathcal{A}})$ represents the marginal symbol emission probability. The term $D_{KL}$ represents the symmetric K-L distance between the two distributions.
In Figure \[fig:divergence\], we present some results to show the behavior of $\Delta_{\mathcal{M}}$ with increasing pressure fluctuations. It is noted that every model has been created in an unsupervised fashion by first discretizing and then, estimating the memory of the discrete sequence. As seen in Figure \[fig:complexorig\], there are three distinct behaviors that can be associated with $\Delta_\mathcal{M}$. With low pressure fluctuations, the metric is very close to $0$, indicating that the states of the model are very similar statistically. This is seen until data number $200$ with corresponding $P_{rms}\sim 0.065 $ psig, which leads to a gradual change to a point where the measure saturates with $P_{rms}\sim 0.12$ psig (when the process becomes unstable). Thus, with this gradual trend with increasing pressure fluctuations, we associate different behaviors with the process. However, as is seen in the Figure \[fig:complexorig\], the transition from stable to unstable behavior is not clearly defined and is very difficult to label during the experiments as the process is very fast. We show the pressure signals from the three different clusters in Figure \[fig:pressure\] where it could be seen that the sample number $250$ could be seen to approach an approximate limit cyclic behavior (and thus, could be loosely classified as transient stage). An important point to note at this point is that this measure is independent of any operating conditions and only depends on stability (or instability) of the process. This metric is thus used for anomaly detection. In Figure \[fig:complexfinal\], we show the statistics of $\Delta_{\mathcal M}$ with four states. We see that there is some loss of information up on merging states in the unstable class; the stable cluster remains unchanged implying that the states are statistically similar and the model distortion up on merging of states is insignificant. Thus, $\Delta_{\mathcal M}$ can be reliably used to detect departure from stable behavior.
The statistics for the discrepancy measure for the full state models is shown in Figure \[fig:InfoGain\]. The plot in Figure \[fig:InfoGain\] also agrees qualitatively with the earlier results on $\Delta_{\mathcal M}$. From these plots, we can infer that the Markov statistics for the stable cluster is very similar to the i.i.d. statistics and thus the data is very much independently distributed and conditioning on the inferred states of the Markov models doesn’t improve predictability (or information complexity) of the temporal model. Thus, these two measures help infer the changes in the behavior of the data during the combustion process and are useful for anomaly detection.
\
![Variation of discrepancy statistics $H_{\mathcal M}$ with increasing pressure fluctuations. This also shows an anomaly around the point $200$ and qualitatively agrees to the behavior of $\Delta_{\mathcal M}$.[]{data-label="fig:InfoGain"}](figures/fig10.eps){width="75.00000%"}
To see more explicitly the changes in the underlying models, the models during stable and unstable phases are visualized in the information space. To do this, we reduce the state space of the models to just $2$ states and estimate the corresponding emission parameters. As the models have three symbols, the emission matrix has $2$ rows and each row corresponds to the symbol emission probabilities conditioned on the two states. Each of these rows for $100$ cases from stable and $100$ cases from unstable are plotted on a single simplex plane which is shown in Figure \[fig:Simplex\]. The Figure shows the clusters of stable and unstable cases in the information space and that the model with even $2$ states are clustered separately. This shows that there is a structured change in the temporal dynamics of the data at the two phases and that the inferred Markov models are able to capture this change. Furthermore, the distinctive features of the models are sufficiently retained even after significant reduction in the state-space of the models.
![Cluster of stable and unstable phase in information space. Each point is a row of the emission matrix for the reduced Markov model with $2$ states. The plot shows the change in the Markov model as the process moves from stable and unstable. Red diamonds represent the unstable phase while green diamonds represent the stable phase.[]{data-label="fig:Simplex"}](figures/simplex_2states_1.eps){width="75.00000%"}
Classification
--------------
These models are then used to train classifiers using support vector machines (SVM) and decision trees (DT) [@B06]. The rationale behind using multiple classifier is to show that the performance of the Markov models is independent of the classification technique (i.e., it works equally well with maximum margin classifiers or decision tree classifiers). The SVM classifier is trained using a radial basis function kernel while the decision tree is trained using the standard euclidean distance. The classifiers are trained with $100$ data points from each class and are tested on the remaining data (around $80$ and $380$ for stable and unstable respectively). The tests are repeated for $100$ different train and test data sets from the total data. The results of classification accuracy are listed in Table \[table:classification\]. The SVM classifier is able to achieve around $1.67\%$ error using models with $2$ states while the decision tree classifier is able to achieve around $4.70\%$ error using models with $4$ states. This provides another way of selecting the final model for state merging in a supervised learning setting. It is noted that the original models contain $9$ states for stable and $27$ for unstable class.
Number of States Classifier Classification Error ($\%$)
------------------ ------------ ----------------------------- --
SVM $3.48 \pm 0.74$
DT $9.83\pm 3.24$
SVM $3.62 \pm 0.71$
DT $9.38 \pm 3.11$
SVM $2.87 \pm 0.68$
DT $7.70 \pm 2.61$
SVM $2.48 \pm 0.61$
DT $7.00 \pm 2.55$
SVM $2.05 \pm 0.54$
DT $6.10 \pm 2.17$
SVM $1.86 \pm 0.43$
DT $4.72 \pm 2.29$
SVM $1.69 \pm 0.45$
DT $5.56 \pm 1.90$
SVM $1.67 \pm 0.43$
DT $4.83 \pm 1.80$
: Performance of classifiers with different number of states. Mean Error= Lower is better. []{data-label="table:classification"}
Summary, Conclusions and Future Work
====================================
In recent times the idea of representation learning has become very popular in the machine learning literature as it allows decoupling of data for model learning from the end-objectives like classification or clustering. In this paper, we presented a technique for Markov modeling of time-series data using concepts of symbolic dynamics which allows inference of model structure as well as parameters for compact data representation. In the proposed technique we first estimate the memory size of the discretized time-series data. The size of memory is estimated using spectral decomposition properties of the one-step Markov model created from the symbol sequence. Then, a second pass of data is made to infer the model with the right memory and the corresponding symbol emission matrix is estimated. Then the equivalence class of states based on K-L distance between the states are estimated using hierarchical clustering of the corresponding states of the Markov model. The proposed concepts were validated using two different datasets– combustion instability and bearing. Modeling of combustion instability still remains a puzzle in the combustion community. The Markov modeling technique was used to analyze the problem of combustion instability. The proposed ideas were tested on experimental data from a swirl-stabilized combustor used to study unstable thermo-acoustic phenomenon during combustion process. The proposed approach allows us to infer the complexity of the time-series data based on the inferred Markov model. Two different metrics were proposed for anomaly detection and classification of the stable and unstable classes. The results presented in this paper are encouraging as the inferred models are able to identify the stable and unstable phases independent of any other operating condition.
Simultaneous optimization of discretization and memory estimation for model inference is a topic of future research. While the results obtained with Markov modeling for the combustion instability problem are inspiring, further investigation with transient data is required for better characterization of the process. More thorough comparison of the proposed models with HMM models of similar state-space size is also an important topic of future work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Professor Domenic Santavicca and Mr. Jihang Li of Center for Propulsion, Penn State for kindly providing the experimental data for combustion used in this work.
[^1]: $^a$ Devesh K. Jha, N. Virani and Asok Ray are with Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA, and are partially supported by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Grant No. FA9550-15-1-0400; [{dkj5042,nnv105,axr2}@psu.edu]{}
[^2]: $^b$ Jan Reimann and Asok Ray are with Department of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA; [{jan.reimann,axr2}@psu.edu]{}. Jan Reimann was partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-1201263
[^3]: $^c$ Abhishek Srivastav is with AI and Machine Learning Lab, GE Global Research Center, San Ramon, CA, USA; [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: $^1$ Currently with Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Cambridge, MA 02139
[^5]: $^2$ Currently with AI and Machine Learning Lab, GE Global Research Center, Niskayuna, NY
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections brought into the center of public attention concerns related to the ability of foreign actors to increase social discord and take advantage of personal user data for political purposes. It has raised questions regarding the ways and the extent to which data can be used to create psychographical profiles to determine what kind of advertisement would be most effective to persuade a particular person in a particular location for some political event; Questions which have not been explored yet due to the lack of publicly available data. In this work, we study the political ads dataset collected by ProPublica, an American nonprofit newsroom, using a network of volunteers in the period before the 2018 US midterm elections. With the help of the volunteers, it has been made possible to collect not only the content of the ads but also the attributes that were used by advertisers to target the users. We first describe the main characteristics of the data and explore the user attributes including age, region, activity, and more, with a series of interactive illustrations. Furthermore, an important first step towards understating of political manipulation via user targeting is to identify politically related ads, yet manually checking ads is not feasible due to the scale of social media advertising. Consequently, we address the challenge of automatically classifying between political and non-political ads, demonstrating a significant improvement compared to the current text-based classifier used by ProPublica, and study whether the user targeting attributes are beneficial for this task. Our evaluation sheds light on questions, such as how user attributes are being used for political ads targeting and which users are more prone to be targeted with political ads. Overall, our contribution of data exploration, political ad classification and initial analysis of the targeting attributes, is designed to support future work with the ProPublica dataset, and specifically with regard to the understanding of political manipulation via user targeting.'
author:
- Or Levi
- Sardar Hamidian
- Pedram Hosseini
title: 'Automatically Identifying Political Ads on Facebook: Towards Understanding of Manipulation via User Targeting'
---
Introduction
============
Social media platforms are collecting a great amount of personal user data. While the data can be used to improve the effectiveness of ad recommendation, as demonstrated by previous works [@Joshi_user; @pandey_learning; @grbovic_generating], it also raises concerns related to user privacy, especially when it comes to political ads; Concerns, which have been amplified by the reports of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, when fake accounts linked to a Russian troll farm bought advertisements targeting millions of Facebook users prior to the election. These concerns were further amplified by the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal, when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica harvested the personal data of millions of people’s Facebook profiles without their consent and used it for political purposes. Despite the growing public interest, the effect of political ad targeting on social media has not been explored yet due to the lack of publicly available data. Facebook has made available[^1] an archive of ads related to politics but that has included only the content of the ads. In an effort to promote ad transparency and hold advertisers including political groups accountable, ProPublica, an American nonprofit newsroom, has collected a dataset of political ads in the period before the 2018 US midterm elections. Readers were asked to install a browser extension that automatically collected advertisements shown to them on Facebook without collecting personal information. With the help of the volunteers it has been made possible to collect not only the content of the political ads but also the attributes that were used by advertisers to target the users.
This work is the first to study the ProPublica political ads data and the use of targeting attributes, such as age, region, activity, and interests, for political advertising on social media. First, we describe the main properties of the dataset and provide a series of interactive illustrations by leveraging the targeting attributes, in addition to election information collected from online resources.
Second, in order to study the potential to manipulate users for political purposes via the targeting attributes, it is important to initially identify which ads, and advertisers, are politically oriented. We are motivated by the increasing efforts of both social media platforms, and investigative journalism organizations, to improve the transparency and scrutiny around political advertising and study their effect on the spread of misinformation and social discord. However, given the large scale of social media advertising, manually checking ads is impractical.
Consequently, we address the challenge of automatically classifying between political and non-political ads. While the data released by ProPublica contains only ads that were identified as political by an existing classifier, we notice there is still a great amount of disagreement compared to the judgments by the volunteers, and aim to improve the text classification.
In addition to identifying language differences, we also consider the following research question: can the targeting attributes be used for identification of political ads? In other words, are there differences in the patterns of user targeting between political and non-political ads? The evaluation of our method sheds light on how user attributes are being used for political ads targeting and what kind of user profiles are more likely to be targeted. For instance, we find that political advertisers are more likely to use location targeting, and that users in battleground states are more likely to be targeted with political ads.
Related Work
============
Previous works have demonstrated the effectiveness of targeting attributes for ad recommendation, based on user behavior [@pandey_learning; @grbovic_generating], user demographics [@jansen_gender] or a combination of the two. For instance, Bagherjeiran et al. [@Joshi_user] proposed to build a generic user profile with demographic and behavioral information about the user, and learned a mapping from non-textural user features to the textual space of ads that helped to improve the click rate on ads.
Another related line of work is the classification of political orientation from text on social media. [@hoang_politics; @volkova_inferring; @maynard_automatic]. Pennacchiotti et al. [@pennacchiotti_democrats] proposed to automatically construct user profiles, to identify the political affiliation of users, based on features related to profile information, messaging behavior, linguistic content and social connections. Similarly, Boutet et al. [@boutet_what] used the number of Twitter messages referring to a particular political party to identify the political leaning of users. In this work we focus on a different task. Rather than identifying a political orientation, we aim to distinguish between political and non-political ads. For this task, we use the novel targeting attributes, that were used by advertisers to target users and have been made available only recently, with the release of the ProPublica dataset.
The ProPublica Dataset
======================
The ProPublica political ads dataset[^2] includes information regarding the content of the ads, such as title, message and images; the number of users who voted it as political or not political; and the targeting attributes, as described in figure \[fig:table1\]. Overall, the data includes more than 68,000 ads from 5,700 different advertisers collected in the period between August 2017 and October 2018.
![The Targeting Attributes. For each attribute we present the number of occurrences in the data, the number of unique values and a couple of examples.[]{data-label="fig:table1"}](table1.png)
![The distribution of political ads on Facebook in different states based on population. Circle size is the percentage calculated by number of ads in the state divided by total number of ads in the US.[]{data-label="fig:top10interest"}](PoliticalUSmono.pdf)
To manifest a better insight into the properties of the data, we provide a series of interactive illustrations[^3] by leveraging the targeting attributes, in addition to election information collected from online resources. Figure \[fig:top10interest\] is one of the graphs from this dashboard illustrating the distribution of political ads on Facebook based on geographical information collected from the targeting attributes. According to the map, users in highly populated states (Darker green relative to high regional population) like California, New York, Texas, and Washington are more prone to be targeted by political ads.
![Number of political ads for each of the targeting attributes.[]{data-label="fig:politicalfortargeting"}](political_ads_for_targeting_features.pdf)
Figure \[fig:politicalfortargeting\] shows the number of political ads for each of the targeting attributes. According to this chart, the top two targeting attributes used in political ads are the age and the region of the Facebook users. More than 70 percent of the time Facebook users are targeted by political ads is because they meet a certain age and location criteria, as opposed to language, agency, and gender with only 2 percent.
![The distribution of political ads in different states.[]{data-label="fig:states"}](political_ads_in_different_states.png)
Region is the second most important attribute used in political ads. As shown in figure \[fig:states\], Facebook users in California, Texas, Florida and New York are almost 10 times more likely to be targeted with political ads than states like Indiana, Montana or even Virginia.
![Top 10 Interest topics used for targeting the political ads.[]{data-label="fig:interest"}](interest_top_10.pdf)
After age and region, interest is the third most important attribute for political ad targeting. Figure \[fig:interest\] shows the top 10 interest topics used by advertisers. According to the chart, Facebook users with interest in the “Democratic Party”, “Bernie Sanders” and “Barack Obama” are more prone to be targeted by political ads than the other interest topics.
Figure \[fig:incumbent\] shows the number of political ads for each of the battleground states, in addition to the election outcome on the map. There appears to be no significant correlation between the election outcome and the number of ads in battleground states.
![Incumbent status for battleground states vs. the volume of political advertising, represented by the circle size.[]{data-label="fig:incumbent"}](incubemnt.pdf)
Method
======
To study the effects of political manipulation via user targeting, we first address the challenge of automatically classifying between political and non-political ads. The classification labels are based on the ’political’ and ’not political’ fields in the data, which reflect the number of volunteers who have voted an ad as political or not political. Ads with more ’political’ votes are classified as political and vice versa. We disregard ads with equal amounts of ’political’ and ’not political’ votes.
To classify political ads, ProPublica have been using a text classifier, such that the dataset contains only ads that were identified as political with a probability greater than 70% (see ’political probability’ field). However, a quick examination of the probabilities assigned by the classifier compared to the judgments by the volunteers shows still a great amount of disagreement. For instance, there are examples where the classifier picks up on a keyword like ’vote’ but it is used in a non-political context. We hypothesize that using bigrams together with a tree-based classifier could help with these false positives and improve the performance of the classifier. A key consideration is also to provide a simple method that will be computationally inexpensive.
Given that the data made available by ProPublica contains only ads that were already identified by the current classifier, political ads, as judged by the volunteers, outnumber non-political ads with a 9:1 ratio. To address this challenge we use an imbalance correction method, giving a penalty to the over-represented class, with a weight that is inversely proportional to the class frequencies in the input data: $$Weight(y)= \frac{n\_samples}{n\_samples(y)}$$ where $n\_samples$ and $n\_samples(y)$ is the number of samples in general, and from class $y$ , respectively.
We next turn to study our research question with regard to the potential of the targeting attributes to help with identifying political ads. The ’targets’ field holds the targeting attributes of each ad. As part of the data pre-processing, we transform this field into separate columns, each representing one of the targeting attributes. Since the ’Region’ and ’State’ attributes are mostly overlapping, we drop the ’State’ and use the ’Region’, which occurs in more entries. We drop the sparse attributes ’Engaged with Content’, with only 9 entries, and ’Language’, with only 4 Non-English entries. Instead of the ’Age’ attribute, which represents the targeted age range, we use the ’MinAge’ and ’MaxAge’ attributes, which represent the range limits. All the attributes are treated as categorical variables and transformed using one-hot encoding, except for the numerical attributes ’MinAge’ and ’MaxAge’. Note that this still supports cases of users with multiple values for the same attribute, e.g. multiple interests, given that each interest is represented by a separate binary feature.
The ad text is obtained by concatenating the ’title’ and ’message’ fields of the ad. We use a TF-IDF vector representation as implemented by the sci-kit learn toolkit with Snowball stemming and stop words removed.
The baseline method by ProPublica uses a Multinomial Naive Bayes classifier. For the tree-based classification model, we use the Gradient Boosting Decision Tree (GBDT) as implemented by the LightGBM toolkit [@ke_LightGBM]. We test two methods, with the text only and together with the targeting attributes. The model hyper-parameters are tuned using a five-fold grid search cross validation.
Evaluation
==========
We evaluate the performance of our method for political ad classification using the F1 measure. We split the data into a train and held-out test sets. To prevent over-fitting on patterns of specific advertisers, we separate the data such that each advertiser is either in the train or the test set. We randomly sample 20% of the advertisers and the ads of these advertisers are used for the test set only.
Table \[table:table1\] shows the main results. Our method, that employs bigrams and a Gradient Boosting Machine classifier, outperforms the Multinomial Naive Bayes classifier currently used by ProPublica, with a significant increase in the F1 measure. To test for statistical significance, we use the paired bootstrap test as recommended by Reichart et al. [@dror_recommended]. With the bootstrap test, we draw 1000 different samples. The size of each sample is the same as the full data, and the train and test sets are obtained using the above-mentioned split by advertisers. For each sample we evaluate the F1 score of the baseline and our method. The scores are then used to check the statistical significance via the bootstrap test implemented by Dror et al.[^4] with a 0.05 significance level.
**Method** **Precision** **Recall** **F1**
--------------------------------------- --------------- ------------ ---------------
MultinomialNB: Text Only (ProPublica) 88.75 96.65 92.53
GBM: Text Only 90.33 99.25 94.58\*
GBM: Text + Targeting attributes **90.83** **99.68** **95.05\*\***
\[table:table1\]
Further to our research question, the evaluation also shows that using the targeting attributes for classification of political ads can further improve the performance, compared the text-only methods. Even though the improvement is not large, it gives motivation to further investigate differences in the patterns of targeting users between political and non-political ads.
To study the feature importance to our LightGBM model, we use Tree SHAP [@lundberg_consistent], a fast algorithm to compute SHAP values [@lundberg_unified] for trees, as implemented by Lundberg et al.[^5]. Figure \[fig:top\_keywords\] shows the most important keywords, sorted by the sum of SHAP value magnitudes over all training samples. The list includes terms that can be expected to be associated with political ads, such as “trump”, “senate”, “congress” and more.
![Top 10 Most Important Keywords. The list contains terms that can be expected to be associated with political ads.[]{data-label="fig:top_keywords"}](feature_imp_keywords.png)
![Top 15 Most Important Targeting Attributes. SHAP values show the distribution of the impacts each feature has on the model output. The ’\_0’ notation is used for features representing an attribute with a missing value. We observe that certain Regions and Interests are more likely to be targeted with political ads.[]{data-label="fig:top_attributes"}](feature_imp_attributes.png)
Figure \[fig:top\_attributes\] shows the most important targeting attributes. It uses SHAP values to show the distribution of the impacts each feature has on the model output. The color represents the feature value: high (red) or low (blue), which is simply 1 or 0 for the binary attributes.
The most important attribute is the ’MinAge’. We can see that above a certain threshold, higher age values increase the chance of seeing a political ad. Further examination (not presented herein) reveals that this threshold corresponds to ’18’, which is also the legal voting age in the US. We can also see that users with interest related to ’Barack Obama’, ’Bernie Sanders’ or the ’Democratic Party’ are more likely to see political ads. Lastly, this analysis reveals that non-political advertisers are less likely to use the ’Region’ attribute for targeting. This could be expected since politicians are more likely to target the state that elects them. On the other hand, users located in ’Texas’, ’California’, ’Minnesota’, ’Florida’ and ’New York’ are more likely to be targeted with political ads. A comparison with the list provided by Ballotpedia.org [^6] reveals that all the states except ’New York’ are considered as battleground states.
Conclusion and Future Work
==========================
This work is the first to study the ProPublica political ads dataset. The uniqueness of the data lies in the targeting attributes that that were used by advertisers to target users on social media. We first described the main characteristics of the data and explored the targeting attributes with a series of interactive illustrations. Then, as a first step towards understating of political manipulation via user targeting, we addressed the challenge of automatically identifying political ads. Our method outperformed the current text-based classifier used by ProPublica with a significant improvement in the F1 measure. We also demonstrated the potential for further improvement in identifying political ads by using the targeting attributes. Lastly, we studied the feature importance of our method and pointed out interesting insights with regard to language differences between political and non-political ads, and the use of targeting attributes in political advertising, such as that users in battleground states are more likely to be targeted.
We consider several avenues for future work. First, the dataset contains additional information that has not been utilized in this work. For example, the ad images could potentially be helpful for the classification of political ads. A key consideration for us has been to provide a simple and scalable solution. This leaves room for future work to experiment with more sophisticated methods, such as learning user-based embeddings based on the targeting attributes to potentially show even greater improvement in performance compared to the text-only methods. Moreover, the identification of political ads allows for future work to explore the rich data provided by the targeting attributes in more detail. For example, to investigate which political ads were associated with which users and which targeting attributes, and specifically with regard to regional targeting which we found to be important. Overall, we hope these preliminary results will help to spark future work on understanding of political manipulation via user targeting and ways of addressing it.
[8]{}
Su-In Lee Scott M. Lundberg, Gabriel G. Erion. 2018. Consistent individualized feature attribution for tree ensembles. In ArXiv e-prints.
Su-In Lee, Scott M. Lundberg. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
Benjamin Van Durme Svitlana Volkova, Glen Copper-smith. 2014. Inferring user political preferences from streaming communications. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
Ee-Peng Lim Tuan-Anh Hoang, William W. Cohen. 2013. Politics, sharing and emotion in microblogs. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining
Abraham Bagherjeiran, Amruta Joshi. 2011. User demographic and behavioral targeting for content match advertising. In 5th International Workshop on Data Mining and Audience Intelligence for Advertising (ADKDD 2011).
Abraham Bagherjeiran, Andrew Hatch , Peter Ciccolo, Adwait Ratnaparkhi, Martin Zinkevich, Sandeep Pandey, Mohamed Aly. 2011. Learning to target: what works for behavioral targeting. In CIKM ’11 Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management.
Slobodan Vucetic, Mihajlo Grbovic. 2014. Generating ad targeting rules using sparse principal component analysis with constraints. In Proceedings of the companion publication of the 23rd international conference on World wide web companion.
Lauren Solomon Bernard J. Jansen. 2010. Gender demographic targeting in sponsored search. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Adam Funk Diana Maynard. 2011. Automatic detection of political opinions in tweets. In The Semantic Web: ESWC 2011 Workshops.
Ana-Maria Popescu, Marco Pennacchiotti. 2011. Democrats, republicans and starbucks afficionados:User classification in twitter. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
Hyoungshick Kim, Antoine Boutet and Eiko Yoneki. 2012. What’s in your tweets? i know who you sup-ported in the uk 2010 general election. In Proceedings of the Sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.
Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, Tie-Yan Liu, Guolin Ke, Qi Meng. 2017. Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
Roi Reichart, Rotem Dror. 2018. Recommended statistical significance tests for nlp tasks. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
[^1]: <https://www.facebook.com/ads/archive/>
[^2]: <https://propublica.org/datastore/dataset/political-advertisements-from-facebook>
[^3]: <https://tabsoft.co/2RErMBD>
[^4]: <https://github.com/rtmdrr/>
[^5]: <https://github.com/slundberg/shap>
[^6]: <https://ballotpedia.org>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A graph $G$ has a [*$k$-page book embedding*]{} if $G$ can be embedded into a [*$k$-page book*]{}. The minimum $k$ such that $G$ has a $k$-page book embedding is the [*book thickness*]{} of $G$, denoted $bt(G)$. Most of the work on this subject has been done for unoriented graphs and oriented acyclic graphs (no directed cycles). In this work we discuss oriented graphs $\overrightarrow{D}$ containing directed cycles by using [*oriented book embeddings*]{} and [*oriented book thickness*]{}, $obt(\overrightarrow{D})$. To characterize $\overrightarrow{D}$ such that $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) = k$, we define the class $\mathcal{M}^k$ of [*$k$-page critical oriented graphs*]{} to be all oriented graphs $\overrightarrow{D}$ with $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) =k$, but for every proper oriented subgraph of $\overrightarrow{D}$, denoted $\overrightarrow{D}'$, we have that $obt(\overrightarrow{D}') < k$. Determining $\mathcal{M}^k$ for general $k$ is challenging; we narrow down the list of oriented graphs in $\mathcal{M}^k$ for small $k$. In this work we show complete lists for $\mathcal{M}^1$ and for $\mathcal{M}^2 \cap \mathcal{U}$, where $\mathcal{U}$ consists of all *strictly dicyclic oriented graphs*, that is, oriented graphs containing exactly one oriented cycle, which is a directed cycle.
Keywords: book embedding, book thickness, oriented book embedding, oriented book thickness, directed cycle, critical graph
author:
- 'Stacey McAdams [^1] Jinko Kanno [^2]'
date: 'February 3, 2016'
title: Oriented Book Embeddings
---
Introduction
============
In this work, every graph is a simple graph, i.e., a graph containing no loops or multiple edges. We follow the notation and terminology in [@West], in particular, we denote a complete graph on $n$ vertices as $K_n$, and a complete bipartite graph having two partite sets with sizes $m$ and $n$ as $K_{m,n}$. We consider orientations of simple graphs as described below.
Given a graph $D$, with finite vertex set $V(D)$ and finite edge set $E(D)$, we define an [*oriented graph*]{} as follows. For each pair of vertices $u$ and $v$ in $V(D)$ such that there exists an edge $e = uv$ in $E(D)$, we assign $u$ (resp. $v$) to be the [*tail*]{} and $v$ (resp. $u$) to be the [*head*]{}. This assignment results in an [*arc*]{}, where the tail [*is directed*]{} to the head. We denote the arc $a$ with tail $u$ and head $v$ as $(u,v)$, and call $u$ and $v$ the [*endpoints*]{} of $a$. The endpoints of an arc are [*adjacent*]{} and an arc is [*incident*]{} to both of its endpoints. We denote the resulting oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ with arc set $A(\overrightarrow{D})$ and vertex set $V(\overrightarrow{D})$, which is equal to $V(D)$. Given an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$, the [*underlying graph*]{} $D$ is the graph such that the directions associated to the arcs of $\overrightarrow{D}$ are removed, yielding edges. An [*oriented subgraph*]{} of an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ is an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D'}$ such that $V(\overrightarrow{D'}) \subseteq V(\overrightarrow{D})$, $A(\overrightarrow{D'}) \subseteq A(\overrightarrow{D})$ and for an arc $a = (u,v) \in A(\overrightarrow{D'})$, it must be true that $a \in A(\overrightarrow{D})$ and $ \{ u,v \} \subseteq V(\overrightarrow{D'})$. A *proper oriented subgraph* of an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ is an oriented subgraph $\overrightarrow{D'}$ of $\overrightarrow{D}$ such that either $V(\overrightarrow{D'}) \subsetneqq V(\overrightarrow{D})$ or $A(\overrightarrow{D'}) \subsetneqq A(\overrightarrow{D})$.
Given a graph $G$, if two vertices $u$ and $v$ are adjacent in $G$, i.e., if there is an edge $e = uv \in E(G)$, we say that $u$ and $v$ are [*neighbors*]{} in $G$, and denote the neighborhood of a vertex $u$ as $N(u)$. For an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ containing an arc $(u,v)$, we say that $u$ is an [*in-neighbor*]{} of $v$ and that $v$ is an [*out-neighbor*]{} of $u$. For a vertex $u \in V(\overrightarrow{D})$, we denote the set of all in-neighbors of $u$ as $N^-(u)$, and the set of all out-neighbors of $u$ as $N^+(u)$. We also say that the [*in-degree*]{} of $u$ is $|N^-(u)|$ and the [*out-degree*]{} of $u$ is $|N^+(u)|$. The [*neighborhood*]{} of $u$ is defined to be $N(u) := N^+(u) \cup N^-(u)$, and the [*degree*]{} of $u$ is $|N^-(u) \cup N^+(u)|$. If $N(u) = N^-(u)$, then $u$ is said to be a [*sink*]{}; if $N(u) = N^+(u)$, then $u$ is said to be a [*source*]{}.
For a graph $D$ with edge $e$, the [*deletion of $e$*]{} is an operation that yields a graph with edge set $E(D) \setminus e$ and vertex set $V(D)$. We denote the graph $D$ with edge $e$ deleted as $D \setminus e$. The deletion of an arc $a$ in an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ is defined analogously, and is denoted $\overrightarrow{D} \setminus a$. The [*converse*]{} of an arc $a= (u,v)$ is the arc $(v,u)$, denoted $a^*$. If we replace an arc $a$ with its converse $a^*$, we obtain an oriented graph with arc set $A(\overrightarrow{D} \setminus a) \cup a^*$ and vertex set $V(\overrightarrow{D})$; we denote the resulting oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}(a^*)$. We call this replacement [*switching the direction of a*]{}. If we switch the direction of every arc in an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$, we call the resulting oriented graph the *converse* of $\overrightarrow{D}$ and denote it $\overrightarrow{D}^*$. For a graph $D$ with vertex $v$, the [*deletion of v*]{} is an operation that yields a graph with vertex set $ V(D) \setminus v$ and edge set $E(D) \setminus \{e_1, e_2,...,e_k \}$, such that $e_i$, $1 \le i \le k$, is incident to $v$. We denote the graph $D$ with vertex $v$ deleted as $D-v$. The deletion of a vertex $v$ in an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ is defined analogously and is denoted $\overrightarrow{D}-v$.
For $n \in \mathbb{N}$, let $[n]$ denote $ \{ 1,2,...,n \}$. For $n \geq 2$, the standard path, denoted $P_n$, is the graph with $V(P_n) = \{i \, \vert \, i \in [n] \}$ and $E(P_n)$ consisting of the edges with endpoints $i$, $i+1$ for $1 \le i \le n-1$. A [*path on $n$ vertices*]{} (resp. an [*n-path*]{}) is a graph isomorphic to $P_n$ (for some $n$). A graph is *connected* if each pair of vertices belongs to a path; an oriented graph is connected if its underlying graph is connected. If a graph is not connected, it is *disconnected* and its maximal connected subgraphs are called *components*. The standard cycle, denoted $C_n$, is the graph $P_n$ with the added edge having endpoints $1$ and $n$. A [*cycle on $n$ vertices*]{} (resp. an [*n-cycle*]{}) is a graph isomorphic to $C_n$ (for some $n$).
The [*standard directed path*]{}, $\overrightarrow{P_n}$, is the oriented graph whose underlying graph is isomorphic to $P_n$, and for each edge $ \{i, i+1 \}$, we have the arc $(i, i+1)$. An oriented graph isomorphic to $\overrightarrow{P_n}$ is called an [*n-dipath*]{}. The [*standard directed cycle*]{}, denoted $\overrightarrow{C_n}$, is the oriented graph consisting of $\overrightarrow{P_n}$ and the arc $(n,1)$. An oriented graph isomorphic to $\overrightarrow{C_n}$ is referred to as an [*n-dicycle*]{}. One may notice that we specifically stated [*directed*]{} path or [*directed*]{} cycle. This is because the directions of the arcs “follow” each other along the path or the cycle. If this is not the case, and the underlying graph is isomorphic to a path or a cycle, but arbitrarily directed, we refer to each as an [*oriented n-path*]{} or [*oriented n-cycle*]{}, respectively.
For an integer $k \geq 0$, a [*$k$-book*]{}, or [*a book with $k$ pages*]{}, consists of a line $L$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$, called the [*spine*]{}, where $L$ is identified with the $z$-axis, i.e. $L = \{(0,0,z) : z \in \mathbb{R} \}$ and $k$ distinct closed half planes, called [*pages*]{}, whose common boundary is $L$. If $p$ is a page, then $p = \{(0,y,z) : y,z \in \mathbb{R}, y \geq 0 \}$. The [*interior*]{} of a page $p$ is the open half plane, $p \setminus L$. A [*$k$-page book embedding*]{} is an embedding of a graph $G$ into a $k$-book such that:
- each vertex $v \in V(G)$ is embedded into $L$;
- each edge $e \in E(G)$ is either completely embedded into $L$, or all points of $e$ (except the endpoints) are embedded into the interior of a single page.
The [*spine order*]{}, for a particular book embedding, is the ordering of the vertices embedded into the spine whose $z$-coordinates are strictly increasing or decreasing. We can label the vertices embedded into the spine $v_1, v_2,..., v_n$. If two edges $v_iv_j$, with $i<j$ and $v_lv_m$, with $l<m$ are embedded into the same page, then it must be true that either $i<j<l<m$, $l<m<i<j$, $i<l<m<j$, or $l<i<j<m$. In this case, we say that the two edges follow the [*planarity rule*]{}. The [*book thickness of a graph*]{}, denoted $bt(G)$ is the minimum $k$ required for $G$ to have a $k$-page book embedding.
For a particular book embedding of a graph $D$, we call an edge in $D$ that is embedded into the spine a [*tight edge*]{}, and we call an edge in $D$ that is not a tight edge a [*loose edge*]{}. In a given book embedding of a graph $D$, we call a vertex $v$ of $D$ a [*tight vertex*]{} if it is the common endpoint of exactly two tight edges; we call $v$ a [*half-loose vertex*]{} if it is the endpoint of exactly one tight edge, and we call $v$ a [*loose vertex*]{} if it is the endpoint of no tight edge. For a particular book embedding of a graph $D$, we say that an edge $uv$ in $D$ [*covers*]{} a vertex $x \in V(D)$ if $x$ is between $u$ and $v$ in the spine order of the embedding. For two arcs $a_1,a_2$ that are in the same page, if $a_1$ and $a_2$ share an endpoint, and $a_1$ covers the other endpoint of $a_2$, or if $a_1$ covers both endpoints of $a_2$, we say that $a_1$ and $a_2$ are *nested* or that *$a_2$ is nested inside $a_1$*.
A [*planar graph*]{} is a graph that has an embedding in the plane, and an [*outerplanar graph*]{} is a graph that has an embedding in the plane with every vertex on the unbounded face. A graph is [*hamiltonian*]{} if it contains a cycle that passes through every vertex of the graph.
$($Bernhart and Kainen, $1979$ [@BK] $)$ Let $G$ be connected, then the following hold: $1.$ $bt(G) = 0$ if and only if $G$ is a path, and\
$2.$ $bt(G) \le 1$ if and only if $G$ is outerplanar.\
$3.$ $bt(G) \le 2$ if and only if $G$ is a subgraph of a hamiltonian planar graph. \[BKthm\]
We call a graph $G$ a [*$k$-page critical graph*]{} if $bt(G) = k$, and for every edge $e \in E(G)$, we have that $bt(G \setminus e) = k-1$. By Kuratowski’s Theorem [@K] and Theorem \[BKthm\], $K_4$ and $K_{2,3}$ are $2$-page critical graphs. All $k$-page critical graphs are connected; since, if $G$ was $k$-page critical with distinct components $H_1,H_2$, then $bt(G) = max \{bt(H_1), bt(H_2) \} =k$. Assume $bt(G) = bt(H_1)$, and if we delete an edge $e' \in E(H_2)$, we have $bt(G \setminus e') =k$, and thus $G$ is not a $k$-page critical graph.
We now focus on embedding an oriented graph into a $k$-book. Since the spine $L$ of a $k$-book is identified with the $z$-axis, for convention we say that the spine is oriented upwards. We can then describe the orientation of the arcs embedded into the $k$-book as being [*upwards*]{} or [*downwards*]{}, relative to the spine. A [*$k$-page oriented book embedding*]{} for an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ is an embedding into a $k$-book such that:
- each vertex $v \in V(\overrightarrow{D})$ is embedded into $L$;
- each arc $a \in A(\overrightarrow{D})$ is either completely embedded into $L$, or all points of $a$ (except the endpoints) are embedded into the interior of a single page.
- the orientation of all arcs embedded into $L$ agree;
- the orientation of all arcs embedded into a given page agree. (We call this restriction the [*direction rule*]{}.)
If all arcs embedded into a single page are upwards, we refer to the page as an *upwards page*, or simply say the *page is upwards*; similarly if all arcs embedded into a single page are downwards, we refer to the page as an *downwards page*, or simply say the *page is downwards*. We do not restrict the direction of all arcs in the oriented book embedding to be the same, just those in the same page; an oriented book embedding may have an upwards page and a downwards page. The [*oriented book thickness*]{}, denoted $obt(\overrightarrow{D})$ is the minimum $k$ such that $\overrightarrow{D}$ has a $k$-page oriented book embedding. From the definition of oriented book thickness and its requirements, for an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ with underlying graph $D$, we have that $bt(D) \le obt(\overrightarrow{D})$. The definitions for spine order, tight or loose arcs, and whether an arc covers a vertex in a particular oriented book embedding are all similar to their definitions for book embeddings in the unoriented case.
We call an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ a [*$k$-page critical oriented graph*]{} if $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) = k$, and for every arc $a \in A(\overrightarrow{D})$, we have that $obt(\overrightarrow{D} \setminus a) = k-1$. The class of all $k$-page critical oriented graphs is denoted $\mathcal{M}^k$.
Determining $\mathcal{M}^k$ for general $k$ is challenging; we narrow down the list of oriented graphs in $\mathcal{M}^k$ for small $k$. In Section 3 we show complete list for $\mathcal{M}^1$, and in Section 4 we discuss $\mathcal{M}^2$. For undirected graphs, there are exactly two $2$-page critical graphs, $K_4$ and $K_{2,3}$; however, in the oriented case is becomes more complicated. We show a complete list for $\mathcal{M}^2 \cap \mathcal{U}$, where $\mathcal{U}$ consists of all *strictly dicyclic oriented graphs*, that is, oriented graphs containing exactly one oriented cycle, which is a directed cycle. To prepare for the proofs in Section 4, we first discuss the oriented book embeddings of *oriented cycles* and *oriented trees* in Section 2.
Oriented Book Embeddings of Cycles and Trees
============================================
In this section we discuss the oriented book embeddings of two fundamental types of oriented graphs, oriented cycles and oriented trees. We will use these oriented graphs to construct strictly uni-dicyclic graphs in Section 4.
Undirected and Oriented Cycles
------------------------------
We now discuss oriented book embeddings of oriented cycles. We first discuss book embeddings of (undirected) cycles in Theorem \[cyclic\_on\_C\], and characterize the spine order of every $1$-page book embedding of a cycle. We then describe all possible $1$-page oriented book embeddings of directed cycles in Corollary \[directed cycle\].
Let $C$ be a cycle on $n$ vertices. By definition, there exists an isomorphism $\phi: [n] \rightarrow V(C)$ such that the edge set of $C$ consists of $\phi(i) \phi(i+1)$ for $i \in [n-1]$ and edge $\phi(1) \phi(n)$. For $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, a [*cyclic permutation*]{} of $V(C)$ is a mapping $\phi(i) \rightarrow \phi(i+k)$ $(mod$ $n)$, $i \in [n]$. We call each cyclic permutation of $V(C)$ a [*natural ordering*]{} of $V(C)$.
\[cyclic\_on\_C\] Let $C$ be a cycle having a $k$-page book embedding. Then $k$ is minimal if and only if the spine order is a natural ordering of $V(C)$.
Since $C$ is not a path, by Theorem \[BKthm\], $bt(C) \geq 1$ and since $C$ is outerplanar, $bt(C) \leq 1$. Therefore $k$ is minimal when $k=1$. We need only prove the necessary condition, as the sufficient condition is trivial.
To prove the necessary condition by contradiction, choose a counterexample, that is, suppose that there exists a 1-page book embedding of $C$ such that $(1)$ the spine order is not a natural ordering of $V(C)$; then there exists at least one pair of vertices, $\phi(i)$, $\phi(i+1)$ in $C$ that are not consecutive in the spine, implying that the edge $\phi(i) \phi(i+1)$ is a loose edge. Considering all such pairs, $(2)$ choose $i$ such that no other such pair exists between $\phi(i)$ and $\phi(i+1)$ in the spine. By $(1)$, there is at least one vertex $t$ embedded between $\phi(i)$ and $\phi(i+1)$ in the spine. Since $t$ is covered by the edge $\phi(i) \phi(i+1)$, by the planarity rule, vertex $t+1$ or vertex $t-1$ must also be covered by $\phi(i) \phi(i+1)$. If $\{t+1, t-1 \} = \{ \phi(i), \phi(i+1) \}$, then $n =3$; every spine order of three vertices is a natural ordering, and we obtain a contradiction. Therefore, either $t+1$ or $t-1$ is not in $\{ \phi(i), \phi(i+1) \}$. By continuing this logic for an arbitrary vertex $t$, every vertex except $\phi(i)$ and $\phi(i+1)$ is embedded between $\phi(i)$ and $\phi(i+1)$; otherwise, the planarity rule is violated. By $(2)$, the spine order must be a natural ordering of $V(C)$.
Corollary \[directed cycle\] follows from Theorem \[cyclic\_on\_C\] and provides the location of the arcs in a $1$-page oriented book embedding of a directed cycle.
\[directed cycle\] Let $\overrightarrow{D}_n$ be an $n$-dicycle. Then $\overrightarrow{D}_n$ has a $1$-page oriented book embedding if and only if the spine ordering is a natural ordering of $V(\overrightarrow{C})$ and every arc is tight, except the arc between the top vertex and bottom vertex in the spine.
We now show that every oriented cycle has a $1$-page oriented book embedding.
Let $\overrightarrow{C}$ be an oriented cycle. Then $obt(\overrightarrow{C}) =1$.
Let $C$ be the underlying graph of $\overrightarrow{C}$. Since $bt(C) \geq 1$, we have that $obt(\overrightarrow{C}) \geq 1$. To show that $obt(\overrightarrow{C}) \le 1$, embed the vertices into the spine so that the spine order is a natural ordering of $V(\overrightarrow{C})$, say $\phi(1), \phi(2),..., \phi(n)$. Embed the arc $a$ with endpoints $\phi(1)$,$\phi(n)$ into the page. For $1 < i \le n-1$, embed every arc having the same direction as $a$ into the page and embed each arc having the opposite direction of $a$ into the spine. Thus we obtain a 1-page oriented book embedding, and $obt(\overrightarrow{C}) \le 1$. Since we have shown that $1 \le obt(\overrightarrow{C}) \le 1$, we conclude that $obt(\overrightarrow{C}) = 1$.
Oriented Trees
--------------
We now discuss oriented book embeddings of oriented trees and oriented forests, and introduce a type of oriented tree, called a [*fountain tree*]{}, which will be utilized in Section 4. A [*tree*]{}, denoted $T$, is a connected graph having no cycle as a subgraph. An [*oriented tree*]{}, denoted $\overrightarrow{T}$, is an oriented graph whose underlying graph is a tree.
The authors in [@SQLptI], focusing on oriented graphs which contain no directed cycle, use a restricted definition of oriented book embeddings, requiring the direction of all arcs in every page to agree and such that no arc is embedded into the spine, i.e., each vertex *must* be loose in the embedding. They prove that every oriented tree has a $1$-page oriented book embedding such that an arbitrarily chosen vertex, called the *root* is uncovered. We translate their result below.
\[oriented tree\] $($Heath, Pemmaraju, and Trenk, $1999$ [@SQLptI] $)$ For every oriented tree $\overrightarrow{T}$ with arbitrarily chosen root $v$, there exists a spine order of $V(\overrightarrow{T})$ that yields a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{T}$ in which the root $v$ is uncovered, every vertex is loose, and the page is upwards.
The above result only proves existence. We give an algorithm, called the riented ree pine rder Algorithm, or OTSO Algorithm, that gives a spine order which yields a $1$-page oriented book embedding as described in Theorem \[oriented tree\]. For convenience, we will always assume the direction of the page to be upwards, unless otherwise noted. For an oriented tree $\overrightarrow{T}$, we can choose the root to be a sink in $\overrightarrow{T}$. The following lemma proves that, in a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{T}$, we can place the root so that it is the top vertex in the spine.
An oriented tree $\overrightarrow{T}$, an arbitrarily fixed vertex $x \in V(\overrightarrow{T})$, and two empty lists $L$ and $S$ A list $S$ that yields the spine order of a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{T}$ such that each vertex is loose in the embedding, the direction of all arcs agree, and $x$ is uncovered
[2]{}
Let $N^+(x) = \{u_1, u_2,...,u_n \}$ Add $u_1$ to the end of $L$ Add $u_1$ to the beginning of $S$
add $u_i$ to $L$ between $u_{i-1}$ and $x$ add $u_i$ to $S$ between $u_{i-1}$ and $x$
Let $N^-(x) = \{v_1, v_2,...,v_n \}$ Add $u_v$ to the end of $L$ Add $v_1$ to the end of $S$
add $v_i$ to $L$ between $v_{i-1}$ and $x$ add $v_i$ to $S$ between $v_{i-1}$ and $x$
\[tree\_sink\] If a vertex $x$ is a sink in $\overrightarrow{T}$ then there exists a spine order of $V(\overrightarrow{T})$ which yields a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{T}$ such that $x$ is the top vertex in the spine and each vertex is loose in the oriented book embedding.
Since $x$ is a sink, let $N(x)=N^-(x)= \{v_1,v_2,...,v_k \}$. Delete $x$ to obtain $k$ disconnected oriented trees, denoted $\overrightarrow{T_{v_i}}$, with root $v_i$, $1 \le i \le k$. Let $\beta_i$ be the spine order of $\overrightarrow{T_{v_i}}$ in the $1$-page oriented book embedding guaranteed by Theorem \[oriented tree\]. To obtain a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{T}$, embed the vertices into the spine with spine order $(x, \beta_1, \beta_2,...,\beta_k)$ such that $x$ is the top vertex in the spine. By Theorem \[oriented tree\], every arc of $\overrightarrow{T_{v_i}}$, $1 \le i \le k$, can be placed into the interior of the page such that $v_i$ is uncovered, each arc is upwards, and each vertex is loose. Then place each arc $(v_i,x)$ into the interior of the page, and since all arcs $(v_i,x)$ share $x$ as a common endpoint, they are nested and thus do not cross in the page. Therefore the statement holds.
Let $\overrightarrow{T}$ be an oriented tree with sink $x$. For convenience, we call an oriented book embedding, as described in Lemma \[tree\_sink\], a *sink oriented book embedding*; we abbreviate the spine order of such an embedding $(x;\alpha_x)$, such that $x$ is the top vertex in the spine, and $\alpha_x$ represents $( \beta_1, \beta_2,...,\beta_k)$. Similarly, we can construct a *source oriented book embedding*.
We are now prepared to define a sink fountain tree having an specific $1$-page oriented book embedding, which will be useful in Section 4. To do this, we use the standard dipath $\overrightarrow{P_n}$, with arcs $(i,i+1)$, $1 \le i \le n-1$, and $n$ oriented trees $\overrightarrow{T_{x_i}}$, $1 \le i \le n$, such that each $\overrightarrow{T_{x_i}}$ contains a sink $x_i$. By Lemma \[tree\_sink\], each $\overrightarrow{T_{x_i}}$ has a $1$-page sink oriented book embedding, such that $x_i$ is the top vertex in the spine, with spine order $(x_i, \alpha_i)$. Embed $V(\overrightarrow{P_n})$ and $V(\overrightarrow{T_{x_i}})$, $1 \le i \le n$, into the spine of a book with spine order $(1,2,...,n,(x_n; \alpha_n), (x_{n-1}; \alpha_{n-1}),...,(x_1; \alpha_1))$ such that $1$ is the top vertex in the spine. Place all arcs in $A(\overrightarrow{P_n})$ into the spine, and place all arcs in $A(\overrightarrow{T_{x_i}})$, $1 \le i \le n$, into the interior of the page. Therefore we have a $1$-page oriented book embedding $\overrightarrow{P_n} \cup \bigcup_{i=1}^n \overrightarrow{T_{x_i}}$. We now identify each $x_i$ in $\overrightarrow{T_{x_i}}$ with $i$ in $\overrightarrow{P_n}$, changing the spine order to $(x_1=1,x_2=2,...,x_n=n, \alpha_n, \alpha_{n-1},..., \alpha_1)$, as shown in Figure \[fig: fnt\_tree\] for $n=2$. This does not increase the number of pages required, since for $1 \le i \le n$, each set of arcs with head $x_i$ will be nested inside the set of arcs with head $x_{i-1}$. This yields an oriented tree containing an $n$-dipath. We call such an oriented tree a *sink fountain tree* and call the $1$-page oriented book embedding described above a *sink fountain oriented book embedding*. We denote the spine order of a such an embedding $(x_1; \gamma_{x_1})^f$, where $x_1$ is the top vertex in the spine and $\gamma_{x_1}$ represents $(x_2,...,x_n, \alpha_n, \alpha_{n-1},..., \alpha_1)$. Similarly, we can construct a *source fountain tree*.
![Constructing a sink fountain tree[]{data-label="fig: fnt_tree"}](fountain_tree_combo.eps)
$1$-page Critical Oriented Graphs
=================================
We now characterize the class, $\mathcal{M}^1$, of $1$-page critical oriented graphs. The only connected oriented graph on $n$ vertices which can be embedded into a $0$-page book, i.e., only the spine, is a directed path $\overrightarrow{P_n}$. Since $\overrightarrow{P_n}$ has exactly one source and exactly one sink, to find minimal obstructions, we consider oriented graphs having a source or sink of degree at least two. Thus we define $S^+$ to be the oriented $3$-path containing a source of degree two, and we define its converse $(S^+)^*$ to be $S^-$, which contains a sink of degree two. If an oriented graph is an oriented tree that is not an oriented path, it contains a vertex of degree greater than or equal to three and must also contain an oriented subgraph isomorphic to either $S^+$ or $S^-$; therefore, the only other oriented graphs to consider are oriented cycles. If an oriented cycle is not a directed cycle, it must contain an oriented subgraph that is isomorphic to either $S^+$ or $S^-$. While an $n$-dicycle, denoted $\overrightarrow{D}_n$, contains no $S^+$ or $S^-$, its oriented book thickness is one, which will be discussed more in Section 2. However, the deletion of any arc in $\overrightarrow{D}_n$ results in a dipath; therefore, $\overrightarrow{D}_n$, $n \geq 3$, is in $\mathcal{M}^1$, giving the following result.
\[M\_1\] $\mathcal{M}^1 = \{ S^+, S^-, \overrightarrow{D}_n \vert n \geq 3\}$.
Strictly Uni-dicyclic Critical Graphs
=====================================
In this section, we give the complete description for the class of *strictly uni-dicyclic graphs*, denoted $\mathcal{U}$, and discuss three subclasses, $\mathcal{I},\mathcal{T},\mathcal{R}$, of $\mathcal{U}$ that are $2$-page critical, which we use to characterize $\mathcal{M}^2 \cap \mathcal{U}$ in Theorem \[unicyclic\_list\].
Let $\overrightarrow{D}_n$, $n \geq 3$, be an $n$-dicycle, with arcs $(\phi(i),\phi(i+1))$, for $1 \le i \le n-1$, and arc $(\phi(n),\phi(1))$; then $\overrightarrow{D}_n$ is a member of $\mathcal{U}$ and we can construct every oriented graph in $\mathcal{U}$ as follows. Following the definition of $1$-sum for undirected graphs, found in [@sum], we define the [*$1$-sum*]{} of two oriented graphs $\overrightarrow{D}$, $\overrightarrow{D}'$, via $y$ and $y'$, to be the oriented graph obtained by identifying a vertex $y \in V(\overrightarrow{D})$ with a vertex $y' \in V(\overrightarrow{D}')$; we denote the resulting oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}(y) +_1 \overrightarrow{D'}(y')$. For convenience, we call a single vertex a *trivial oriented tree*. For $n$ distinct, possibly trivial, oriented trees $\overrightarrow{T_i}$, $1 \le i \le n$, we describe a member of $\mathcal{U}$ to be $\bigcup_{i=1}^n (\overrightarrow{D}_n(\phi(i)) +_1 \overrightarrow{T_i}(y_i))$, where $\phi(i) \in V(\overrightarrow{D}_n)$ and $y_i \in V(\overrightarrow{T_i})$. For an oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ in $\mathcal{U}$, if $\overrightarrow{T_i}$ is not a trivial oriented tree, we call the vertex $\phi(i)=y_i$ in $\overrightarrow{D}$ a *heavy vertex*. In fact, each member of $\mathcal{I}$, $\mathcal{T}$, and $\mathcal{R}$ have most three heavy vertices. The next result shows that if a strictly uni-dicyclic graph has exactly one heavy vertex, then its oriented book thickness is one.
\[dicycle\_1\_tree\] Let $\overrightarrow{D} \in \mathcal{U}$. If $\overrightarrow{D}$ has exactly one heavy vertex, then there exists a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{D}$ such that the page is upwards and the endpoints of the loose arc of $\overrightarrow{D_n}$ are half-loose in the embedding.
Let $\overrightarrow{D}_n$ be an $n$-dicycle with arcs $(\phi(i), \phi(i+1))$, for $1 \le i \le n-1$, and arc $(\phi(n),\phi(1))$. We may assume the heavy vertex in $\overrightarrow{D}$ is $\phi(1)$. Then there exists a non-trivial oriented tree $\overrightarrow{T}$, containing a vertex $y$, such that $\overrightarrow{D}= \overrightarrow{D_n}(\phi(1)) +_1 \overrightarrow{T}(y)$. Applying Theorem \[oriented tree\], embed $\overrightarrow{T}$ into a $1$-page book such that each vertex is loose and the direction of the page is upwards. Since $y= \phi(1)$ is loose in the spine, we can insert the directed path $\phi(1), \phi(2),...,\phi(n)$ into the spine below $y$, so that each arc of the dipath is downwards in the spine, and place the arc $(\phi(n),\phi(1))$ into the interior of the page. Thus we have a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{D}$ with $\phi(1)$ and $\phi(n)$ half-loose in the embedding.
We now define the first subclass of strictly uni-dicyclic graphs, $\mathcal{I}$, as follows. An oriented graph $\overrightarrow{D}$ is a member of $\mathcal{I}$ if $\overrightarrow{D}$ contains an $n$-dicycle, $\overrightarrow{D_n}$, with $n \geq 4$, and for two vertices $\phi(i), \phi(j) \in V(\overrightarrow{D_n})$ with $\vert i - j \vert > 1$, there exist two arcs $a_i,a_j \in A(\overrightarrow{D})$, having one endpoint of degree one and other endpoint $\phi(i), \phi(j)$, respectively, in $\overrightarrow{D_n}$, such that $\overrightarrow{D} = \overrightarrow{D_n} \cup \{a_i,a_j \}$. Three members of $\mathcal{I}$, with $n =4$, are shown in Figure \[fig:I\].
\[I>1\] If $\overrightarrow{D} \in \mathcal{I}$, then $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) > 1$.
Assume there exists a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{D}$. Since $\overrightarrow{D}$ contains dicycle, by Lemma \[directed cycle\], each vertex of $\overrightarrow{D}_n$ is tight in the embedding, except the endpoints of the loose arc. However $\phi(i)$ and $\phi(j)$ are not adjacent, thus at least one of $\{\phi(i),\phi(j)\}$, say $\phi(i)$, is covered by the loose arc of $\overrightarrow{D_n}$; let $u_i$ be the other endpoint of the $a_i$. Since $u_i$ must be located in the spine above all vertices of the dicycle, or below all vertices of the dicycle, $a_i$ crosses the loose arc of the dicycle, a contradiction to the planarity rule.
![Members of $\mathcal{I}$ (based on a $4$-dicycle)[]{data-label="fig:I"}](I_small.eps)
For members of the class $\mathcal{I}$, the length of the directed cycle is required to be at least four. Therefore, we define the class $\mathcal{T}$ to be the class of all oriented graphs $\overrightarrow{D}$ which contain a $3$-dicycle and such that there exist three arcs $a_1,a_2,a_3 \in A(\overrightarrow{D})$ having one endpoint of degree one and other endpoint $\phi(1), \phi(2), \phi(3)$, respectively, in $\overrightarrow{D_n}$, with $\overrightarrow{D} = \overrightarrow{D_n} \cup \{a_1,a_2,a_3 \}$. As with $\mathcal{I}$, the direction of each arc not contained in the directed cycle is not unique. Since the size of the dicycle in elements of $\mathcal{T}$ is restricted, we are able to easily list, in Figure \[fig:T\], the four members of $\mathcal{T}$.
\[T\] If $\overrightarrow{D} \in \mathcal{T}$, then $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) > 1$.
![Members of $\mathcal{T}$[]{data-label="fig:T"}](tripod_class.eps)
To introduce the last class, $\mathcal{R}$, of strictly uni-dicyclic graphs, we first define an oriented tree, called an *antler*, using the oriented paths $S^+, S^-,$ and a standard $j$-dipath $\overrightarrow{P_j}$. Let $s^+, s^-$ be the vertices of degree two in $S^+$, $S^-$, respectively. For an integer $j \geq 2$, we define a *positive $j$-antler*, $\overrightarrow{A}_j^+ := S^+(s^+) +_1 \overrightarrow{P_j}(j)$; we also define the positive $1$-antler $A^+_1 := S^+$. We define a *negative $j$-antler* $A^-_j$ to be the converse, $(A^+_j)^*$, of a positive $j$-antler. $A^+_3$ and $A^-_4$ can be seen in Figure \[fig:antler\]. It is important to note that if an oriented tree contains *no* positive antler, it is a negative fountain tree, and similarly, if an oriented tree contains *no* negative antler, it is a positive fountain tree.
![$A^+_3$ and $A^-_4$[]{data-label="fig:antler"}](antlers.eps)
We now define $\mathcal{R}$, using a positive antler $A^+_j$, a negative antler $A^-_k$, and the standard $n$-dicycle, $\overrightarrow{D_n}$. In $\overrightarrow{D_n}$, we choose an arbitrary arc $(\phi(i), \phi(i+1))$ and call it $(x,y)$. Let the oriented graph $\overrightarrow{R_n}(j^+) := A^+_j(1) +_1 \overrightarrow{D_n}(x)$; let the oriented graph $\overrightarrow{R_n}(j^+,k^-):= A^-_k(k) +_1 \overrightarrow{R_n}(j^+)(y)$. We then define the class $\mathcal{R}$ as $\mathcal{R} := \{ \overrightarrow{R_n}(j^+,k^-) : n,j,k \in \mathbb{Z}^+, n \geq 3 \}$. Figure \[fig:R\] depicts $\overrightarrow{R_3}(1^+,1^-)$, $\overrightarrow{R_3}(2^+,1^-)$, and $\overrightarrow{R_3}(2^+,2^-)$.
![Members of $\mathcal{R}$[]{data-label="fig:R"}](3deer.eps)
\[R\] Let $\overrightarrow{D} \in \mathcal{R}$. Then $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) > 1$.
Let $\overrightarrow{D} \in \mathcal{R}$. For a contradiction, consider a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{D}$. We will first prove the statement for $\overrightarrow{D}= \overrightarrow{R_n}(1^+,1^-)$. In $\overrightarrow{R_n}(1^+,1^-)$, we have that $s^+= x$ and $s^- = y$. Let $a_1, a_2$ be the sinks of the positive antler, and let $b_1, b_2$ be the sources of the negative antler. By Corollary \[directed cycle\], the spine order of the embedding must be a natural ordering of $V(\overrightarrow{D_n})$ and each arc except one, call it $l$, is tight in the embedding and each vertex in $V(\overrightarrow{D_n})$, except the endpoints of $l$, is covered by $l$ in the embedding. Therefore, no vertex contained in $V(\overrightarrow{D_n})$ can appear between two vertices of $\overrightarrow{D_n}$ in the spine and $l = (x,y)$; otherwise, one of $x$ or $y$, say $x$, would be covered by $l$ and the arcs $(x,a_1), (x,a_2)$ would cross $l$. We may assume then that $x$ is below $y$ in the spine, and the direction of the page is upwards. Both $a_1$ and $a_2$ cannot appear below $x$ in the spine, otherwise, say if $a_1$ is below $a_2$ is below $x$ in the spine, then we would have an upwards arc $(x,y)$ and a downwards arc $(x,a_1)$ in the interior of the page, a contradiction to the direction rule. Therefore, since each arc between $x$ and $y$ is tight, at least of $a_1,a_2$, say $a_2$ is above $y$ in the spine. Then $y$ is covered by $(x,a_2)$. Then both $b_1$ and $b_2$ must appear between $y$ and $a_2$ in the spine, thus either $(b_1, y)$ or $(b_2,y)$ is embedded into the page, as a downwards arc. However, since $(x,y)$ is an upwards arc, we obtain a contradiction and $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) > 1$. The proofs for other members of $\mathcal{R}$ are similar.
The next theorem shows that $\mathcal{M}^2 \cap \mathcal{U}$, the class of $2$-page critical, strictly uni-dicyclic graphs, is completely characterized by the three classes of $2$-page critical graphs.
\[unicyclic\_list\] Let $\overrightarrow{D} \in \mathcal{U}$. Then $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) \le 1$ if and only if $\overrightarrow{D}$ contains no member of $\mathcal{T}$, $\mathcal{I}$, or $\mathcal{R}$; in other words, $\mathcal{M}^2 \cap \mathcal{U} = \mathcal{T} \cup \mathcal{I} \cup \mathcal{R} $.
To prove the necessary condition, consider the contrapositive, which states: If $\overrightarrow{D}$ contains a member of $\mathcal{I}$, $\mathcal{T}$, or $\mathcal{R}$ then $obt(\overrightarrow{D}) > 1$. This is true by Corollary \[I>1\], Corollary \[T\], and Lemma \[R\]. To prove the sufficient condition, let $\overrightarrow{D}$ be a strictly uni-dicylic graph containing no member of $\mathcal{I}$, $\mathcal{T}$, or $\mathcal{R}$, and we now construct a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{D}$. Let $\overrightarrow{D}$ contain an $n$-dicycle $\overrightarrow{D}_n$. Since $\overrightarrow{D}$ contains no member of $\mathcal{T}$ or $\mathcal{I}$ as an oriented subgraph, $\overrightarrow{D_n}$ has at most two heavy vertices $x$ and $y$, such that the arc $(x,y) \in A(\overrightarrow{D_n})$.
Since $\overrightarrow{D}$ contains no member of $\mathcal{R}$, either $\overrightarrow{T_x}$ does not contain a positive antler, or $\overrightarrow{T_y}$ does not contain a negative antler. We may assume that $\overrightarrow{T_x}$ does not contain a positive antler. We first consider a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{D_n} \cup \overrightarrow{T_y}$, guaranteed by Lemma \[dicycle\_1\_tree\]. Since $x$ has degree two in $\overrightarrow{D_n} \cup \overrightarrow{T_y}$, $x$ is half-loose in the spine. We now put $\overrightarrow{T_x}$ back into $\overrightarrow{D}$. Since $\overrightarrow{T_x}$ contains no positive antler, $|N^+(x)| \le 1$. If $|N^+(x)| =0$, then $x$ is a sink, and by Lemma \[tree\_sink\], there is sink oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{T_x}$ with spine order $(x; \alpha_x)$. Thus place $\alpha_x$ below $x$ in the spine and we are done. If $|N^+(x)| =1$, then $\overrightarrow{T_x}$ must be a sink fountain tree, and there is a sink fountain oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{T_x}$ with spine order $(x; \gamma_{x})^f$. Thus place $\gamma_{x}$ below $x$ in the spine and we are done. In either case, we obtain a $1$-page oriented book embedding of $\overrightarrow{D}$. The case in which $\overrightarrow{T_y}$ does not contain a negative antler is similar.
[4]{}
Bernhart, F. and Kainen, P.C., The Book Thickness of a Graph, *J. Combin. Theory* **B** (1979), 320-331.
Heath, L., Pemmaraju, S., and Trenk, A., Stack and Queue Layouts of Directed Acyclic Graphs: Part I, *SIAM J. Comput.* **28** (1999), 1510-1539.
Kuratowski, K., Sur le probleme des courbes gauches en topologie, *Fund. Math.* **15** (1930), 271-283.
Robertson, N. and Seymour, P., Generalizing Kuratowski’s Theorem, *Congr. Numer.* **45** (1984), 129-138.
West, D., *Introduction to Graph Theory* Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001.
[^1]: Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, 71272, USA, Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, 71272, USA, Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the results of a photometric and spectroscopic survey of the globular cluster system of [NGC 5128]{}(Centaurus A), a galaxy whose proximity makes it an important target for early-type galaxy studies. We imaged three fields in [*UBVRI*]{} that extend 50 and 30 kpc along the major and minor axes, respectively. We used both color and size information to develop efficient selection criteria for differentiating between star clusters and foreground stars. In total, we obtained new velocities for 138 globular clusters, nearly tripling the number of known clusters, and bringing the confirmed total in [NGC 5128]{} to 215. We present a full catalog of all known GCs, with their positions, photometry, and velocities. In addition, we present catalogs of other objects observed, such as foreground stars, background galaxies, three Galactic white dwarfs, seven background QSOs, and 52 optical counterparts to known X-ray point sources. We also report an observation of the cluster G169, in which we confirm the existence of a bright emission line object. This object, however, is unlikely to be a planetary nebula, but may be a supernova remnant.'
author:
- 'Eric W. Peng, Holland C. Ford'
- 'Kenneth C. Freeman'
title: 'The Globular Cluster System of NGC 5128 I. Survey and Catalogs'
---
Introduction
============
Systems of globular clusters are a nearly ubiquitous feature of all nearby galaxies. Globular clusters (GCs), which are typically old with sub-solar metallicities, are the most visible remnants of intense star formation that occurred in a galaxy’s distant past. As single-age, single-metallicity stellar populations, GCs are ideal for studying the fossil remains of a galaxy’s star formation and metal-enrichment history.
The past decade has seen a rapid growth in the study of extragalactic GC systems. The availability of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in particular has enabled the study of GC systems in galaxies well beyond the Local Group. One of the more striking results of these studies is the frequency with which the metallicity distributions of these GC systems are bimodal (e.g. Larsen [et al. ]{}2001; Kundu & Whitmore 2001). Different scenarios of galaxy formation (or at least of globular cluster system formation) have been proposed or adapted to explain the observed metallicity distributions and other properties of GC systems: mergers of spiral galaxies (Ashman & Zepf 1992), multiple [*in situ*]{} star formation epochs (Forbes, Brodie, & Grillmair 1997), dissipationless hierarchical merging of protogalactic clumps (Côté, Marzke, & West 1998), and more generalized hierarchical merging (Beasley [et al. ]{}2002). The question that all of these scenarios address largely concerns the nature and time frame of merging or gas dissipation. Elements of all of these scenarios are supported by various studies of different facets of galaxy formation and evolution. For example, the supernova winds that some use to explain the suppression of star formation in dwarf galaxies at high redshift (Dekel & Silk 1986) has also been proposed as a possible mechanism for the truncation of metal-poor GC formation at early times (Beasley [et al. ]{}2002). Similarly, hierarchical merging models are often used to explain the mass assembly of present-day galaxies.
While most spheroid formation may have occurred in the past (at redshifts $z > 2$), present-day examples of recent merger remnants may give us a window onto this distant epoch. Locally, there is compelling evidence that some ellipticals have recently interacted or merged with another galaxy. Many ellipticals possess large-scale disks of gas and dust. Faint structure in the form of loops, shells, ripples, and tails are especially visible in the outer regions of ellipticals (Malin & Carter 1983), and are presumably the aftermaths of a recent interaction. One such galaxy, and perhaps the best candidate for study, is the nearby elliptical, [NGC 5128]{}. We have chosen to examine of the stellar content of [NGC 5128]{} in order to further elucidate its formation history and gain insight on the formation of other ellipticals. Our survey of the planetary nebula (PN) system in [NGC 5128]{}’s outer halo represents the kinematics of the field star population, and is presented in a separate paper (Peng, Ford, & Freeman 2004). In this paper, we describe our photometric and spectroscopic survey for globular clusters, and present the resulting catalogs of objects.
The GC system of [NGC 5128]{}
=============================
As the nearest large elliptical galaxy, and as a recent merger remnant, [NGC 5128]{} (also known as the radio source Centaurus A) is an obvious target for GC system studies. At a distance of 3.5 Mpc (Hui [et al. ]{}1993), [NGC 5128]{} is the only early-type member of the Centaurus group, an environment of lower density than galaxy clusters which harbor many of the luminous ellipticals previously studied. There is also much observational evidence that [NGC 5128]{}has experienced one or more major merging events, including a warped disk of gas and dust at its center, faint shells and extensions in its light profile (Malin 1978), and a young tidal stream in its halo (Peng, Ford, Freeman, & White 2002). It is also known to have a bimodal distribution of globular cluster metallicities (Zepf & Ashman 1993; Held [et al. ]{}1997). [NGC 5128]{} is by far the nearest active radio galaxy, and exhibits signatures of recent star formation where the radio jet has interacted with shells of (Graham 1998). For a recent and complete review of this galaxy, see Israel (1998). The combination of its proximity and post-merger state makes [NGC 5128]{} an excellent target for a detailed study.
[NGC 5128]{}’s peculiar appearance and nature has long led astronomers to believe that it is somehow unique. However, as Ebneter & Balick (1983) point out in their review, the galaxy’s proximity permits us to collect data more detailed than for most other galaxies, and thus makes it seem more peculiar. In fact, [NGC 5128]{} is rather typical member of the population of dusty elliptical galaxies and radio galaxies. Massive galaxies with old stellar populations and central dust obscuration are known to host radio sources in both the local universe and at redshifts out to and beyond $z\sim1$ (e.g. Zirm, Dickinson, & Dey 2003).
Some of the early work on extragalactic GCs was done in [NGC 5128]{}. Noting a slightly diffuse 17th magnitude object on photographic plates, Graham & Phillips (1980; GP80) obtained follow-up spectroscopy and identified the first GC in this galaxy. Five more GCs were confirmed by van den Bergh, Hesser, & G.Harris (1981; VHH81). Using [*UVR*]{} star counts, G.Harris, Hesser, H.Harris, & Curry (1984) estimated that the total cluster population in [NGC 5128]{} is 1200–1900. Subsequent spectroscopic work (Hesser, H.Harris, & G.Harris 1986 \[HHH86\]; Sharples 1988) increased the number of GCs with radial velocities. Finally, G.Harris [et al. ]{}(1992; HGHH92) obtained CCD photometry on the Washington system for 62 confirmed GCs. This study produced one of the best GC system metallicity distributions at the time, and was later cited by Zepf & Ashman (1993) as evidence for bimodality.
Since then, the relatively small fields of view of modern detectors have forced studies to concentrated on the inner regions of the [NGC 5128]{} GC system. Minniti [et al. ]{}(1996; MAGJM96) used infrared imaging to identify possible intermediate-age, metal-rich GCs. Holland, Côté, & Hesser (1999; HCH99) used HST WFPC2 imaging to identify spatially resolved GC candidates in the region near the dust lane. Rejkuba (2001) showed what is possible with excellent (06) seeing and 8-meter telescopes when she used imaging taken at the Very Large Telescope to define a sample of fainter GC candidates based on their resolved appearance in two $7\arcmin\times7\arcmin$ fields. Only with the availability of mosaic cameras are CCD studies now able to cover an area comparable to the photographic studies of the 1980s. Recent programs include this one and an imaging study using the Big Throughput Camera on the CTIO 4-meter (G.Harris & W.Harris 2003) with the Washington photometric system (Canterna 1976).
Unfortunately, [NGC 5128]{}’s nearness and relative proximity to the Galactic bulge and disk ($l=309\fdg5$, $b=+19.4$) conspire to make GC studies difficult. At the distance of [NGC 5128]{}, $1\arcmin = 1.02$ kpc, which means that [NGC 5128]{}’s halo subtends over two degrees of sky. The density of foreground stars is also high, such that even in the central regions, all but a few percent of objects within the magnitude range expected for [NGC 5128]{} GCs are actually stars in our own Milky Way. Spectroscopic follow-up to obtain radial velocities is the only way to confidently identify true GCs. It is only with the relatively recent development of wide-field imaging and spectroscopy that we have been able to substantially increase the sample of known GCs in [NGC 5128]{}. Despite these difficulties, the return on these investigations has the potential to be large — [NGC 5128]{} is the only large elliptical whose stellar populations can be studied in detail, and its proximity makes it the local benchmark for studies of more distant early-type galaxies.
A [*UBVRI*]{} Broadband\
Imaging Survey of NGC 5128
==========================
Observations
------------
[cccllllll]{} CTR & 13:25:30 & $-$43:01:33 & $37.6\times38.6$ & 3600 & 1500 & 1800 & 1000 & 1000\
& & & & 1.20 & 1.27 & 1.25 & 1.24 & 1.18\
NE & 13:26:46 & $-$42:28:25 & $36.0\times38.1$ & $3719^{b}$ & 1500 & 1800 & 1800 & 1500\
& & & & 1.38 & 1.32 & 1.21 & 1.04 & 1.26\
S & 13:25:27 & $-$43:26:30 & $37.2\times39.1$ & $3662^{b}$ & 1500 & 1800 & 1800 & $1608^{b}$\
& & & & 1.26 & 1.12 & 0.96 & 1.11 & 1.97\
We conducted our imaging survey with the Mosaic II optical CCD camera on the Blanco 4-meter telescope at Cerro Tololo Inter-American observatory (CTIO). We observed three fields with Mosaic II, which has $0\farcs26$ pixels and a 05 field-of-view. We imaged through the Johnson-Cousins [*UBVRI*]{} filters on the nights of 1–3 June 2000. These 38$\times$38 dithered fields are shown in Figure \[figure:gcfields\]. The center field (CTR) is centered on the galaxy. The northeast (NE) field was chosen to follow the faint halo light out along the major axis, while the south (S) field was chosen to avoid galactic cirrus and observe a large “sky” area, as determined from Malin’s deep photographic image (Malin 1978). The [*V*]{}-band image of each field is shown in Figures \[figure:GCctrV\], \[figure:GCneV\], and \[figure:GCsV\]. The total exposure times in [*UBVRI*]{} were 3600s, 1500s, 1800s, 1000s, and 1000s, respectively, for the CTR field. For the other two fields, we went slightly deeper in [*U*]{},[*R*]{}, and [*I*]{} with exposure times of 3900s, 1500s, 1800s, 1800s, and 1500s, respectively. We split our observations in each band into a series of five dithered exposures (six for [*U*]{} and [*I*]{} in the NE and S fields). Conditions were non-photometric on the first night, but were photometric for the remainder of the observing run. All images taken on the first night were calibrated by images taken on the subsequent nights. The seeing had a range of 1–2, with a median value of $1\farcs24$. For the image sets with some non-photometric data, we calculate the “effective” exposure time, which is the equivalent exposure time that would be necessary during photometric conditions to reach the same flux levels we measure in our images. This information is summarized in Table \[table:mosaicobs\].
Data Reduction
--------------
The CTIO Mosaic camera consists of eight $2048\times4096$ CCDs arranged in a configuration that produces a $8196\times8196$ pixel focal plane. We reduced the data using the IRAF[^1] tasks provided in the MSCRED package (Valdes 1998). These tools were specially designed for the reduction of mosaic CCD data. We applied standard techniques for CCD reduction, including overscan and bias subtraction, and flat-fielding. We took and used both dome, twilight, and night sky flats. We applied a sinc interpolation for astrometric regridding. The varying spatial scale in the field of view, where pixels farther from the image center subtend more sky, means that flat-fielding corrections overestimate the sensitivity of pixels at the field’s edge. The regridding process compensates for this effect and redistributes the flux properly.
Once images were regridded, we found it necessary to introduce another scaling correction. Due to either gain or linearity variations, the sky levels as traced across CCD boundaries were not continuous, having discontinuities of 0-3%. These were worst in the [*U*]{} and $B$ bands, especially for CCD 1 (the one in the lower left/southwestern corner). After determining that the bias levels could not have varied enough to cause these jumps, we decided to apply a scale factor correction to each CCD. While the presence of the galaxy makes it impossible to assume that the background is flat across the image, we can still assume that the background is continuous across the chip gaps. We made the assumption that CCD 2 is “truth” — this was the clear choice as most of our standard stars fell on CCD 2. While the halo (NE and S) fields required corrections in all filters, the CTR field only required corrections in the $U$ and $B$ band.
We independently checked the validity of these corrections by plotting the positions of stars in the various color-color diagrams, the “stellar locus”, for each chip assuming that the positon and tilt of the locus should not vary from chip to chip. Only with these corrections is the stellar locus seen to be identical in all chips. After implementing the CCD-dependent corrections, we median combined the dithered exposures for each field using 3-$\sigma$ rejection to create a final stacked image.
Photometric Solution
--------------------
We observed sixteen standard stars each night from Landolt (1992) to perform the [*UBVRI*]{} photometric calibration. Observations in [*U*]{} and [*I*]{}for the NE and S field were taken under slightly non-photometric conditions on the first night, but these were subsequently calibrated on the second night. The photometric conditions were similar on nights 2 and 3, allowing us to apply the average photometric coefficients from both nights to all exposures. We assumed the mean [*UBVRI*]{} extinctions for CTIO with values 0.55, 0.25, 0.14, 0.10, and 0.08 magnitudes at the zenith, respectively.
One issue to be wary of when using mosaic cameras is the possibility that the different CCDs will have significantly different zeropoints and color terms. The best way to test this is to measure the same set of standard stars on each CCD. This is extremely time-consuming, and was not practical with the Mosaic’s 2.5 minute read-out. Instead, we used nine standards on CCD2 to determine the zeropoint in each band, and assumed the CCD2 color terms measured by the CTIO staff. The intra-CCD zeropoint offsets were determined using the method described in the previous section.
Object Detection and Photometry {#section:detphot}
-------------------------------
We chose the widely used source detection program SExtractor (Bertin 1996) to create catalogs of objects in our three fields. SExtractor is well-designed for photometry of resolved objects on a variable background. This is the situation we face when we look for globular clusters superimposed on the smoothly variable galaxy light. We chose a mesh size (64 pixels or 167) for the background estimation algorithm that was large enough to not affect the photometry of unsaturated objects, but small enough to follow the shell structure of [NGC 5128]{} as well as subtract the wings of bright, saturated stars. The region in the central dust lane was too complex for reliable object detection and we ignored all objects detected there.
Photometry of all program field objects was done using a $3\arcsec$ diameter aperture. We corrected these measurements to $14\arcsec$ diameter apertures using the median growth curve of many bright, isolated stars. Aperture corrections were measure for each image so that seeing variations between images would not be an issue. We also examined the variation of the aperture correction as a function of spatial position in the image, and found that it was negligible for a $3\arcsec$ aperture. These corrections were typically on the order of 15%, or $-0.18$ mag. The $3\arcsec$ aperture was the best compromise between signal-to-noise, and the desire for the aperture correction to not vary significantly across the field-of-view. SExtractor detected objects on a summed $V+R$ image, and measured fluxes through the same apertures in all five bands.
Together in the three fields, we compiled a catalog of $56,674$ unique objects with good photometry—objects not corrupted by saturation, bleed trails, or edge effects—and $V<23$.
Comparison with Published Catalogs
----------------------------------
While there have been many published photometric studies of this region, one of the most useful comparisons is with the VLT measurements of probable GCs in Rejkuba (2001). There are 78 objects for comparison in $U$ and $V$, 75 of which we detect (the remaining three were likely too faint). The $V$ photometry is well-behaved, as the errors are small for both studies. The median offsets between the Rejkuba and Mosaic photometry are small ($\sim0.03$ mag), although the RMS scatter ($\sim0.27$ mag) is higher than expected by about a factor of two. The $U$ is less consistent because our Mosaic observations do not go as deep as the VLT data. There is a $\sim0.14$ mag offset between the two systems (our magnitudes are fainter), with $\sim0.3$ mag RMS scatter. If significant, this difference could be a result of slightly different calibrations or aperture corrections. Globular clusters at the distance of [NGC 5128]{} may also be slightly extended in appearance. Because our aperture corrections are derived from stellar profiles, we may underestimate the total flux of the more extended GCs by as much as $\sim0.1$ mag, although a more typical value would be $\sim0.06$ mag. However, this effect is much smaller on GC colors since the seeing did not vary much across most of our observations. Because the science goals of this study focused mostly on the relative colors of the GCs, we chose to defer a more precise treatment of GC light profiles to a later study.
[llcclcl]{} PN/GC & AAO/2dF & 120 & 400 & 1200B & 2.2 & 2001 Jan 20\
PN/GC & CTIO/Hydra & 40 & 130 & KPGL3 & 4.9 & 2001 Feb 18–20\
PN/GC & AAO/2dF & 120 & 400 & 1200V & 2.2 & 2002 Apr 4–6, 9–10\
Comparisons with the [*UBVR*]{} photoelectric photometry of Zickgraf [et al. ]{}(1990) show that our photometry is consistent with their published values. We also checked against the list of confirmed GCs in HGHH92 and other previous work. This sample is considerably brighter than that of Rejkuba (2001) and we detect all known GCs that are in our field of view.
Building a Catalog of Globular Clusters
=======================================
A Spectroscopic Survey
----------------------
Determining which of our detected objects are actually GCs in [NGC 5128]{} is a non-trivial task. While the total number of GCs in [NGC 5128]{} is estimated to be 1200–1900 (G.Harris [et al. ]{}1984), there are 17,407 unique objects in our catalog that fall in the magnitude range that corresponds to the bright half of the globular cluster luminosity function (GCLF) $14.0<V<20.5$. Our faint end cut off for spectroscopy is approximately the magnitude of the GCLF peak, yet we estimate that only 3–$6\%$ of objects in this magnitude range are GCs. With such a high level of contamination from foreground stars (background galaxies are not so important at these relatively bright magnitudes), it is difficult to know which objects are really GCs.
Some of the more extended GCs will be resolved in our ground-based imaging (at the distance of [NGC 5128]{}, $1\arcsec\approx17~$pc); W.Harris [et al. ]{}(2002) used HST imaging to determine that GCs in [NGC 5128]{} have characteristic half-light radii of $0\farcs3-1\farcs0$. While size and morphology can be used as leverage in selecting high-probability GCs, radial velocities are the best way to distinguish between GCs and foreground stars. The systemic velocity of [NGC 5128]{} is 541 [km s$^{-1}$]{} (Hui [et al. ]{}1995), which means that most GCs will have radial velocities larger than those of Galactic stars. The central stellar velocity dispersion of [NGC 5128]{} is $\sim140$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} (Wilkinson [et al. ]{}1986). Assuming that the GC system has a gaussian line-of-sight velocity distribution with a similar dispersion, introducing a velocity cutoff at $v_r>250$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} excludes only the lowest $1.9\%$ of the GC velocity distribution. The PN radial velocity distribution is consistent with this, as only eight of 780 PNe in [NGC 5128]{} ($1.0\%$) have $v_r < 250$ (Peng, Ford, & Freeman 2004). Even at this velocity cutoff, however, there is a chance that a few high-velocity Galactic halo stars will contaminate our sample. The sun’s direction of motion in the disk is generally away from [NGC 5128]{}, so the velocity conversion from the the Galactic standard of rest to the heliocentric frame is substantially positive ($+161$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}). Even so, only a small fraction of the Galactic halo star distribution presents any possible contamination.
Prior to this work, there were only 77 GCs with published velocities. These were from a series of papers (VHH81, HHH86, HGHH92), the latter of which included 32 velocities from the sample of Sharples (1988). A number of papers (MAGJM96, HCH99, Rejkuba 2001, W.Harris [et al. ]{}2002) subsequently published lists of probable GC candidates in small fields based on imaging data alone. However, it is important to obtain velocities to be more certain of the nature of these objects. Modern fiber spectrographs on southern telescopes, such as the 2-degree Field spectrograph (2dF) on the 3.9-meter Anglo-Australian Telescope, and the Hydra spectrograph on the CTIO Blanco 4-meter telescope, are well-suited to a radial velocity survey in the halo of [NGC 5128]{}.
Observations {#sec:gcobs_spec}
------------
We confirmed GCs and refined our target selection over the course of three spectroscopic observing runs. Our first and third runs were with 2dF. The first was in January 2001 during dark time, and the third was in April 2002 in gray time. The eponymous two degree diameter field of view of 2dF is filled with 400 fibers. Our second observing run was with the CTIO-Hydra spectrograph. Hydra is similar to 2dF, except that it has a smaller field of view ($40\arcmin$ diameter) and $\sim130$ fibers. These observing runs are listed in Table \[table:obsrun\_spec\]. In all of these runs, PNe were also targeted. In addition to our primary aim of discovering new GCs, we tried to confirm the nature of published high-probability GCs — the brighter candidates from MAGJM96, HCH99, and Rejkuba (2001). We also observed many of the HGHH92 GCs for consistency, and in some cases to get more accurate velocities.
These data were reduced using standard packages and techniques for fiber spectroscopy. Details of the reduction are given in a companion paper on the planetary nebula system of [NGC 5128]{} (Peng, Ford, & Freeman 2004). Unlike for PNe, we do not gain in S/N by going to higher dispersion. For 2dF observations with the 1200V grating ($2.2$ Å per resolution element), we subsequently smoothed our GC spectrum by a three pixel boxcar. The resulting resolution was comparable to our setup with Hydra and did not noticeably compromise our velocity accuracy. Sky-subtraction, which is not essential for PNe, was performed on the GC spectra.
Also unlike in the case of PNe, we performed radial velocity measurements on GCs using the Fourier cross-correlation method implemented in the [fxcor]{} task of the IRAF radial velocity package. During our CTIO-Hydra run, we observed the radial velocity standard HR 5196, which has a published velocity of $-39.598$ [km s$^{-1}$]{} (Skuljan, Hearnshaw, & Cottrell 2000), but stars are not always optimal templates for cross-correlating with globular clusters. We used HR 5196 to check the velocity of a high S/N Keck spectrum of an M31 GC, and we subsequently used this GC as our velocity template.
Target Selection: Morphology
----------------------------
Even with the 400 fibers on 2dF and the 130 fibers on Hydra, we cannot take a spectrum of every object in the expected magnitude range. Thus, it is important that we develop an efficient algorithm to select likely GCs. We developed our target selection algorithm using structural parameters and colors. With the best seeing in each field being nearly $1\arcsec$, it is possible to resolve some of the more extended GCs in our imaging. We use two structural parameters, sharpness and full-width at half maximum (FWHM), in conjunction with ellipticity to identify round, extended objects in our catalog. We define sharpness to be the ratio of flux in the brightest pixel to the “total” flux — that measured within the SExtractor automatic Kron aperture. This is essentially a difference of aperture magnitudes that measures the concentration of the object. This approach benefits from a nicely oversampled PSF (5 pixels per FWHM). Because the point spread function varies across the field-of-view, we normalized both sharpness and FWHM to the local value. Thus, objects that are extended have normalized sharpnesses less than unity, and normalized FWHMs greater than unity.
Figure \[figure:sharpFWHM\] shows plots of normalized sharpness versus normalized FWHM for the CTR field. The bottom plot is a zoomed-in version of the top. The black dots are objects in the CTR field with $V<20.5$ and $U<23$. Most of the objects cluster around (1,1), as we would expect for a sample dominated by stars. However, there is a fan of points toward lower sharpness and higher FWHM. Overplotted in red are [*all*]{} spectroscopically confirmed GCs, and in blue are all spectroscopically confirmed foreground stars. This is not the training set we had to work with initially, but we plot the end-product catalog for the purpose of demonstration. It is also important to remember that when we first decided on our cuts, we based our selection on the 63 HGHH92 GCs and some of the brighter high-probability GCs from Rejkuba (2001). We did not have a sample of confirmed foreground stars until after our first spectroscopic run. Results from each observing run were used to improve the selection for subsequent runs.
[ll|c|ccccc|c]{} AAO/2dF & 2001 Jan 20 & 120 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 28\
CTIO/Hydra & 2001 Feb 18–20 & 254 & 88 & 2 & 28 & 4 & 6 & 7\
AAO/2dF & 2002 Apr 4–6, 9–10 & 59 & 19 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 8\
The GCs are clearly in a locus offset from the stars. This morphological selection bias has been built into the sample—most known GCs in earlier work and our study were selected at least in part because of their spatial extent—yet it shows that at least some GCs can be separated from stars given the seeing in our images. Not all stars are concentrated at (1,1), as there is a tail of stars to higher FWHM. These stars, however, are typically sharper for their FWHM than are the GCs. Upon visual inspection, we found that the locus of sharp but extended points primarily consist of unresolved blends. One disadvantage of using SExtractor is that with only one iteration of object detection and no PSF subtraction, it cannot detect faint stars that are very close to brighter ones. The bottom plot illustrates more clearly how the loci of stars and GCs separate in sharpness at larger FWHM.
The lines in Figure \[figure:sharpFWHM\] denote the area within which we accepted an object as a GC candidate for our second and third spectroscopic runs (there was no sharpness/FWHM cut for the initial run). First, we exclude most of the stellar locus. The top line that asymptotes to a normalized sharpness of 0.6 excludes the most egregious blends from being targeted (although it may also exclude star-GC blends). While the GCs actually form a fairly tight sequence in this plot, we chose to be conservative and allow more stars into the selection area to increase our completeness. The last morphological cut was a relatively loose one that rejected all objects with ellipticities greater than 0.4. Almost all GCs have ellipticities less than 0.1, so this cut simply rejected obvious background galaxies, and also served to eliminate partially resolved pairs of objects.
Target Selection: Optical Colors
--------------------------------
In addition to selecting on size and shape, we instituted color cuts to increase our efficiency. Globular clusters are old, single-age stellar populations that have optical flux predominantly produced by stars from the main sequence turnoff to the red giant branch. The integrated colors of these stellar populations are produced by combinations of stars with types F through K (and maybe also A-type giants for GCs with blue horizontal branches). The result is that the spectral energy distribution of a GC is broader than that for any individual star. Hence, with a long enough wavelength baseline and sufficiently accurate photometry, we should be able to distinguish GCs from stars using colors alone.
Figure \[figure:colorselect\] shows a ([$U$–$V$]{})–([$V$–$I$]{}) color-color diagram—the combination of colors that offers the widest wavelength baseline for our data. The black dots are objects in our CTR field with $14<V<20.5$. The dense concentration of points outline the $UVI$ stellar locus. As in Figure \[figure:sharpFWHM\], all confirmed stars and GCs are overplotted as blue and red plus symbols, respectively. Although the division is not perfect, there is a clear separation between GCs and stars in $UVI$ color space—at a given [$U$–$V$]{}, GCs are redder in [$V$–$I$]{}. $U$-band photometry, though expensive, is valuable for the separation of GCs from stars.
Spectroscopic Yields
--------------------
The results of these three spectroscopic runs are summarized in Table \[table:gcresults\]. The total numbers of clusters listed will be larger than the numbers in the final catalog because some were observed in multiple runs. We took slightly different targeting strategies in each run. For the first 2dF observations, GC candidates were piggybacked onto observations of PNe. PNe had the highest priority while GC candidates were used to fill empty fibers in the uncrowded halo regions. Most of these candidates were in the NE field, and we used only broad color cuts, no morphology cuts, and a magnitude limit of $V<20$. This selection produced very few new GCs (only a 2% yield), because the color cut included a large portion of the stellar locus, and the candidates were restricted being the NE halo field where the density of GCs is low. Our three night Hydra run also combined PNe and GCs, although GCs received the higher priority. This time, we implemented a cut on normalized sharpness and FWHM, combined with a weak cut on color. Our third observing run was another where we targeted both PNe and GCs. For this fiber configuration, we implemented a combined $UVI$ and morphology cut, and also extended the magnitude ranges to $V<20.5$. The yield of new GCs was $\sim40$% for both of these runs, showing that careful selection criteria can increase efficiency by an order of magnitude. The results of our observing program are shown in the selection diagrams of Figures \[figure:sharpFWHM\] and \[figure:colorselect\].
Galaxy Background Subtraction
=============================
For the purposes of measuring line indices (and to a lesser extent, radial velocities), it is important to determine the fraction of light that went through the fiber that is from the targeted globular cluster. The nature of fiber spectra is such that background subtraction is not local. Typically, thirty or more sky fibers are placed at positions free of objects, and their spectra are combined to create a master sky spectrum. This spectrum is then scaled to each individual object spectrum, either using sky lines or measured throughput differences, and then subtracted. This approach works well (to within 1–2%) when the background is relatively constant. However, in the case of our observations around [NGC 5128]{}, the background in regions near the galaxy center is a spatially varying combination of the sky and the unresolved galaxy light. This is not a problem for slit spectra where the local background is determined for each object individually in spatially adjacent regions. This does become a problem for fiber spectra where no single composite sky spectrum is representative for the entire field of view. Since sky fibers are given lower priority and are often placed away from the galaxy center (where there is less crowding from program objects), sky fibers typically contain little galaxy light. Thus, the spectra of faint, centrally located GCs may have a significant contribution from the field light of the galaxy. For line index measurements in particular, it is important that these GCs have the galaxy contribution removed from their spectra.
With the GC fiber spectra alone, this would be a difficult problem. The many different aspects of our data set, however, permitted us to develop a workable solution. First, when creating the composite sky spectrum, we used only those sky spectra that showed no visible contribution from the galaxy so that it was pure sky. This was not a problem as, again, most sky fibers were placed well away from the bright parts of the galaxy. After sky subtraction, the reduced program spectra are some combination of cluster and galaxy. Using our imaging in the $B$ and $V$ bands, we measured the fraction of light down each fiber (2 diameter) that should belong to the galaxy. The distribution of this galaxy fraction for the Hydra-observed GCs is shown in Figure \[figure:gfrac\_hist\]. It is reassuring that most of the GCs have only a low level of galaxy contamination (median of 11%), and almost all have contamination lower than 50%.
In order to subtract the galaxy’s contribution to each spectrum, we created a template galaxy spectrum. By summing the sky fibers that have visible galaxy signal even when the master sky spectrum has been subtracted—those targeting “sky” regions toward the center of the galaxy—we obtained a high S/N galaxy composite. By scaling this composite to the galaxy fraction computed with the imaging data, we are able to remove the underlying galaxy contribution.
The last variable is the velocity and velocity dispersion of the galaxy at the location of each fiber. Because the rotation in the mean velocity field can cause the galaxy spectrum to shift by $\pm1.5$Å, it is important that the scaled spectrum be redshifted to the proper velocity before subtracting it. For this, we use the mean velocity of the planetary nebulae (PNe) at each fiber location (Peng, Ford, & Freeman 2004). Because PNe trace the kinematics of the old stellar population, and the field should be smoothly varying, this is a valid method of estimating the local mean velocity field. The velocity dispersion can be assumed to be constant for these purposes.
After redshifting and scaling the composite galaxy spectrum for each GC, we removed the bulk of the galaxy’s signature in each spectrum. While this technique removes zeroth order contributions from the galaxy, it can introduce small errors. If the seeing is different during the spectroscopic observing run than during the imaging, then the computed galaxy fraction will be slightly off. For example, if the seeing for the imaging was $1\farcs2$ but the seeing for spectroscopy was $1\farcs5$, then a GC with a calculated galaxy contamination of 11% will instead have a true contamination of 13% due to more of the GC light being outside the fiber aperture. Also, since the composite galaxy spectrum is a mixture of light from different regions in the galaxy, it does not take into account spatial variations in metallicity and age that may cause the background to vary. However, without a spectroscopic measurement of the local background, by either using slits or chopping to local sky, this is probably the best background subtraction we can achieve. Figure \[figure:pff\_gc-068\] shows an example of this subtraction in the $V=18.0$ cluster, pff\_gc-068, a case where the galaxy fraction is fairly high ($\sim0.3$). In addition, the galaxy fraction distribution (Figure \[figure:gfrac\_hist\]) shows that few GCs are like the example in Figure \[figure:pff\_gc-068\] and so this procedure is important for only a subset of GCs.
Over half of our spectroscopic sample with Mosaic photometry (136 GCs) was observed with CTIO/Hydra. This is the only observing run for which we obtained high signal-to-noise spectra of the galaxy and Lick/IDS standard stars. These spectra also had the largest wavelength coverage (3800-5500Å). Therefore, we only performed galaxy subtraction and line index measurements on the CTIO/Hydra sample. All Hydra spectra had their radial velocities re-measured after galaxy subtraction, but the changes were minimal — a few [km s$^{-1}$]{} at most.
Catalog
=======
The Globular Cluster Catalog {#sec:gccat}
----------------------------
The final globular cluster catalog contains 215 unique globular clusters in [NGC 5128]{} from various sources. Of these, 138 are newly confirmed GCs that have no velocities in the published literature. In each of our spectroscopic runs, we re-observed objects from previous runs to provide a consistent velocity zeropoint. We also re-observed GCs with published velocities (HGHH92) for comparison. These repeat observations are important for creating a consistent velocity catalog, and for quantifying our velocity errors. We present these data in Table \[table:gcrepeat\].
[lcccc]{} Hydra 2001 & 0 & 0 & N/A & N/A\
2dF 2001 & $2\pm15$ & 48 & 10 & 19.1\
2dF 2002 & $-14\pm10$ & 65 & 22 & 19.4\
HGHH92 & $-26\pm24$ & 85 & 12 & 18.6\
HGHH92 & $-26\pm14$ & 73 & 28 & 18.7\
We chose to compare all velocities to the Hydra observations, the only observing run for which we obtained a radial velocity standard. The offsets between Hydra and the two 2dF runs are negligible, and consistent with zero. The offset between our data and the published velocities in HGHH92 is approximately $-26$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. While the dispersion for these HGHH92 GCs is considerably higher, the offset is marginally significant. The dispersions for the repeat velocity data vary from 48–85 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. This can be explained by the data quality of the different repeat samples. The mean $V$-magnitude of the twelve overlap objects between the Hydra and 2001 2dF runs is 0.6 mag brighter than the mean $V$-magnitude of the overlap objects between Hydra and the 2002 2dF run. Many of the 2002 2dF observations were also taken during fairly bright moon. Assuming that the Hydra and 2dF observations have similar errors that add in quadrature, we derive a velocity error of 34 [km s$^{-1}$]{} for objects with $V<19$. This is consistent with the median velocity error of our sample as derived from the Fourier cross correlation technique. For fainter GCs, however, the velocity error can be as large as 70 [km s$^{-1}$]{}.
The large velocity dispersion between our data and the HGHH92 published velocities are not likely due to low S/N. The mean magnitudes of these overlap GCs are well in the high S/N regime. Given the accuracy of our other repeat measurements, it is likely that the intrinsic errors of the HGHH92 velocities are $\sim65$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Therefore, when incorporating the HGHH92 GCs into our final catalog, we always replace the published velocity with our own measurement if it exists. If we did not observe a given HGHH92 GC, then we use the published velocity with an offset of $-26$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}, as shown in Table \[table:gcrepeat\].
We visually evaluated the quality of each spectrum and radial velocity. For objects with multiple observations, we retained the velocity derived from the highest S/N spectrum. In cases where the S/N was comparable for all observations, we used the weighted mean of the observed values.
In Table \[table:gcv\], we present the final GC velocity catalog. For each object, we list its coordinates, [[*UBVRI*]{}]{} photometry (if it exists) and its final heliocentric radial velocity. Column 1 is the name of the object; Columns 2 and 3 are the RA and Dec coordinates in J2000.0 on the USNO-A2.0 astrometric reference frame; Column 4 is $R_p$, the projected radius in arc minutes; Columns 5 and 6 are $X$ and $Y$, [NGC 5128]{}-centric coordinates that are arc minutes along the photometric major and minor axes, respectively, where the major axis is taken to have a position angle of 35; Column 7 is the $V$ magnitude; Columns 8–11 are the , , , and [$V$–$I$]{} colors; Columns 12–16 are the associated photometric errors; Column 17 is . $V_{h}$, the heliocentric velocity; Column 18 is $V_{h,err}$, the error in the measured velocity, or if the velocity is from the literature, then we assume an error of 65 [km s$^{-1}$]{}; Column 19 is $E_{B-V}$, the reddening for each GC as derived from the maps of Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998). Column 20 is the “Run”, which designates during which observing run(s), if any, the object was observed, where the runs are numbered such that “1” is the 2dF 2001 run, “2” is the Hydra 2001 run, and “3” is the 2dF 2002 run.
We always give GCs the primary designation from the earliest publication in which it appears (except for GP80-1), and we have done our best to match duplicates. Rejkuba (2001) GCs are labeled by and “R”, then by a 1 or 2 depending on whether they were in her fields 1 or 2, then by the two digit number that she gave them. All GCs that have a VHH81 or HGHH designation had previously published velocities. All GCs with an HHH86 designation, except for HHH86-13 and HHH86-15, also had published velocities. The remaining GCs are newly confirmed. A few GCs have multiple names in the published literature. This is true for a few Rejkuba (2001) GC candidates, where R226 is HHH86-15, R123 is HHH86-38, R281 is HGHH-12. The GC from Graham & Phillips (1980) is also HGHH-07.
Figure \[figure:gcspatial\] shows the locations of all confirmed GCs with respect to the galaxy and the three Mosaic fields. While the farthest GCs are at projected radii greater than 40 kpc, slightly over half are contained within $2r_e$, where $r_e = 5.2$ kpc. The median projected radius of the GCs in our sample is $\sim9$ kpc.
Foreground and Background Objects
---------------------------------
Table \[table:fgs\] lists all confirmed foreground stars in the halo of [NGC 5128]{}. This table is included so that future astronomers looking for GCs in [NGC 5128]{} need not experience the disappointment of re-observing them. Note that while almost all observed Rejkuba (2001) candidates are true GCs, f1.gc-19 (R119) is actually a star. The column labels are the same as for Table \[table:gcv\], except that the columns containing $R_p$, $X$, and $Y$ are not included. The combined velocity distributions of these two samples is shown in Figure \[figure:gchists\_rv\].
We also list GC candidates that were neither GCs nor stars. This was the case for very few objects, but in some cases, candidates turned out to be background galaxies. These are listed in Table \[table:galx\]. Redshifts were determined from one or more spectral features such as \[\], \[\], or Ca H and K, and are good to within 0.01. Column labels are the same as for Table \[table:fgs\].
Matches with X-Ray Point Sources
--------------------------------
Using Chandra data, Kraft [et al. ]{}(2001) produced a list of 246 X-ray point sources within a couple effective radii in [NGC 5128]{}. Many X-ray point sources in old stellar populations have optical matches that are globular clusters (Kundu, Maccarone, & Zepf 2002), and it is believed that GCs may be the dominant sites for the formation of low-mass X-ray binaries. We present 52 optical matches to the Kraft [et al. ]{} catalog from our photometry. We matched objects within a $3\arcsec$ radius, that had $17<V<21.5$ and were not in the dust lane. Thirteen of these are known GCs, and the others are likely to also be GCs. The full list is presented in Table \[table:xraymatch\]. Column labels are the same as for Table \[table:fgs\] except that Column 1 contains the ID from Kraft [et al. ]{}(2003), Column 2 is the ID given from any previous GC survey, and we do not include columns for $R_p$, $X$, $Y$, $V_h$, or Run. Like others, we find that the optical counterparts to X-ray point sources are more likely to have colors consistent with metal-rich GCs than metal-poor GCs. A thorough analysis of the nature of the optical-X-ray sources in [NGC 5128]{}is presented with complementary data by Minniti [et al. ]{}(2003).
Serendipity: White Dwarfs and QSOs
----------------------------------
In addition to looking for old GCs, we used some fibers to specifically target blue objects in the [NGC 5128]{} field in the hopes of finding young clusters in the halo, like the one in the young tidal stream described in Peng, Ford, & Freeman (2002). We implemented a simple magnitude cut $V < 20.0$, and color cut $(B-V)_0 < 0.285$, assuming a foreground reddening $E(B-V) = 0.115$ mag (Schlegel [et al. ]{}1998). While we did not find any unambiguous young clusters in the halo, we did discover low-redshift emission-line galaxies, metal-poor dwarf stars, white dwarfs and QSOs. Three white dwarfs and seven QSOs are listed in Table \[table:blueobj\]. Columns are similar to Tables \[table:gcv\]–\[table:xraymatch\], except the redshift of QSOs is listed in Column 9. The white dwarfs were identified by their broad [H$\beta$]{} absorption, and the QSOs by their emission. Occasionally, intervening absorbers were visible blueward of the emission. None of these lines are likely to be Lyman-$\alpha$, because in all cases, there is detectable continuum blueward of the emission line. Redshifts were determined using the emission line, and are good to 0.05. Our relatively narrow wavelength range restricted us to identifying QSOs with redshifts around $z\sim0.7$. Although these QSOs are not especially bright ($V>19$), they seem to have smooth continua and may eventually be useful for probing the interstellar medium in the halo of [NGC 5128]{}.
The Reported Planetary Nebula in HGHH-G169
==========================================
In the course of obtaining spectroscopy for GCs in [NGC 5128]{}, Minniti & Rejkuba (2002, MR02) found that the GC HGHH-G169 had strong \[\] emission in its spectrum. They concluded that it was a planetary nebula within the GC—the first of its kind in an elliptical. PNe are extremely rare in Galactic globular clusters, and it would be exciting if more GC-associated PNe could be located in other galaxies.
During the course of our survey, we also observed HGHH-G169. Like MR02, we targeted it (in our 2001 2dF run) because it is listed in HGHH92. We also noticed strong \[\] emission in the GC spectrum, and thought it might be a PN. However, we were somewhat puzzled because both \[\] lines ($\lambda\lambda4959,5007$) are double-peaked, with the separation between the peaks being about 5Å (300 [km s$^{-1}$]{}). The \[\] region of the spectrum is shown in Figure \[figure:g169\].
We carefully checked the raw data to test the validity of this split. The split lines are seen in all five of the pre-combined frames, and the arc calibrations show only single peaks. Hence, we are convinced that this split is real. Moreover, it is unlikely that MR02 would have been able to resolve these lines. With the Boller and Chivens spectrograph on the Magellan Baade telescope, they likely had 6Å instrumental resolution. Our 2dF resolution was 2.2Å.
If we assume that the line splitting is due to seeing the front and back sides of an expanding shell (with an expansion velocity of 150 km/s), then it is unlikely that this object is a PNe. Planetary nebulae normally have expansion velocities of only a few tens of [km s$^{-1}$]{}. In addition, the spectrum displayed in MR02’s Figure 2 (top) shows hints of $\lambda5876$ and \[\]$\lambda6300$ emission. If these low-excitation lines are confirmed, then this object is unlikely to be a PN. We think that the different ionization states and the fast expansion velocity makes it possible that this is a supernova remnant, which would also be very interesting.
We also have ground-based \[\] narrow-band and continuum images of this region from the survey of H93. Despite its strong \[\] flux, this object would not have met H93’s or our selection criteria because we require that there be no detection in the continuum image; in this case, there is a bright GC visible in the off-band at that position. Upon close inspection, the source of the \[\] emission is offset by $\sim1\farcs4$ northeast of the center of HGHH-G169, which translates to a physical distance of 24 pc. While this is still close enough to be associated with HGHH-G169, the object would need to be toward the outskirts of the cluster.
Whether or not this object is a PN, it is still interesting and highlights the need to inspect GC spectra for other features. While some of the GCs near the dust lane have spectra that contain low excitation emission lines, this is likely to be due to the star formation that is ongoing in the region rather than from emission within the GC. None of our other spectra showed signs of having a planetary nebula. As MR02 discuss, these numbers are starting to place some statistically interesting constraints on the formation of PNe in globular clusters.
Summary
=======
We conducted an optical imaging and spectroscopic survey for globular clusters across $\sim 1\degr$ of sky around [NGC 5128]{}. Using [[*UBVRI*]{}]{}photometry, size, and morphological information, we developed an efficient algorithm for selecting likely GCs candidates for spectroscopic follow-up—a necessity given the large number of foreground stars. We obtained radial velocities for over 400 objects. Of these, we identified 102 previously unknown GCs, confirmed the nature of 24 GCs from Rejkuba (2001), 6 GCs from HCH99, 4 GCs from MAGJM96, and 2 from HHH86, providing 138 new GC velocities. We also obtained new velocities for 25 previously confirmed GCs from HGHH92 and HHH86. The total number of confirmed GCs in [NGC 5128]{} is now 215.
We present a spectrum of HGHH-G169, which shows an interesting split emission line feature. It is unlikely to be a planetary nebula, as MR02 suggest, but it could be a supernova remnant, and certainly merits a deeper spectrum.
E. W. P. acknowledges support from NSF grant AST 00-98566. H. C. F. acknowledges support from NASA contract NAS 5-32865 and NASA grant NAG 5-7697. We thank the staffs at CTIO and the AAO for their invaluable help during our observing runs. E. W. P.thanks Alan Uomoto and Christy Tremonti for useful discussions. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
Ashman, K. M. & Zepf, S. E. 1992, , 384, 50 Beasley, M. A., Baugh, C. M., Forbes, D. A., Sharples, R. M., & Frenk, C. S. 2002, , 333, 383 Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, , 117, 393 Canterna, R. 1976, , 81, 228 C[ô]{}t[é]{}, P., Marzke, R. O., & West, M. J. 1998, , 501, 554 Dekel, A. & Silk, J. 1986, , 303, 39 Ebneter, K. & Balick, B. 1983, , 95, 675 Forbes, D. A., Brodie, J. P., & Grillmair, C. J. 1997, , 113, 1652 Graham, J. A. 1998, , 502, 245 Graham, J. A. & Phillips, M. M. 1980, , 239, L97 \[GP80\] Harris, G. L. H., Hesser, J. E., Harris, H. C., & Curry, P. J. 1984, , 287, 175 Harris, G. L. H., Geisler, D., Harris, H. C., & Hesser, J. E. 1992, , 104, 613 \[HGHH92\] Harris, G. L. H. & Harris, W. E. 2000, , 120, 2423 \[HH00\] Harris, G. L. H. & Harris, W. E. 2003, submitted Harris, W. E., Harris, G. L. H., Holland, S. T., & McLaughlin, D. E. 2002, , 124, 1435 Held, E. V., Federici, L., Testa, V., & Cacciari, C. 1997, ASP Conf. Ser. 116: The Nature of Elliptical Galaxies; 2nd Stromlo Symposium, 500 Hesser, J. E., Harris, H. C., & Harris, G. L. H. 1986, , 303, L51 \[HHH86\] Hui, X., Ford, H. C., Ciardullo, R., & Jacoby, G. H. 1993, , 414, 463 Holland, S., C[\^ o]{}t[' e]{}, P., & Hesser, J. E. 1999, , 348, 418 \[HCH99\] Israel, F. P. 1998, , 8, 237 Kundu, A. & Whitmore, B. C. 2001, , 121, 2950 Kundu, A., Maccarone, T. J., & Zepf, S. E. 2002, , 574, L5 Landolt, A. U. 1992, , 104, 340 Larsen, S. S., Brodie, J. P., Huchra, J. P., Forbes, D. A., & Grillmair, C. J. 2001, , 121, 2974 Malin, D. F. 1978, , 276, 591 Malin, D. F. & Carter, D. 1983, , 274, 534 Malin, D. & Hadley, B. 1997, in “The Nature of Elliptical Galaxies; 2nd Stromlo Symposium. ASP Conference Series; Vol. 116; 1997; ed. M. Arnaboldi; G. S. Da Costa; and P. Saha (1997), p.460 Minniti, D., Alonso, M. V., Goudfrooij, P., Jablonka, P., & Meylan, G. 1996, , 467, 221 \[MAGJM96\] Minniti, D. & Rejkuba, M. 2002, , 575, L59 \[MR02\] Minniti, D., Rejkuba, M., Funes, J. G., & Akiyama, S. 2003, , submitted Peng, E. W., Ford, H. C., Freeman, K. C., & White, R. L. 2002, , 124, 3144 Peng, E. W., Ford, H. C., & Freeman, K. C. 2004, , 602, in press, astro-ph/0311236 Rejkuba, M. 2001, , 369, 812 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Sharples, R. 1988, IAU Symposium, 126, 545 Skuljan, J., Hearnshaw, J. B., & Cottrell, P. L. 2000, , 112, 966 van den Bergh, S., Hesser, J. E., & Harris, G. L. H. 1981, , 86, 24 \[VHH81\] Zepf, S. E. & Ashman, K. M. 1993, , 264, 611 Zickgraf, F., Humphreys, R. M., Graham, J. A., & Phillips, A. 1990, , 102, 920 Zirm, A. W., Dickinson, M., & Dey, A. 2003, , 585, 90
[lccrrrcccccccccccrcc]{} pff\_gc-001 & 13:23:49.62 & $-$43:14:32.0 & 22.38 & $ -21.290$ & $ 6.903$ & 18.91 & 0.47 & 1.01 & 0.55 & 1.31 & 0.09 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 722 & 52 & 0.14 & 2\
pff\_gc-002 & 13:23:59.51 & $-$43:17:29.1 & 22.96 & $ -22.660$ & $ 3.728$ & 19.55 & 0.27 & 0.88 & 0.53 & 1.11 & 0.07 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 623 & 52 & 0.14 & 2\
pff\_gc-003 & 13:24:03.23 & $-$43:28:13.9 & 31.19 & $ -31.047$ & $ -3.025$ & 19.31 & 0.21 & 0.87 & 0.51 & 1.09 & 0.15 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 697 & 23 & 0.13 & 3\
pff\_gc-004 & 13:24:03.74 & $-$43:35:53.4 & 38.00 & $ -37.248$ & $ -7.519$ & 20.01 & 0.28 & 0.83 & 0.52 & 1.09 & 0.28 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 546 & 45 & 0.13 & 3\
pff\_gc-005 & 13:24:18.92 & $-$43:14:30.1 & 18.36 & $ -18.185$ & $ 2.563$ & 20.29 & 0.58 & 1.02 & 0.58 & 1.22 & 0.18 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 756 & 34 & 0.14 & 3\
pff\_gc-006 & 13:24:23.72 & $-$43:07:52.1 & 13.51 & $ -12.260$ & $ 5.671$ & 19.22 & 0.21 & 0.78 & 0.52 & 1.02 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 641 & 41 & 0.13 & 2\
pff\_gc-007 & 13:24:24.15 & $-$42:54:20.6 & 13.45 & $ -1.160$ & $ 13.399$ & 20.12 & 0.69 & 1.04 & 0.59 & 1.30 & 0.17 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 612 & 28 & 0.13 & 3\
pff\_gc-008 & 13:24:29.20 & $-$43:21:56.5 & 23.42 & $ -23.188$ & $ -3.252$ & 19.94 & 0.47 & 0.99 & 0.54 & 1.19 & 0.35 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 451 & 43 & 0.14 & 3\
pff\_gc-009 & 13:24:31.35 & $-$43:11:26.7 & 14.59 & $ -14.382$ & $ 2.473$ & 19.77 & 0.23 & 0.81 & 0.52 & 1.07 & 0.07 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 657 & 46 & 0.13 & 2\
pff\_gc-010 & 13:24:33.09 & $-$43:18:44.8 & 20.27 & $ -20.169$ & $ -1.991$ & 19.68 & 0.09 & 0.68 & 0.42 & 0.85 & 0.06 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 344 & 58 & 0.13 & 2\
\[table:gcv\]
[lcccrrrrcccccrrc]{} pff\_fs-001 & 13:23:50.43 & $-$43:27:28.3 & 18.05 & 0.17 & 0.70 & 0.41 & 0.83 & 0.06 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $-93$ & $ 18$ & 2\
pff\_fs-002 & 13:23:50.74 & $-$43:35:02.6 & 19.28 & 0.71 & 1.10 & 0.65 & 1.47 & 0.32 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $-51$ & $ 31$ & 23\
pff\_fs-003 & 13:23:51.83 & $-$43:37:00.1 & 19.01 & 0.17 & 0.71 & 0.42 & 0.91 & 0.12 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $-44$ & $ 31$ & 3\
pff\_fs-004 & 13:23:52.56 & $-$42:42:33.5 & 19.72 & 0.19 & 0.67 & 0.68 & 1.43 & 0.10 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $ 71$ & $ 28$ & 3\
pff\_fs-005 & 13:23:54.36 & $-$42:48:17.7 & 19.42 & $-$0.09 & 0.70 & 0.34 & 0.92 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $200$ & $ 48$ & 3\
pff\_fs-006 & 13:23:55.77 & $-$43:13:15.2 & 20.15 & 0.99 & 1.23 & 0.76 & 1.52 & 0.24 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $-59$ & $ 26$ & 3\
pff\_fs-007 & 13:24:02.70 & $-$42:49:54.3 & 20.04 & 0.35 & 0.83 & 0.49 & 1.05 & 0.10 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $-84$ & $ 24$ & 3\
pff\_fs-008 & 13:24:02.76 & $-$43:30:15.5 & 18.18 & 0.24 & 0.83 & 0.53 & 1.13 & 0.07 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $-66$ & $ 18$ & 2\
pff\_fs-009 & 13:24:03.70 & $-$43:12:13.6 & 20.32 & 1.33 & 1.27 & 0.69 & 1.49 & 0.39 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $-45$ & $ 23$ & 3\
pff\_fs-010 & 13:24:03.81 & $-$43:28:05.9 & 19.40 & 1.19 & 1.23 & 0.72 & 1.42 & 0.52 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & $ -3$ & $ 24$ & 2\
\[table:fgs\]
[lcccrrrrccccccc]{} pff\_galx-001 & 13:24:44.24 & $-$43:14:36.2 & 20.42 & 0.32 & 1.48 & 0.64 & 1.35 & 0.87 & 0.08 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.19 & 3\
pff\_galx-002 & 13:25:29.61 & $-$42:29:28.0 & 19.82 & 0.54 & 1.52 & 0.69 & 1.47 & 0.52 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.15 & 3\
pff\_galx-003 & 13:26:15.68 & $-$42:37:36.0 & 19.91 & 0.08 & 0.53 & 0.39 & 0.77 & 0.18 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.06 & 2\
pff\_galx-004 & 13:26:29.07 & $-$42:31:38.0 & 18.85 & 0.44 & 0.92 & 0.54 & 1.00 & 0.14 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 1\
pff\_galx-005 & 13:26:35.24 & $-$42:34:32.8 & 19.47 & 0.61 & 1.60 & 0.73 & 1.44 & 0.46 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.21 & 3\
pff\_galx-006 & 13:26:46.04 & $-$42:55:07.9 & 19.09 & 0.23 & 1.00 & 0.64 & 1.26 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.10 & 2\
pff\_galx-007 & 13:26:47.88 & $-$42:35:36.6 & 20.14 & 0.15 & 0.92 & 0.60 & 1.33 & 0.33 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.16 & 3\
pff\_galx-008 & 13:26:59.27 & $-$42:17:53.9 & 20.26 & $-$0.02 & 0.57 & 0.33 & 0.70 & 0.21 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 2\
pff\_galx-009 & 13:27:08.48 & $-$42:25:40.6 & 19.48 & 0.66 & 1.80 & 0.77 & 1.57 & 0.64 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.22 & 3\
pff\_galx-010 & 13:27:09.92 & $-$42:57:08.7 & 18.98 & 0.16 & 0.74 & 0.52 & 1.09 & 0.19 & 0.06 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.07 & 2\
pff\_galx-011 & 13:27:24.01 & $-$42:43:26.9 & 18.68 & 0.55 & 1.35 & 0.69 & 1.40 & 0.18 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.09 & 2\
pff\_galx-012 & 13:27:55.02 & $-$42:09:21.0 & 19.28 & 0.27 & 0.76 & 0.50 & 0.61 & 0.21 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 1\
pff\_galx-013 & 13:27:55.94 & $-$42:12:46.9 & 19.90 & 0.45 & 1.43 & 0.64 & 1.37 & 0.46 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.15 & 3\
pff\_galx-014 & 13:28:04.56 & $-$42:13:14.9 & 19.69 & 0.11 & 0.82 & 0.56 & 1.14 & 0.18 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03 & 0.13 & 2\
\[table:galx\]
[llccrrrrrrrrrr]{} K-007 & & 13:24:58.17 & $-$43:09:49.19 & 20.54 & $-$0.53 & 0.45 & 0.21 & 0.59 & 0.07 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.04\
K-015 & HGHH-G176 & 13:25:03.12 & $-$42:56:25.07 & 18.93 & 0.54 & 1.01 & 0.61 & 1.26 & 0.09 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-022 & & 13:25:05.71 & $-$43:10:30.83 & 18.00 & 0.67 & 1.02 & 0.58 & 1.29 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-029 & & 13:25:09.19 & $-$42:58:59.19 & 17.71 & 0.48 & 0.94 & 0.58 & 1.16 & 0.08 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-030 & & 13:25:09.17 & $-$42:59:17.84 & 20.97 & $-$0.32 & 0.25 & 0.11 & 0.32 & 0.37 & 0.17 & 0.08 & 0.10 & 0.15\
K-033 & & 13:25:10.25 & $-$42:55:09.54 & 19.46 & 0.60 & 1.01 & 0.57 & 1.25 & 0.13 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-034 & & 13:25:10.27 & $-$42:53:33.13 & 17.80 & 0.55 & 0.99 & 0.54 & 1.25 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-037 & & 13:25:11.03 & $-$42:52:58.23 & 19.93 & 1.07 & 1.48 & 1.33 & 2.93 & 0.40 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-041 & & 13:25:11.98 & $-$42:57:13.32 & 19.09 & 0.29 & 0.87 & 0.53 & 1.11 & 0.09 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-047 & & 13:25:13.82 & $-$42:53:31.09 & 20.64 & $-$0.26 & 1.09 & 0.84 & 1.70 & 0.18 & 0.07 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03\
K-051 & & 13:25:14.25 & $-$43:07:23.60 & 19.55 & 0.64 & 1.07 & 0.65 & 1.34 & 0.18 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-060 & & 13:25:19.62 & $-$42:49:23.89 & 20.50 & $-$0.30 & 0.48 & 0.26 & 0.75 & 0.07 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03\
K-073 & & 13:25:22.67 & $-$42:55:01.63 & 21.11 & $-$0.51 & 0.59 & 0.32 & 0.72 & 0.15 & 0.08 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.05\
K-102 & & 13:25:27.98 & $-$43:04:02.22 & 19.18 & 0.66 & 1.06 & 0.61 & 1.28 & 0.56 & 0.11 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.04\
K-110 & & 13:25:29.10 & $-$43:07:46.22 & 21.23 & 0.83 & 1.32 & 0.72 & 1.50 & 1.12 & 0.16 & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.04\
K-116 & & 13:25:31.05 & $-$43:11:07.09 & 19.86 & $-$0.60 & 0.16 & 0.39 & 0.67 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-122 & & 13:25:32.16 & $-$43:10:40.95 & 19.21 & 0.79 & 0.97 & 0.58 & 1.06 & 0.11 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-127 & HGHH-G359 & 13:25:32.42 & $-$42:58:50.17 & 18.86 & 0.58 & 1.00 & 0.62 & 1.22 & 0.45 & 0.10 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.04\
K-130 & pff\_gc-056 & 13:25:32.80 & $-$42:56:24.43 & 18.64 & 0.19 & 0.79 & 0.48 & 1.00 & 0.06 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-131 & & 13:25:32.88 & $-$43:04:29.19 & 19.37 & 0.79 & 1.08 & 0.59 & 1.24 & 0.38 & 0.07 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03\
K-137 & & 13:25:33.58 & $-$43:12:40.42 & 19.75 & $-$0.17 & 0.51 & 0.49 & 1.13 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-140 & HGHH-G206 & 13:25:34.10 & $-$42:59:00.68 & 19.10 & 0.58 & 0.99 & 0.52 & 1.19 & 0.56 & 0.12 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.04\
K-141 & & 13:25:34.05 & $-$43:10:31.13 & 20.10 & $-$0.13 & 1.19 & 0.58 & 1.33 & 0.12 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-144 & & 13:25:35.16 & $-$42:53:00.96 & 20.25 & 0.79 & 1.06 & 0.62 & 1.31 & 0.33 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-147 & & 13:25:35.50 & $-$42:59:35.20 & 19.41 & 0.66 & 1.05 & 0.62 & 1.32 & 1.08 & 0.20 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.05\
K-156 & HGHH-G268 & 13:25:38.61 & $-$42:59:19.52 & 18.93 & 0.40 & 0.91 & 0.56 & 1.13 & 0.34 & 0.08 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.04\
K-159 & & 13:25:39.08 & $-$42:56:53.64 & 19.90 & $-$0.24 & 0.45 & 0.26 & 0.64 & 0.09 & 0.04 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.04\
K-163 & HHH86-18 & 13:25:39.88 & $-$43:05:01.91 & 17.53 & 0.38 & 0.89 & 0.56 & 1.10 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-170 & R202 & 13:25:42.00 & $-$43:10:42.21 & 19.26 & 0.27 & 0.81 & 0.54 & 1.05 & 0.06 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-172 & pff\_gc-062 & 13:25:43.23 & $-$42:58:37.39 & 19.42 & 0.67 & 1.04 & 0.59 & 1.24 & 0.34 & 0.06 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03\
K-182 & & 13:25:46.34 & $-$43:03:10.22 & 21.34 & 0.04 & 1.14 & 0.75 & 1.69 & 0.82 & 0.26 & 0.06 & 0.04 & 0.04\
K-184 & HGHH-G284 & 13:25:46.59 & $-$42:57:02.97 & 19.87 & 0.57 & 1.03 & 0.58 & 1.24 & 0.26 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-192 & & 13:25:48.71 & $-$43:03:23.41 & 18.72 & 1.27 & 1.24 & 0.69 & 1.31 & 0.25 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-197 & & 13:25:49.86 & $-$42:51:18.27 & 20.95 & 0.79 & 1.73 & 0.85 & 1.70 & 0.90 & 0.13 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03\
K-199 & HGHH-21 & 13:25:52.74 & $-$43:05:46.54 & 17.87 & 0.40 & 0.89 & 0.55 & 1.11 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-200 & & 13:25:53.63 & $-$43:01:32.98 & 19.01 & 1.00 & 1.43 & 0.86 & 1.68 & 0.39 & 0.05 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-201 & & 13:25:53.75 & $-$43:11:55.60 & 20.62 & $-$0.05 & 1.23 & 0.81 & 1.58 & 0.18 & 0.06 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-202 & HGHH-23 & 13:25:54.59 & $-$42:59:25.37 & 17.22 & 0.63 & 1.07 & 0.60 & 1.28 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-204 & & 13:25:55.13 & $-$43:01:18.29 & 21.37 & 0.33 & 0.49 & 0.34 & 0.64 & 0.64 & 0.16 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.10\
K-207 & & 13:25:56.87 & $-$43:00:44.40 & 20.58 & $-$0.60 & 0.46 & 0.37 & 0.95 & 0.10 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.04\
K-209 & & 13:25:57.42 & $-$42:53:41.60 & 19.14 & $-$0.46 & 0.31 & 0.44 & 0.80 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-213 & & 13:25:57.42 & $-$42:53:41.60 & 19.14 & $-$0.46 & 0.31 & 0.44 & 0.80 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-216 & & 13:25:58.71 & $-$43:04:30.71 & 19.02 & $-$0.25 & 0.24 & 0.20 & 0.53 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-217 & & 13:26:00.81 & $-$43:09:40.07 & 20.09 & 0.54 & 0.99 & 0.56 & 1.19 & 0.16 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-218 & & 13:26:01.12 & $-$43:05:29.24 & 20.89 & 1.00 & 1.62 & 1.21 & 2.67 & 1.07 & 0.13 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-220 & HGHH-07 & 13:26:05.41 & $-$42:56:32.38 & 17.17 & 0.33 & 0.87 & 0.54 & 1.08 & 0.03 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-223 & HGHH-37 & 13:26:10.58 & $-$42:53:42.68 & 18.43 & 0.48 & 0.95 & 0.56 & 1.17 & 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-224 & & 13:26:11.86 & $-$43:02:43.24 & 21.18 & $-$0.30 & 0.38 & 0.52 & 1.16 & 0.13 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.02 & 0.04\
K-230 & & 13:26:16.09 & $-$42:58:45.57 & 20.90 & 1.29 & 1.54 & 0.90 & 1.75 & 1.30 & 0.12 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03\
K-232 & & 13:26:16.09 & $-$42:58:45.57 & 20.90 & 1.29 & 1.54 & 0.90 & 1.75 & 1.30 & 0.12 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03\
K-233 & & 13:26:19.66 & $-$43:03:18.64 & 18.74 & 0.41 & 0.93 & 0.58 & 1.17 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.01 & 0.01 & 0.03\
K-235 & & 13:26:20.42 & $-$42:59:46.35 & 21.20 & $-$0.50 & 0.40 & 0.23 & 0.75 & 0.10 & 0.05 & 0.02 & 0.03 & 0.04\
[lcccrrrrc]{} pff\_wd-1 & 13:26:06.70 & $-$42:39:52.5 & 19.13 & $-$0.26 & 0.15 & $-$0.02 & $-$0.07 &\
pff\_wd-2 & 13:23:59.46 & $-$43:20:43.6 & 19.75 & $-$0.34 & 0.26 & 0.06 & 0.23 &\
pff\_wd-3 & 13:26:47.83 & $-$43:33:42.9 & 19.11 & $-$0.35 & 0.02 & $-$0.06 & $-$0.18 &\
pff\_qso-1 & 13:25:06.46 & $-$42:29:02.7 & 19.64 & $-$0.18 & 0.29 & 0.31 & 0.75 & 0.7\
pff\_qso-2 & 13:27:55.97 & $-$42:42:32.9 & 19.83 & $-$0.33 & 0.29 & 0.22 & 0.58 & 0.7\
pff\_qso-3 & 13:24:43.45 & $-$43:27:12.0 & 18.59 & $-$0.71 & 0.20 & 0.29 & 0.68 & 0.7\
pff\_qso-4 & 13:25:38.64 & $-$43:25:32.2 & 19.68 & $-$0.25 & 0.37 & 0.28 & 0.80 & 0.8\
pff\_qso-5 & 13:27:36.08 & $-$42:14:32.3 & 19.99 & $-$0.15 & 0.55 & 0.38 & 0.98 & 0.8\
pff\_qso-6 & 13:25:31.05 & $-$43:11:07.0 & 19.86 & $-$0.60 & 0.16 & 0.39 & 0.67 & 0.6\
pff\_qso-7 & 13:25:55.83 & $-$43:14:42.1 & 19.58 & $-$0.52 & 0.30 & 0.27 & 0.68 & 0.7\
[^1]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $m,n$ be positive integers and $w$ a multilinear commutator word. Assume that $G$ is a finite group having subgroups $G_1,\ldots,G_m$ whose union contains all $w$-values in $G$. Assume further that all elements of the subgroups $G_1,\ldots,G_m$ are $n$-Engel in $G$. It is shown that the verbal subgroup $w(G)$ is $s$-Engel for some $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded number $s$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Brasilia, 70910 Brasília DF, Brazil'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Federal University of Goiás, 75704-020 Catalão GO, Brazil'
author:
- Pavel Shumyatsky
- Danilo Silveira
title: On finite groups in which commutators are covered by Engel subgroups
---
Introduction
============
Given a group-word $w=w(x_1,\dots,x_k)$, we think of it primarily as a function of $k$ variables defined on any group $G$. We denote by $w(G)$ the verbal subgroup of $G$ corresponding to the word $w$, that is, the subgroup generated by the $w$-values in $G$. When the set of all $w$-values in $G$ is contained in a union of subgroups we wish to know whether the properties of the covering subgroups have impact on the structure of the verbal subgroup $w(G)$. The reader can consult the articles [@as; @surveyrendiconti; @DMS1; @DMS-revised; @PDM; @Snilp] for results on countable coverings of $w$-values in profinite groups.
The purpose of this paper is to prove the following result.
\[main\] Let $m,n$ be positive integers and $w$ a multilinear commutator word. Assume that $G$ is a finite group having subgroups $G_1,\ldots,G_m$ whose union contains all $w$-values in $G$. Assume further that all elements of the subgroups $G_1,\ldots,G_m$ are $n$-Engel in $G$. Then $w(G)$ is $s$-Engel for some $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded number $s$.
Here and throughout the article we use the expression “$\{a,b,\dots\}$-bounded” to abbreviate “bounded from above in terms of $a,b,\dots$ only”.
Recall that multilinear commutators are words which are obtained by nesting commutators, but using always different variables. More formally, the word $w(x) = x$ in one variable is a multilinear commutator; if $u$ and $v$ are multilinear commutators involving different variables then the word $w=[u,v]$ is a multilinear commutator, and all multilinear commutators are obtained in this way. The number of variables involved in a multilinear commutator $w$ is called the weight of $w$.
Also, recall that a group $G$ is called an Engel group if for every $x,y\in G$ the equation $[y,x,x,\dots,x]=1$ holds, where $x$ is repeated in the commutator sufficiently many times depending on $x$ and $y$. The long commutators $[y,x,\dots,x]$, where $x$ occurs $i$ times, are denoted by $[y,{}_i\,x]$. An element $x\in G$ is (left) $n$-Engel if $[y,{}_n\,x]=1$ for all $y\in G$. A group $G$ is $n$-Engel if $[y,{}_n\,x]=1$ for all $x,y\in G$. Currently, finite $n$-Engel groups are understood fairly well. A theorem of Baer says that finite Engel groups are nilpotent (see [@Rob Theorem 12.3.7]). More specific properties of finite $n$-Engel groups can be found for example in a theorem of Burns and Medvedev quoted as Theorem \[BM\] in Section 3 of this paper. The interested reader is refered to the survey [@trau] and references therein for further results on finite and residually finite Engel groups.
In the next section we describe the Lie-theoretic machinery that will be used in the proof of Theorem \[main\]. The proof of the theorem is given in Section 3.
Associating a Lie ring to a group
=================================
There are several well-known ways to associate a Lie ring to a group $G$ (see [@Huppert2; @Kh; @S2000]). For the reader’s convenience we will briefly describe the construction that we are using in the present paper.
A series of subgroups $$G=G_1\geq G_2\geq\cdots\eqno{(*)}$$ is called an $N$-series if it satisfies $[G_i,G_j]\leq G_{i+j}$ for all $i,j$. Obviously any $N$-series is central, i.e. $G_i/G_{i+1}\leq Z(G/G_{i+1})$ for any $i$. Given an $N$-series $(*)$, let $L^*(G)$ be the direct sum of the abelian groups $L_i^*=G_i/G_{i+1}$, written additively. Commutation in $G$ induces a binary operation $[,]$ in $L^*(G)$. For homogeneous elements $xG_{i+1}\in L_i^*,yG_{j+1}\in L_j^*$ the operation is defined by $$[xG_{i+1},yG_{j+1}]=[x,y]G_{i+j+1}\in L_{i+j}^*$$ and extended to arbitrary elements of $L^*(G)$ by linearity. It is easy to check that the operation is well-defined and that $L^*(G)$ with the operations $+$ and $[,]$ is a Lie ring.
In this paper we use the above construction in the cases where $(*)$ is either the lower central series of $G$ or the $p$-dimension central series, also known under the name of Zassenhaus-Jennings-Lazard series (see [@Huppert2 p. 250] for details). In the former case we denote the associated Lie ring by $L(G)$. In the latter case $L^*(G)$ can be viewed as a Lie algebra over the field with $p$ elements. We write $L_p(G)$ for the subalgebra generated by the first homogeneous component $G_1/G_2$. Usually nilpotency of $L^*(G)$ has strong effect on the structure of $G$. In particular, $L(G)$ is nilpotent of class $c$ if and only if the group $G$ is nilpotent of class $c$. Nilpotency of $L_p(G)$ also leads to strong conclusions about $G$. The proof of the following theorem can be found in [@KS].
\[finiteLazard\] Let $P$ be a $d$-generated finite $p$-group and suppose that $L_p(G)$ is nilpotent of class $c$. Then $P$ has a powerful characteristic subgroup of $\{p,c,d\}$-bounded index.
Recall that powerful $p$-groups were introduced by Lubotzky and Mann in [@luma]. They have many nice properties, some of which are listed in the next section.
Thus, criteria of nilpotency of Lie algebras provide effective tools for applications in group theory.
Let $X$ be a subset of a Lie algebra $L$. By a commutator in elements of $X$ we mean any element of $L$ that can be obtained as a Lie product of elements of $X$ with some system of brackets. If $x,y$ are elements of $L$, we define inductively $$[x,_0y]=x \text{ and } [x,_iy]=[[x,_{i-1}y],y]\text{ for all positive integers } i.$$ As usual, we say that an element $a\in L$ is ad-nilpotent if there exists a positive integer $n$ such that $[x,_na]=0$ for all $x\in L$. If $n$ is the least integer with the above property, then we say that $a$ is ad-nilpotent of index $n$.
The next theorem is a deep result of Zelmanov with many applications to group theory. It was announced by Zelmanov in [@Z1; @Z0]. A detailed proof was published in [@zenew].
\[Z1992\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra over a field and suppose that $L$ satisfies a polynomial identity. If $L$ can be generated by a finite set $X$ such that every commutator in elements of $X$ is ad-nilpotent, then $L$ is nilpotent.
Theorem \[Z1992\] admits the following quantitative version (see for instance [@KS]).
\[Z1\] Let $L$ be a Lie algebra over a field $K$. Assume that $L$ is generated by $m$ elements such that each commutator in the generators is ad-nilpotent of index at most $n$. Suppose that $L$ satisfies a polynomial identity $f\equiv 0$. Then $L$ is nilpotent of $\{f,K,m,n\}$-bounded class.
As usual, $\gamma_i(L)$ denotes the $i$th term of the lower central series of $L$. The following Lie-ring variation on the theme of Theorem \[Z1992\] is a particular case of [@shusa Proposition 2.6].
\[BazaRing\] Let $L$ be a Lie ring satisfying a polynomial identity $f\equiv 0$. Assume that $L$ is generated by $m$ elements such that every commutator in the generators is ad-nilpotent of index at most $n$. Then there exist positive integers $e$ and $c$ depending only on $f,m$ and $n$ such that $e\gamma_c(L)=0$.
Proof of the main theorem
=========================
It will be convenient first to prove Theorem \[main\] in the particular case where $w=\delta_k$ is a derived word. Recall that the derived words $\delta_k$, on $2^k$ variables, are defined recursively by
$\delta_0=x_1 \text { and } \delta_k=[\delta_{k-1}(x_1,\ldots,x_{2^{k-1}}),\delta_{k-1}(x_{2^{k-1}+1},\ldots,x_{2^{k}})]$ for $k\geq 1$.
The verbal subgroup corresponding to the word $\delta_k$ in a group $G$ is the familiar $k$th term of the derived series of $G$ denoted by $G^{(k)}$.
\[delta\] Let $m,n,k$ be positive integers, and let $G$ be a finite group with subgroups $G_1,\ldots,G_m$ whose union contains all $\delta_k$-values in $G$. If all elements of the subgroups $G_1,\ldots,G_m$ are $n$-Engel in $G$, then $G^{(k)}$ is $s$-Engel for some $\{k,m,n\}$-bounded number $s$.
A subset $X$ of a group $G$ is called commutator-closed if $[x,y]\in X$ whenever $x,y\in X$. The fact that in any group the set of all $\delta_k$-values is commutator-closed will be used without explicit references.
The proof of Lemma \[delta\] will require the following two lemmas which were obtained in [@as Lemma 3.1] and [@shusa 4.1], respectively.
\[lemmaSA\] Let $G$ be a nilpotent group generated by a commutator-closed subset $X$ which is contained in a union of finitely many subgroups $G_1,G_2,\ldots,G_m$. Then $G=G_1G_2\cdots G_m$.
\[gru\] Let $G$ be a group generated by $m$ elements which are $n$-Engel. If $G$ is soluble with derived length $d$, then $G$ is nilpotent of $\{d, m, n\}$-bounded class.
The proof of Lemma \[delta\] requires the concept of powerful $p$-groups. A finite $p$-group $P$ is said to be powerful if and only if $[P,P]\leq P^p$ for $p\neq 2$ (or $[P,P]\leq P^{4}$ for $p=2$), where $P^{i}$ denotes the subgroup of $P$ generated by all $i$th powers. If $P$ is a powerful $p$-group, then the subgroups $\gamma_{i}(P), P^{(i)}$ and $P^{i}$ are also powerful. Moreover, for given positive integers $n_1,\ldots,n_j$, it follows, by repeated applications of [@luma Propositions 1.6 and 4.1.6], that $$[P^{n_1},\ldots,P^{n_j}]\leq \gamma_j(P)^{n_{1}\cdots n_j}.$$ Furthermore if a powerful $p$-group $P$ is generated by $d$ elements, then any subgroup of $P$ can be generated by at most $d$ elements and $P$ is a product of $d$ cyclic subgroups. For more details we refer the reader to [@Kh Chapter 11].
By the hypothesis, each $\delta_k$-value is $n$-Engel in $G$. Hence, Baer’s theorem [@Rob Theorem 12.3.7] implies that $G^{(k)}$ is nilpotent. Replacing if necessary $G_i$ by $G_i\cap G^{(k)}$, we can assume that all subgroups $G_i$ are contained in $G^{(k)}$. Then, by Lemma \[lemmaSA\], $G^{(k)}=G_1G_2\cdots G_m$.
Choose arbitrary elements $a,b\in G^{(k)}$. It is sufficient to show that the subgroup $\langle a,b\rangle$ is nilpotent of $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded class. Write $a=a_1\cdots a_m$ and $b=b_1\cdots b_m$, where $a_i$ and $b_i$ belong to $G_i$. Let $H$ be the subgroup generated by the elements $a_i, b_i$ for $i=1,\ldots, m.$ Since the subgroup $\langle a,b\rangle$ is contained in $H$, it is enough to show that $H$ is nilpotent of $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded class. Observe that the generators $a_i,b_i$ of $H$ are $n$-Engel elements. Thus, in view of Lemma \[gru\], it is sufficient to prove that $H$ has $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded derived length. Since $H$ is nilpotent, we need to show that each Sylow $p$-subgroup $P$ of $H$ has $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded derived length.
Obviously, $P$ can be generated by 2$m$ elements each of which is $n$-Engel. Set $R=P^{(k)}$. We will now prove that $R$ can be generated by $\{m,n,k\}$-boundedly many, say $r$, elements. Note that by Burnside Basis Theorem [@Rob Theorem 5.3.2], it is sufficient to show that the Frattini quotient $R/\Phi(R)$ has $\{m,n,k\}$-boundedly many generators. The quotient $P/\Phi(R)$ has derived length at most $k+1$. Thus, Lemma \[gru\] implies that $P/\Phi(R)$ has $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded nilpotency class. It follows that $R/\Phi(R)$ can be generated with $\{m,n,k\}$-boundedly many elements. This is also true for $R$.
Next, we will show that $R$ has $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded derived length. By the Burnside Basis Theorem, $R$ is generated by $r$ $\delta_k$-values which are $n$-Engel elements. Let $L_1=L(R)$ be the Lie ring associated to $R$ using the lower central series. The proof of [@WZ Theorem 1] shows that since $R$ satisfies the identity $[y,_n\delta_k(x_1,\ldots,x_{2^k})]\equiv1$, the Lie ring $L_1$ satisfies the linearized version of the identity $[y,_n\delta_k(x_1,\ldots,x_{2^k})]\equiv0$. Further, each commutator in the generators of $L_1$ corresponding to $\delta_k$-values in $R$ is ad-nilpotent of index at most $n$. By Theorem \[BazaRing\], there exist positive integers $e$ and $c$, depending only on $k,m$ and $n$, such that $e\gamma_c(L_1) = 0$. If $p$ is not a divisor of $e$, we have $\gamma_c(L_1) = 0$ and so the group $R$ is nilpotent of class at most $c-1$. In what follows we assume that $p$ is a divisor of $e$. Note that in this case $p$ is bounded in terms of $k,m$ and $n$.
Let $L_2=L_p(R)$ be the Lie algebra associated to $R$ using the $p$-dimensional series. Applying Theorem \[Z1\] we deduce that $L_2$ is nilpotent with $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded nilpotency class. Hence, by Theorem \[finiteLazard\], $R$ has a powerful subgroup $N$ of $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded index. It is now sufficient to show that $N$ has $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded derived length.
Since the index of $N$ in $R$ is $\{m,n,k\}$-bounded, it follows that $N$ can be generated with $\{m,n,k\}$-boundedly many elements, say $t$. Taking into account that $N$ is powerful, we deduce that all subgroups of $N$ can be generated by at most $t$ elements, and the $k$th derived subgroup $N^{(k)}$ is also powerful. We now look at the Lie ring $L(N^{(k)})$ associated to $N^{(k)}$.
By Theorem \[BazaRing\], there exist positive integers $e_1,c_1$ depending only on $k,m$ and $n$, such that $e_1\gamma_{c_1}(L(N^{(k)})) = 0$. Since $P$ is a $p$-group, we can assume that $e_1$ is a $p$-power. Set $R_1=(N^{(k)})^{e_1^{2^k}}=(N^{e_1})^{(k)}$.
Note that if $p\neq 2$, then $$[R_1,R_1]\leq [N^{(k)},N^{(k)}]^{e_1^{2^k}e_1^{2^k}}\leq (N^{(k)})^{pe_1^{2^k}e_1^{2^k}}=R_1^{pe_1^{2^k}}.$$ If $p=2$, then we have $$[R_1,R_1]\leq R_1^{4e_1^{2^k}}.$$
Since $e_1\gamma_{c_1}(L(R_1)) = 0$, we deduce that $\gamma_{c_1}(R_1)^{e_1}\leq \gamma_{c_1+1}(R_1)$. Taking into account that $R_1$ is powerful, if $p\neq2$ we obtain that $$\gamma_{c_1}(R_1)^{e_1}\leq \gamma_{c_1+1}(R_1)=[R'_1,_{c_1-1}R_1]\leq [R_1^{pe_1^{2^k}},_{c_1-1}R_1]\leq \gamma_{c_1}(R_1)^{pe_1^{2^k}}$$ If $p=2$, we obtain that $$\gamma_{c_1}(R_1)^{e_1}\leq\gamma_{c_1}(R_1)^{4e_1^{2^k}}.$$ Hence, $\gamma_{c_1}(R_1)^{e_1}=1$. Since $\gamma_{c_1}(R_1)$ is powerful and generated by at most $t$ elements, we conclude that $\gamma_{c_1}(R_1)$ is a product of at most $t$ cyclic subgroups. Hence the order of $\gamma_{c_1}(R_1)$ is at most $e_1^t$. It follows that the derived length of $R_1$ is $\{k,m,n\}$-bounded. Recall that $N^{(k)}$ is a powerful $p$-group and $R_1 =(N^{(k)})^{e_1^{2^k}}$. It follows that the derived length of $N^{(k)}$ is $\{k,m,n\}$-bounded. Hence, the derived length of $P$ is $\{k,m,n\}$-bounded, as required. The proof is now complete.
The next lemma is well-known (see for example [@S-outer Lemma 4.1] for a proof).
\[delta-outer\] Let $G$ be a group and $w$ a multilinear commutator word of weight $k$. Then every $\delta_k$-value in $G$ is a $w$-value.
The proof of Theorem \[main\] will require the following result, due to Burns and Medvedev [@BM].
\[BM\] Let $n$ be a positive integer. There exist constants $c$ and $e$ depending only on $n$ such that if $G$ is a finite $n$-Engel group, then the exponent of $\gamma_c(G)$ divides $e$.
Another useful result which we will need is the next theorem [@FAM Theorem B].
\[FAM\] Let $w$ be a multilinear commutator word, and let $G$ be a soluble group. Then there exists a series of subgroups from 1 to $w(G)$ such that:
- all subgroups of the series are normal in $G$;
- every section of the series is abelian and can be generated by $w$-values all of whose powers are also $w$-values.
Furthermore, the length of this series only depends on the word $w$ and on the derived length of $G$.
\[cccc\] Assume the hypotheses of Theorem \[main\] and suppose additionally that $G$ is soluble with derived length $k$. Then each element of $w(G)$ can be written as a product of $\{k,m\}$-boundedly many elements from the subgroups $G_1,\dots,G_m$.
Let $1=A_0\leq A_1\leq\dots\leq A_u=w(G)$ be a series as in Theorem \[FAM\]. Arguing by induction on $u$ it is sufficient to show that each element of $A_1$ can be written as a product of $\{k,m\}$-boundedly many elements from the subgroups $G_1,\dots,G_m$. Since $A_1$ is abelian and generated by $w$-values each of which lies in some $G_i$, we deduce that $A_1$ is the product of subgroups of the form $A_1\cap G_i$. The result follows.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem \[main\].
Recall that $w$ is a multilinear commutator word. Since each $w$-value in $G$ is $n$-Engel, Baer’s theorem implies that the verbal subgroup $w(G)$ is nilpotent. Let $d$ be the weight of the word $w$. Combining Lemmas \[delta-outer\] and \[delta\] we deduce that $G^{(d)}$ is $u$-Engel for some $\{m,n,d\}$-bounded number $u$. Theorem \[BM\] shows that there exists an $\{m,n,d\}$-bounded number $c$ such that $\gamma_c(G^{(d)})$ has $\{m,n,d\}$-bounded exponent. It follows that there is an $\{m,n,d\}$-bounded number $k$ such that $M=G^{(k)}$ has $\{m,n,d\}$-bounded exponent.
Choose arbitrary elements $a,b\in w(G)$. We will show that the subgroup $\langle a,b\rangle$ is nilpotent of $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded class. Corollary \[cccc\] shows that any element in $w(G)/M$ can be written as a product of $\{m,n,w\}$-boundedly many, say $r$, $w$-values. Thus, we can write $a=a_1\cdots a_rm_1$ and $b=b_1\cdots b_rm_2$, where $a_i,b_i$ are $w$-values for $i=1,\ldots,r$ and $m_1,m_2$ belong to $M$. Let $H$ be the subgroup generated by all these elements, that is, $$H=\langle a_1,\ldots,a_r,b_1,\ldots,b_r,m_1,m_2\rangle.$$ Note that the subgroup $\langle a,b\rangle$ is contained in $H$, and therefore it is sufficient to show that $H$ is nilpotent of $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded class.
Set $N=M\cap H$ and let $\bar{H}$ be the quotient group $H/\Phi(N)$. Note that the image of $N$ in $\bar{H}$ is an abelian group, and so the images of $m_1,m_2$ in $\bar{H}$ are 2-Engel. Note also that the derived length of $\bar{H}$ is at most $k+1$. Lemma \[gru\] yields that the nilpotency class of $\bar{H}$ is $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded. Thus, we get that the image of $N$ in $\bar{H}$ has $\{m,n,w\}$-boundedly many generators. Of course, this is true also for $N$. Recall that the exponent of $N$ is $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded, and so we obtain from the positive solution of the restricted Burnside problem [@Z1; @Z0] that the order of $N$ is $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded. Since $H$ is nilpotent, there is an $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded number $t$ such that $N$ is contained in the $t$th term $Z_t(H)$ of the upper central series of $H$. Consequently $H$ is nilpotent of $\{m,n,w\}$-bounded class, as required. The proof is now complete.
[99]{}
C. Acciarri, P. Shumyatsky, On profinite groups in with commutators are covered by finitely many subgroups, [*Math. Z.* ]{} [**274**]{} (2013) 239–248.
C. Acciarri and P. Shumyatsky, Coverings of commutators in profinite groups, Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova [**137**]{} (2017) 237–257.
R.G. Burns, Y. Medvedev, A note on Engel groups and local nilpotence, [*J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A*]{}, [**64**]{} (1998) 92–100.
E. Detomi, M. Morigi and P. Shumyatsky, On countable coverings of word values in profinite groups, J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**219**]{} (2015) 1020–1030.
E. Detomi, M. Morigi and P. Shumyatsky, On groups covered by locally nilpotent subgroups, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) [**196**]{} (2017) 1525–1535.
E. Detomi, M. Morigi, P. Shumyatsky, On groups covered by locally nilpotent subgroups, [*Israel J. Math.*]{} [**226**]{} (2018) 993–1008.
G. A. Fernández-Alcober, M. Morigi, Outer commutator words are uniformly concise, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**82**]{} (2010) 581–595.
B. Huppert, N. Blackburn, [*Finite Groups II*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1982).
E.I. Khukhro, [*$p$-Automorphisms of Finite $p$-Groups*]{}, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series **246**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.
E.I. Khukhro, P. Shumyatsky, Bounding the exponent of a finite group with automorphisms, [*J. Algebra*]{} **212** (1999) 363–374.
A. Lubotzky, A. Mann, Powerful $p$-groups. I, Finite Groups, [*J. Algebra*]{} **105** (1987) 484–505.
D.J.S. Robinson, [*A Course in the Theory of Groups,*]{} Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.
P. Shumyatsky, Verbal subgroups in residually finite groups, [*Q. J. Math.*]{} [**51**]{} (2000) 523–528.
P. Shumyatsky, Applications of Lie ring methods to group theory, in [*Nonassociative Algebra and Its Applications*]{}, (Eds R. Costa et al.), Marcel Dekker, New York, (2000) 373–395.
P. Shumyatsky, On profinite groups with commutators covered by nilpotent subgroups, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. [**32**]{} (2016) 1331–1339.
P. Shumyatsky, D. S. Silveira, On finite groups with automorphisms whose fixed points are Engel, [*Arch. Math.*]{} [**106**]{} (2016) 209–218.
G. Traustason, [*Engel groups*]{}. Groups St Andrews 2009 in Bath. Volume 2, 520–550, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 388, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011.
J.S. Wilson, E.I. Zelmanov, Identities for lie algebras of pro-$p$ groups, [*J. Pure and Appl. Algebra*]{} **81** (1992) 103–109.
E.I. Zelmanov, [*Nil Rings and Periodic Groups*]{}, The Korean Math. Soc. Lecture Notes in Math., Seoul, (1992).
E.I. Zelmanov, Lie methods in the theory of nilpotent groups, in [*Groups ’93 Galaway/ St Andrews*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1995) 567–585.
E.I. Zelmanov, Lie algebras and torsion groups with identity, [*J. Comb. Algebra*]{}, [**1**]{} (2017) 289–340.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Catalan words are particular growth-restricted words over the set of non-negative integers, and they represent still another combinatorial class counted by the Catalan numbers. We study the distribution of descents on the sets of Catalan words avoiding a pattern of length at most three: for each such a pattern $p$ we provide a bivariate generating function where the coefficient of $x^ny^k$ in its series expansion is the number of length $n$ Catalan words with $k$ descents and avoiding $p$. As a byproduct, we enumerate the set of Catalan words avoiding $p$, and we provide the popularity of descents on this set. Some of the obtained enumerating sequences are not yet recorded in the On-line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences.'
author:
- |
Jean-Luc [Baril]{}, Sergey Kirgizov and Vincent Vajnovszki\
LE2I, Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté\
B.P. 47 870, 21078 DIJON-Cedex France\
[e-mail:{barjl,sergey.kirgizov,vvajnov}@u-bourgogne.fr]{}
title: Descent distribution on Catalan words avoiding a pattern of length at most three
---
[**Keywords:**]{} Enumeration, Catalan word, pattern avoidance, descent, popularity.
Introduction and notation
=========================
Combinatorial objects counted by the Catalan numbers are very classical in combinatorics, with a variety of applications in, among others, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. A length $n$ [*Catalan word*]{} is a word $w_1w_2\ldots w_n$ over the set of non-negative integers with $w_1=0$, and $$0\leq w_i\leq w_{i-1}+1,$$ for $i=2,3,\ldots n$. We denote by $\mathcal{C}_n$ the set of length $n$ Catalan words, and $\mathcal{C}=\cup_{n\geq 0}\mathcal{C}_n$. For example, $\mathcal{C}_2=\{00,01\}$ and $\mathcal{C}_3=\{000,001,010,011,012\}$. It is well known that the cardinality of $\mathcal{C}_n$ is given by the $n$th Catalan number $\frac{1}{n+1} {{2n}\choose{n}}$, see for instance [@Stanley99 exercise 6.19.$u$, p. 222], which is the general term of the sequence [A000108](https://oeis.org/A000108) in the On-line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS) [@Sloa]. See also [@Mansour-Vajnovszki] where Catalan words are considered in the context of the exhaustive generation of Gray codes for growth-restricted words.
A [*pattern*]{} $p$ is a word satisfying the property that if $x$ appears in $p$, then all integers in the interval $[0,x-1]$ also appear in $p$. We say that a word $w_1w_2\ldots w_n$ contains the pattern $p=p_1\ldots p_k$ if there is a subsequence $w_{i_1}w_{i_2}\ldots w_{i_k}$ of $w$, $i_1<i_2< \cdots < i_k$, which is order-isomorphic to $p$. For example, the Catalan word $01012312301$ contains seven occurrences of the pattern $110$ and four occurrences of the pattern $210$. A word [*avoids*]{} the pattern $p$ whenever it does not contain any occurrence of $p$. We denote by $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$ the set of length $n$ Catalan words avoiding the pattern $p$, and $\mathcal{C}(p)=\cup_{n\geq 0}\mathcal{C}_n(p)$. For instance, $\mathcal{C}_4(012)=\{
0 0 0 0,
0 0 0 1,
0 0 1 0,
0 0 1 1,
0 1 0 0,
0 1 0 1,
0 1 1 0,
0 1 1 1\}$, and $\mathcal{C}_4(101)=\{
0 0 0 0,
0 0 0 1,$ $
0 0 1 0,
0 0 1 1,
0 0 1 2,
0 1 0 0,
0 1 1 0,
0 1 1 1,
0 1 1 2,
0 1 2 0,
0 1 2 1,
0 1 2 2,
0 1 2 3
\}$. For a set of words, the [*popularity*]{} of a pattern $p$ is the overall number of occurrences of $p$ within all words of the set, see [@Bona2012] where this notion was introduced, and [@AHP2015; @Homberger; @Rudo; @Bkv2017] for some related results.
A [*descent*]{} in a word $w=w_1w_2\ldots w_n$ is an occurrence $w_iw_{i+1}$ such that $w_i>w_{i+1}$. Alternatively, a descent is an occurrence of the [*consecutive*]{} pattern $10$ ([*i.e.,*]{} the entries corresponding to an occurrence of $10$ are required to be adjacent). We denote by $d(w)$ the number of descents of $w$, thus the popularity of descents on a set $S$ of words is $\sum_{w\in S}d(w)$. The distribution of the number of descents has been widely studied on several classes of combinatorial objects such as permutations and words, since descents have some particular interpretations in fields as Coxeter groups or theory of lattice paths [@Ber; @Ges].
The main goal of this paper is to study the descent distribution on Catalan words (see Table \[tab1\] for some numerical values). More specifically, for each pattern $p$ of length at most three, we give the distribution of descents on the sets $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$ of length $n$ Catalan words avoiding $p$. We denote by $C_p(x,y)=\sum_{n,k\geq 0} c_{n,k}x^ny^k$ the bivariate generating function for the cardinality of words in $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$ with $k$ descents. Plugging $y=1$
- into $C_p(x,y)$, we deduce the generating function $C_p(x)$ for the set $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$, and
- into $\frac{\partial C_p(x,y)}{\partial y }$, we deduce the generating function for the popularity of descents in $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$.
From the definition at the beginning of this section it follows that a Catalan word is either the empty word, or it can uniquely be written as $0 (w'+1)w''$, where $w'$ and $w''$ are in turn Catalan words, and $w'+1$ is obtained from $w'$ by adding one to each of its entries. We call this recursive decomposition [*first return decomposition*]{} of a Catalan word, and it will be crucial in our further study. It follows that $C(x)$, the generating function for the cardinality of $\mathcal C_n$, satisfies: $$C(x)=1+x\cdot C^2(x),$$ which corresponds precisely to the sequence of Catalan numbers.
We conclude this section by explaining how Catalan words are naturally related to two classical combinatorial classes counted by the Catalan numbers.
### Catalan words vs. Dyck words {#catalan-words-vs.-dyck-words .unnumbered}
A [*Dyck word*]{} is a word over $\{u,d\}$ with the same number of $u$’s and $d$’s, and with the property that all of its prefixes contain no more $d$’s than $u$’s. Alternatively, a Dyck word can be represented as a lattice path starting at $(0,0)$, ending at $(2n,0)$, and never going below the $x$-axis, consisting of up steps $u=(1,1)$ and down steps $d=(1,-1)$. There is a direct bijection $\delta\mapsto w$ between the set of Dyck words of semilength $n$ and $\mathcal{C}_n$: the Catalan word $w$ is the sequence of the lowest ordinate of the up steps $u$ in the Dyck word $\delta$, in lattice path representation. For instance, the image through this bijection of the Dyck word $u d uu d uu dd uu ddd$ of semilength $7$ is $0 01 12 12\in \mathcal{C}_7$. Note that the above bijection gives a one-to-one correspondence between occurrences of the consecutive pattern $ddu$ in Dyck words and descents in Catalan words.
### Catalan words vs. binary trees {#catalan-words-vs.-binary-trees .unnumbered}
In [@Makinen] the author introduced an integer sequence representation for binary trees, called [*left-distance sequence*]{}. For a binary tree $T$, let consider the following labeling of its nodes: the root is labeled by $0$, a left child by the label of its parent, and a right child by the label of its parent, plus one. The left-distance sequence of $T$ is obtained by covering $T$ in inorder ([*i.e.*]{}, visit recursively the left subtree, the root and then the right subtree of $T$) and collecting the labels of the nodes. In [@Makinen] it is showed that, for a given length, the set of left-distance sequences is precisely that of same length Catalan words. Moreover, the induced bijection between Catalan words and binary trees gives a one-to-one correspondence between descents in Catalan words and particular nodes (left-child nodes having a right child) in binary trees.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we study the distribution of descents on the set $\mathcal{C}$ of Catalan words. As a byproduct, we deduce the popularity of descents in $\mathcal{C}$. We consider also similar results for the obvious cases of Catalan words avoiding a pattern of length two. In Section 3, we study the distribution and the popularity of descents on Catalan words avoiding each pattern of length three.
The sets $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{C}(p)$ for $p\in\{00,01,10\}$
==================================================================
Here we consider both unrestricted Catalan words and those avoiding a length two pattern. We denote by $C(x,y)$ the bivariate generating function where the coefficient of $x^ny^k$ of its series expansion is the number of length $n$ Catalan words with $k$ descents. When we restrict to Catalan words avoiding the pattern $p$, the corresponding generating function is denoted by $C_p(x,y)$.
\[th\] We have $$C(x,y)=\frac {1-2x+2xy-\sqrt {1-4x+4x^2-4x^2y}}{2xy}.$$
[Let $w=0(w'+1)w''$ be the first return decomposition of a non-empty Catalan word $w$ with $w',w''\in\mathcal{C}$. If $w'$ (resp. $w''$) is empty then the number $d(w)$ of descents in $w$ is the same as that of $w''$ (resp. $w'$); otherwise, we have $d(w)=d(w')+d(w'')+1$ since there is a descent between $w'+1$ and $w''$. So, we obtain the functional equation $C(x,y) = 1+xC(x,y) + x(C(x,y)-1)+xy(C(x,y)-1)^2$ which gives the desired result. ]{} As expected, $C(x)=C(x,1)=\frac {1-\sqrt {1-4x}}{2x}$ is the generating function for the Catalan numbers, and $\frac{\partial C(x,y)}{\partial y }|_{y=1}$ is the generating function for the descent popularity on $\mathcal{C}$, and we have the next corollary.
\[cor\] The popularity of descents on the set $\mathcal{C}_n$ is ${2n-2}\choose{n-3}$, and its generating function is $\frac {1-4x+2x^2-(1-2x)\sqrt {1-4x}}{2x
\sqrt {1-4x}}$ (sequence [A002694](https://oeis.org/A002694) in [@Sloa]).
Catalan words of odd lengths encompass a smaller size Catalan structure. This result is stated in the next corollary, see the bold entries in Table \[tab1\].
\[corr\] Catalan words of length $2n+1$ with $n$ descents are enumerated by the $n$[th]{} Catalan number $\frac{1}{n+1}{2n\choose n}$.
[Clearly, the maximal number of descents in a length $n$ Catalan word is $\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$. Let $w$ be a Catalan word of length $2n+1$ with $n$ descents. We necessarily have $w=0(w'+1)w''$ with $w',w''\neq \epsilon$, $d(w')=\lfloor\frac{|w'|-1}{2}\rfloor$, $d(w'')=\lfloor\frac{|w''|-1}{2}\rfloor$ and $d(w)=d(w')+d(w'')+1$. Since the length of $w$ is odd, $|w'|$ and $|w''|$ have the same parity. If $|w'|$ and $|w''|$ are both even, then $d(w)=\frac{|w'|-2}{2}+\frac{|w''|-2}{2}+1=
\frac{|w'|+|w''|-2}{2}
<\lfloor\frac{(|w'|+|w''|+1)-1}{2}\rfloor=
\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$ which gives a contradiction. So, $|w'|$ and $|w''|$ are both odd, and we have $d(w)=\frac{|w'|-1}{2}+\frac{|w''|-1}{2}+1=\lfloor\frac{(|w'|+|w''|+1)-1}{2}\rfloor=
\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor$. Thus the generating function $A(x)$ where the coefficient of $x^n$ is the number of Catalan words of length $2n+1$ with $n$ descents satisfies $A(x)=1+xA(x)^2$ which is the generating function for the Catalan numbers. ]{}
There are three patterns of length two, namely $00$, $01$ and $10$, and Catalan words avoiding such a pattern do not have descents, thus the corresponding bivariate generating functions collapse into one variable ones.
\[th00\] For $p\in\{00,01\}$, we have $C_{p}(x,y)=\frac{1}{1-x}$.
[If $p=00$ (resp. $p=01$) then $012\ldots n-1$ (resp. $0\ldots 0$) is the unique non-empty Catalan word of length $n$ avoiding $p$, and the statement follows. ]{}
\[th10\] We have $C_{10}(x,y)=\frac{1-x}{1-2x}$, which is the generating function for the sequence $2^{n-1}$ (sequence [A011782](https://oeis.org/A011782) in [@Sloa]).
[A non-empty Catalan word avoiding the pattern $10$ is of the form $0^k(w'+1)$ for $k\geq 1$, and with $w'\in \mathcal{C}(10)$. So, we have the functional equation $C_{10}(x)=1+\frac{x}{1-x}C_{10}(x)$, which gives $C_{10}(x)=\frac{1-x}{1-2x}$. ]{}
The sets $\mathcal{C}(p)$ for a length three pattern $p$
========================================================
Here we turn our attention to patterns of length three. There are thirteen such patterns, and we give the distribution and the popularity of descents on Catalan words avoiding each of them. Some of the obtained results are summarized in Tables \[Tab1\] and \[Tab2\].
\[th012\] For $p\in\{012, 001\}$, we have $$C_p(x,y)=\frac {1-x+x^2-x^2y}{1-2x+x^2-x^2y}.$$
[ A non-empty word $w\in\mathcal{C}(012)$ has its first return decomposition $w=01^kw''$ where $k\geq 0$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(012)$. If $k=0$ or $w''=\epsilon$, then the number of descents in $w$ is the same as that of $w''$; otherwise, we have $d(w)=d(w'')+1$ (there is a descent between $1^k$ and $w''$). So, we obtain the functional equation $C_{012}(x,y) = 1+xC_{012}(x,y)+\frac{x^2}{1-x}+\frac{x^2}{1-x}y(C_{012}(x,y)-1)$ which gives the desired result.\
A non-empty word $w\in\mathcal{C}(001)$ has the form $w=0(w'+1)0^k$ where $w'\in \mathcal{C}(001)$ and $k\geq 0$. If $k=0$ or $w'=\epsilon$, then the number of descents in $w$ is the same as that of $w'$; otherwise, we have $d(w)=d(w')+1$. So, we obtain the functional equation $C_{001}(x,y) = 1+x(C_{001}(x,y)-1)+\frac{x}{1-x}+\frac{x^2}{1-x}y(C_{001}(x,y)-1)$ which gives the desired result. ]{}
Considering the previous theorem and the coefficient of $x^n$ in $C_{p}(x,1)=\frac{1-x}{1-2x}$ and in $\frac{\partial C_p(x,y)}{\partial y }|_{y=1}=\frac {x^3}{(1-2x)^2}$, we obtain the next corollary.
\[cor012\] For $p\in\{012, 001\}$, we have $|\mathcal{C}_n(p)|=2^{n-1}$, and the popularity of descents on the set $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$ is $(n-2)\cdot 2^{n-3}$ (sequence [A001787](https://oeis.org/A001787) in [@Sloa]).
As in the case of length two patterns, a Catalan word avoiding $010$ does not have descents, and we have the next theorem.
\[th010\] If $p=010$, then $C_p(x,y)=\frac{1-x}{1-2x}$ which is the generating function for the sequence $2^{n-1}$ (sequence [A011782](https://oeis.org/A011782) in [@Sloa]).
[ A non-empty word $w\in\mathcal{C}(010)$ can be written either as $w=0w'$ with $w'\in \mathcal{C}(10)$, or as $w=0(w'+1)$ with $w'\in \mathcal{C}(010)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$. So, we deduce $C_{010}(x)=1+xC_{10}(x)+x(C_{010}(x)-1)$, and the statement holds. ]{}
\[th021\] For $p=021$, we have $$C_p(x,y)=\frac {1-4x+6x^2-x^2y-4x^3+3x^3y+x^4-x^4y}{(1-x)(1-2x)(1-2x+x^2-x^2y) }.$$
Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(021)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ its first return decomposition with $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(021)$. Note that $w'$ belongs to $\mathcal{C}(10)$. We distinguish two cases: (1) $w'$ does not contain $1$, and (2) otherwise.\
In the case (1), $w'\in \mathcal{C}(01)$ ([*i.e.*]{}, $w'=0^k$ for some $k\geq 0$), and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(021)$. If $w'=\epsilon$ (resp. $w''=\epsilon$), then the number of descents in $w$ is the same as that of $w''$ (resp. $w'$); otherwise, we have $d(w)=d(w')+d(w'')+1$. So, this case contributes to $C_p(x,y)$ with $xC_{01}(x,y)+x(C_{021}(x,y)-1)+xy(C_{01}(x,y)-1)(C_{021}(x,y)-1)$.
In the case (2), $w'\in \mathcal{C}(10)\setminus \mathcal{C}(01)$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(01)$. If $w''=\epsilon$ then $w$ and $w'$ have the same number of descents; otherwise, we have $d(w)=d(w')+d(w'')+1$. So, this case contributes to $C_p(x,y)$ with $x(C_{10}(x,y)-C_{01}(x,y))+xy(C_{10}(x,y)-C_{01}(x,y))(C_{01}(x,y)-1)$.
Taking into account these two disjoint cases, and adding the empty word, we deduce the functional equation $C_{021}(x,y)=1+xC_{01}(x,y)+x(C_{021}(x,y)-1)+xy(C_{01}(x,y)-1)(C_{021}(x,y)-1)+x(C_{10}(x,y)-C_{01}(x,y))+xy(C_{10}(x,y)-C_{01}(x,y))(C_{01}(x,y)-1)$, which after calculation gives the result.
\[cor021\] For $p=021$, we have $C_p(x)=\frac {1-4x+5x^2-x^3}{(1-2x)^2(1-x)}$ which is the generating function for the sequence $(n-1)\cdot 2^{n-2}+1$ (sequence [A005183](https://oeis.org/A005183) in [@Sloa]). The popularity of descents on the set $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$ is $(n+1)(n-2)\cdot 2^{n-5}$ with the generating function $\frac {x^3(1-x)}{(1-2x)^3}$ (sequence [A001793](https://oeis.org/A001793) in [@Sloa]).
\[th102\] For $p\in\{102,201\}$, we have $$C_p(x,y)=\frac {1-3x+3x^2-2x^2y-x^3+x^3y}{ \left( 1-x
\right) \left( 1-3x+2x^2-2x^2y \right) }.$$
Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(102)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ its first return decomposition with $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(102)$. If $w'$ is empty, then $w=0w''$ for some $w''\in \mathcal{C}(102)$ and we have $d(w)=d(w'')$. If $w''$ is empty, then $w=0(w'+1)$ for some $w'\in \mathcal{C}(102)$ and we have $d(w)=d(w')$. If $w'$ and $w''$ are both non-empty, then $w'\in \mathcal{C}(102)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(012)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$. We deduce the functional equation $C_{102}(x,y)=1+xC_{102}(x,y)+x(C_{102}(x,y)-1)+xy(C_{102}(x,y)-1)(C_{012}(x,y)-1)$. Finally, by Theorem \[th012\] we obtain the desired result.
Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(201)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ its first return decomposition with $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(201)$. If $w'$ is empty, then $w=0w''$ for some $w''\in \mathcal{C}(201)$ and we have $d(w)=d(w'')$. If $w''$ is empty, then $w=0(w'+1)$ for some $w'\in \mathcal{C}(201)$ and we have $d(w)=d(w')$. If $w'$ and $w''$ are both non-empty, then $d(w)=d(w')+d(w'')+1$ and we distinguish two cases: (1) $w'$ does not contain $1$, and (2) otherwise. In the case (1), we have $w'\in \mathcal{C}(01)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(201)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$; in the case (2), $w'$ contains 1 and $w'\in \mathcal{C}(201)\setminus \mathcal{C}(01)$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(01)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$. Combining the previous cases, the functional equation becomes $C_{201}(x,y)=1+xC_{201}(x,y)+x(C_{201}(x,y)-1)+xy(C_{01}(x,y)-1)(C_{201}(x,y)-1)+xy(C_{201}(x,y)-C_{01}(x,y))(C_{01}(x,y)-1)$, which gives the desired result.
\[cor102\]For $p\in\{102,201\}$, we have $C_p(x)=\frac {1-3x+x^2}{(1-x)(1-3x)}$ which is the generating function of the sequence $\frac{3^{n-1}+1}{2}$ (sequence [A007051](https://oeis.org/A007051) in [@Sloa]). The popularity of descents on the set $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$ is $(n-2)\cdot 3^{n-3}$ with the generating function $\frac{x^3}{(1-3x)^2}
$ (sequence [A027471](https://oeis.org/A027471) in [@Sloa]).
\[th120\] For $p\in\{120,101\}$, we have $$C_p(x,y)=\frac {1-2x+x^2-x^2y}{1-3x+2x^2-x^2y}.$$
Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(120)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ be its first return decomposition where $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(120)$. If $w''$ is empty, then $w=0(w'+1)$ for some $w'\in \mathcal{C}(120)$ and we have $d(w)=d(w')$; if $w'$ is empty, then $w=0w''$ for some $w''\in \mathcal{C}(120)$ and we have $d(w)=d(w')$; if $w'$ and $w''$ are not empty, then $w'\in \mathcal{C}(01)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$, $w''\in \mathcal{C}(120)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$ and $d(w)=d(w')+d(w'')+1$. We deduce the functional equation $C_{120}(x,y)=1+xC_{120}(x,y)++x(C_{120}(x,y)-1)+xy(C_{01}(x,y)-1)(C_{120}(x,y)-1)$ which gives the result.
Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(101)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ be its first return decomposition where $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(101)$. If $w'$ is empty, then $w=0w''$ for some $w''\in \mathcal{C}(101)$ and $d(w)=d(w'')$; if $w''$ is empty, then $w=0(w'+1)$ for some $w'\in \mathcal{C}(101)$ and $d(w)=d(w'')$; if $w'$ and $w''$ are not empty, then $w'\in \mathcal{C}(101)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(01)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$ and $d(w)=d(w')+d(w'')+1$. We deduce the functional equation $C_{101}(x,y)=1+xC_{101}(x,y)+x(C_{101}(x,y)-1)+ xy(C_{101}(x,y)-1)(C_{01}(x,y)-1)$ which gives the result.
\[cor120\] For $p\in\{120,101\}$, we have $C_p(x)=\frac {1-2x}{1-3x+x^2}$ and the coefficient of $x^n$ in its series expansion is the $(2n-1)$th term of the Fibonacci sequence (see [A001519](https://oeis.org/A001519) in [@Sloa]). The popularity of descents on the set $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$ is given by $\sum_{k=1}^{n-2} k\cdot {{n+k-2}\choose{2k}}$ which is the coefficient of $x^n$ in the series expansion of $\frac {x^3 \left( 1-x \right) }{ \left(1-3x+x^2\right)^2}$ (sequence [A001870](https://oeis.org/A001870) in [@Sloa]).
\[th011\] For $p=011$, we have $$C_p(x,y)=\frac {1-2x+2x^2-x^3+x^3y}{ \left( 1-x \right)^3}.$$
[Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(011)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ its first return decomposition where $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(011)$. If $w'$ (resp. $w''$) is empty, then we have $d(w)=d(w'')$ (resp. $d(w)=d(w')$); if $w'$ and $w''$ are non-empty, then $w'\in \mathcal{C}(00)\setminus \{\epsilon\}$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(01)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$. We deduce the functional equation $C_{011}(x,y)=1+xC_{011}(x,y)+x(C_{00}(x,y)-1)+xy(C_{00}(x,y)-1)(C_{01}(x,y)-1)$ which gives the result. ]{}
\[cor011\] For $p=011$, we have $C_p(x)=\frac {1-2x+2x^2}{(1-x)^3}$ and the coefficient of $x^n$ in its series expansion is $1+{{n}\choose {2}}$ (sequence [A000124](https://oeis.org/A000124) in [@Sloa]). The popularity of descents on the set $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$ is given by $\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}$ which is the coefficient of $x^n$ in the series expansion of $\frac {x^3}{(1-x)^3}$ (sequence [A000217](https://oeis.org/A000217) in [@Sloa]).
\[th000\] For $p=000$, we have $$C_p(x,y)=\frac {1-x^2-x^2y}{1-x-2x^2-x^2y+x^3+x^4-x^4y}.$$
Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(000)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ its first return decomposition where $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(000)$. We distinguish two cases: (1) $w''$ is empty, and (2) otherwise.
In the case (1), we have $w=0(w'+1)$ for some $w'\in \mathcal{C}(000)$ and $d(w)=d(w')$. So, the generating function $A(x,y)$ for the Catalan words in this case is $A(x,y)=x C_{000}(x,y)$.
In the case (2), we set $w''=0(w'''+1)$ for some $w'''\in \mathcal{C}(000)$ and we have $w=0(w'+1)0(w'''+1)$. We distinguish three sub-cases: (2.a) $w'$ is empty, (2.b) $w'$ is non-empty and $w'''$ is empty, and (2.c) $w'$ and $w'''$ are both non-empty.
In the case (2.a), we have $w=00(w'''+1)$ with $w'''\in \mathcal{C}(000)$. So, the generating function for the Catalan words belonging to this case is $B_a(x,y)=x^2 C_{000}(x,y)$.
In the case (2.b), we have $w=0 (w'+1)0$ with $w'\in \mathcal{C}(000)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$. So, the generating function for the corresponding Catalan words is $B_b(x,y)=x^2y (C_{000}(x,y)-1)$.
In the case (2.c), we have $w=0(w'+1)0(w'''+1)$ where $w'$ and $w'''$ are non-empty Catalan words such that $w'w'''$ is a Catalan word lying in the case (2). If $w'=0$, then $d(w'w''')=d(w''')=d(w)-1$; if $w'\neq 0$, then $d(w'w''')=d(w')+d(w''')+1=d(w)$. So, the generating function for the corresponding Catalan words is $B_c(x,y)=x^2yB_a(x,y)+ x^2 (B_b(x,y)+ B_c(x,y))$.
Considering $C_{000}(x,y)=1+A(x,y)+B_a(x,y)+B_b(x,y)+B_c(x,y)$, the obtained functional equations give the result.
\[cor000\] For $p=000$, we have $C_p(x)={\frac{1-2x^2}{1-x-3x^2+x^3}}$ and the generating function for the popularity of descents in the sets $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$, $n\geq 0$, is $$\frac {x^3(1-x)(1+2x)(1+x)}{( 1-x-3x^2+x^3)^2}.$$
Note that the sequences defined by the two generating functions in Corollary \[cor000\] do not appear in [@Sloa].
\[th100\] For $p=100$, we have $$C_p(x,y)=\frac {1-2x-x^2y+x^3}{1-3x+x^2-x^2y+2x^3}.$$
For $k\geq 1$, we define $\mathcal{A}_k\subset \mathcal{C}(100)$ as the set of Catalan words avoiding $100$ with exactly $k$ zeros, and let $A_k(x,y)$ be the generating function for $\mathcal{A}_k$.
A Catalan word $w\in\mathcal{A}_1$ is of the form $w=0(w'+1)$ with $w'\in \mathcal{C}(100)$. Since we have $d(w)=d(w')$, the generating function $A_1(x,y)$ for these words satisfies $A_1(x,y)=xC_{100}(x,y)$.
A Catalan word $w\in\mathcal{A}_k$, $k\geq 3$, is of the form $w=0^{k-2}w'$ with $w'\in \mathcal{A}_2$. Since we have $d(w)=d(w')$, the generating function $A_k(x,y)$ for these words satisfies $A_k(x,y)=x^{k-2}A_2(x,y)$.
A Catalan word $w\in\mathcal{A}_2$ has one of the three following forms:
\(1) $w=00(w'+1)$ with $w'\in \mathcal{C}(100)$; we have $d(w)=d(w')$, and the generating function for these Catalan words is $x^2C_{100}(x,y)$.
\(2) $w=0(w'+1)0$ with $w'\in \mathcal{C}(100)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$; we have $d(w)=d(w')+1$, and the generating function for these Catalan words is $x^2y(C_{100}(x,y)-1)$.
\(3) $w=0(w'+1)0(w''+1)$ where $w'$ and $w''$ are non-empty and $w'w''\in \mathcal{A}_k$ for some $k\geq 2$ ([*i.e.*]{}, $w'w''=0^{k-2}0(u+1)0(v+1)$ with $0(u+1)0(v+1)\in \mathcal{A}_2$). So, there are $(k-1)$ possible choices for $w'$, namely $0, 0^2, \ldots, 0^{k-2},$ and $0^{k-2}0(u+1)$. If $w'=0, 0^2, \ldots, 0^{k-2}$, then $d(w)=d(0(u+1)0(v+1))+1$; if $w'=0^{k-2}0(u+1)$ and $u\neq \epsilon$, then $d(w)=d(0(u+1)0(v+1))$; if $w'=0^{k-2}0(u+1)$ and $u= \epsilon$, then $d(w)=d(0(u+1)0(v+1))+1$. So, the generating function for these words is $x^2yA_2(x,y)\sum_{k\geq 2} (k-2)x^{k-2} +x^2(A_2(x,y)-x^2C_{100}(x,y))\sum_{k\geq 2} x^{k-2}+x^4yC_{100}(x,y)\sum_{k\geq 2} x^{k-2}$, which is $\frac{x^3y}{(1-x)^2}A_2(x,y)+\frac{x^2}{1-x}A_2(x,y)+\frac{x^4y-x^2}{1-x}C_{100}(x,y)$.
Taking into account all previous cases, we obtain the following functional equations:
1. $A_1(x,y)=x C_{100}(x,y),$
2. $A_2(x,y)= x^2C_{100}(x,y)+ x^2y(C_{100}(x,y)-1)+\frac{x^3y}{(1-x)^2}A_2(x,y)+\frac{x^2}{1-x}A_2(x,y)+\frac{x^4y-x^2}{1-x}C_{100}(x,y),$
3. $A_k(x,y)=x^{k-2}A_2(x,y) \mbox{ for } k\geq 3,$
4. $C_{100}(x,y)=1+\sum_{k\geq 1}A_k(x,y).$
A simple calculation gives the desired result.
\[cor100\] For $p=100$, we have $C_p(x)=\frac {1-2x-x^2+x^3}{1-3x+2x^3}$, which is the generating function for the sequence $\lceil\frac{(1+\sqrt{3})^{n+1}}{12}\rceil$ (see [A057960](https://oeis.org/A057960) in [@Sloa]), and the generating function for the popularity of descents in the sets $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$, $n\geq 0$, is $$\frac {x^3(1-x-x^2)}{(1-3x+2x^3)^2}.$$
\[th110\] For $p=110$, we have $$C_p(x)={\frac {1-3x+2x^2+x^3-x^4+x^4y}
{ \left( 1-x \right) \left(1-3x+x^2+2x^3-x^3y\right) }}.$$
Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(110)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ its first return decomposition where $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(110)$.
Then, $w$ has one of the following forms:
- $w=0(w'+1)$ where $w'\in \mathcal{C}(110)$; the generating function for these words is $xC_{110}(x,y)$.
- $w=0w'$ where $w'\in \mathcal{C}(110)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$; the generating function for these words is $x(C_{110}(x,y)-1)$.
- $w=0(w'+1)w''$ with $w'\in \mathcal{C}(00)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(10)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$; the generating function for these words is $xy(C_{00}(x,y)-1)(C_{10}(x,y)-1)$.
- The last form is $w=0(w'+1)w''$ where $w'\in \mathcal{C}(00)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$ and $w''\notin\mathcal{C}(10)$. So, we have $w=012\ldots k0^{a_0}1^{a_1}\ldots (k-1)^{a_k} (w'''+k-1)$ where $k\geq 1$, $a_i\geq 1$ for $0\leq i\leq k$, and $w'''\in\mathcal{C}(110)\setminus\mathcal{C}(10)$; the generating function for these words is $y\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{x^{2k+1}}{(1-x)^k}(C_{110}(x,y)-C_{10}(x,y))$.
Combining these different cases, we deduce the functional equation:
$$\begin{array}{ll}C_{110}(x,y)=&1+xC_{110}(x,y)+x(C_{110}(x,y)-1)+xy(C_{00}(x,y)-1)(C_{10}(x,y)-1)+\\
&y\sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{x^{2k+1}}{(1-x)^k}(C_{110}(x,y)-C_{10}(x,y)).\end{array}$$
Considering Theorems \[th10\] and \[th00\], the result follows.
\[cor110\] For $p=110$, we have $C_p(x)=\frac{1-3x+2x^2+x^3}{(1-x)^2(1-2x-x^2)}$ and the generating function for the popularity of descents in the sets $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$, $n\geq 0$, is $$\frac {x^3(1-x-x^2)^2}
{(1-x)^3(1-2x-x^2)^2}.$$
\[th210\] For $p=210$, we have $$C_p(x)=\frac {1-5x+8x^2-x^2y-4x^3+3x^3y-x^4y}
{(1-2x)(1-4x+4x^2-x^2y+x^3y)}.$$
Let $w$ be a non-empty word in $\mathcal{C}(210)$, and let $0(w'+1)w''$ be its first return decomposition where $w',w''\in \mathcal{C}(210)$.
Then, $w$ has one of the following forms:
- $w=0(w'+1)$ where $w'\in \mathcal{C}(210)$; the generating function for these words is $xC_{210}(x,y)$.
- $w=0w''$ where $w''\in\mathcal{C}(210)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$; the generating function for these words is $x(C_{210}(x,y)-1)$.
- $w=0(w'+1)w''$ where $w'\in \mathcal{C}(01)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$ and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(210)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$; the generating function for these sets is $xy(C_{01}(x,y)-1)(C_{210}(x,y)-1)$.
- $w=01^{a_1}2^{a_2} \ldots k^{a_k}w ''$ where $k\geq 2$, $a_i\geq 1$ for $1\leq i\leq k$, and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(10)\setminus\{\epsilon\}$; the generating function for these words is $y(C_{10}(x,y)-1)\sum_{k\geq 2} \frac{x^{k+1}}{(1-x)^k}$.
- $w=01^{a_1}2^{a_2} \ldots k^{a_k}0^{b_0}1^{b_1} \ldots (k-2)^{b_{k-2}}(w''+k-2)$ where $k\geq 2$, $a_i\geq 1$ for $1\leq i\leq k$, $b_i\geq 1$ for $1\leq i\leq k-2$, and $w''\in \mathcal{C}(210)\setminus\mathcal{C}(10)$; the generating function for these words is $y(C_{210}(x,y)-C_{10}(x,y))\sum_{k\geq 2} \frac{x^{k+1}}{(1-x)^k}\frac{x^{k-1}}{(1-x)^{k-1}}$.
Combining these different cases, we deduce the functional equation:
$$\begin{array}{ll}C_{210}(x,y)=&1+xC_{210}(x,y)+x(C_{210}(x,y)-1)+ xy(C_{01}(x,y)-1)(C_{210}(x,y)-1)+\\&y(C_{10}(x,y)-1)\sum_{k\geq 2} \frac{x^{k+1}}{(1-x)^k}+
y(C_{210}(x,y)-C_{10}(x,y))\sum_{k\geq 2} \frac{x^{k+1}}{(1-x)^k}\frac{x^{k-1}}{(1-x)^{k-1}}.\end{array}$$
Finally, considering Theorem \[th10\] the desired result follows.
\[cor210\] For $p=210$, we have $C_p(x)=\frac {1-5x+7x^2-x^3-x^4}{(1-2x)
(1-4x+3x^2+x^3)}$ and the generating function for the popularity of descents in the set $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$, $n\geq 0$, is $$\frac{x^3(1-2x)}{(1-4x+3x^2+x^3)^2}.$$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pattern $p$ Sequence $|\mathcal{C}_n(p)|$ Generating function OEIS [@Sloa]
--------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
$012$, $001$, $010$ $2^{n-1}$ $\frac{1-x}{1-2x}$ [A011782](https://oeis.org/A011782)
$021$ $(n-1)\cdot 2^{n-2}+1$ $\frac{1-4x+5x^2-x^3}{(1-x)(1-2x)^2}$ [A005183](https://oeis.org/A005183)
$102$, $201$ $\frac{3^{n-1}+1}{2}$ $\frac {1-3x+x^2}{(1-x)(1-3x)}$ [A007051](https://oeis.org/A007051)
$120$, $101$ $F_{2n-1}$ $\frac{1-2x}{1-3x+x^2}$ [A001519](https://oeis.org/A001519)
$011$ $\frac{n(n-1)}{2}+1$ $\frac{1-2x+2x^2}{(1-x)^3}$ [A000124](https://oeis.org/A000124)
$000$ $\frac {1-2x^2}{1-x-3x^2+x^3}$
$100$ $\lceil\frac{(1+\sqrt{3})^{n+1}}{12}\rceil$ $\frac{1-2x-x^2+x^3}{1-3x+2x^3}$ [A057960](https://oeis.org/A057960)
$110$ $\frac{1}{2}\,\sum _{k=0}^{\lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor }{n+1 $\frac{1-3x+2x^2+x^3}{(1-x)^2(1-2x-x^2)} $
\choose 2\,k+1}{2}^{k}-\frac{n-1}{2}$
$210$ $\frac{1-5x+7x^2-x^3-x^4}{(1-2x)(1-4x+3x^2+x^3)}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: \[Tab1\]Catalan words avoiding a pattern of length three.
-------------- ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
Popularity of descents
on $\mathcal{C}_n(p)$
$012$, $001$ $(n-2)\cdot 2^{n-3}$ $\frac{x^3}{(1-2x)^2}$ [A001787](https://oeis.org/A001787)
$010$ $0$ $0$
$021$ $(n+1)(n-2)\cdot 2^{n-5}$ $\frac {x^3(1-x) }{(1-2x)^3}$ [A001793](https://oeis.org/A001793)
$102$, $201$ $(n-2)\cdot 3^{n-3}$ $\frac {x^3}{(1-3x)^2} [A027471](https://oeis.org/A027471)
$
$120$, $101$ $\sum_{k=1}^{n-2} k\cdot {{n+k-2}\choose{2k}}$ $\frac {x^3( 1-x) } [A001870](https://oeis.org/A001870)
{(1-3x+x^2)^2}$
$011$ $\frac{(n-1)(n-2)}{2}$ $\frac {x^3}{(1-x)^3}$ [A000217](https://oeis.org/A000217)
$000$ $\frac {x^3(1-x)(1+2x)(1+x)}{(1-x-3x^2+x^3)^2}
$
$100$ $\frac{x^3(1-x-x^2)}{(1-3x+ 2x^3)^2}
$
$110$ $\frac {x^3(1-x-x^2)^2}{
(1-x)^3(1-2x-x^2)^2}$
$210$ $\frac{x^3(1-2x)}{(1-4x+3x^2+x^3)^2}$
-------------- ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
: \[Tab2\]Popularity of descents on Catalan words avoiding a pattern of length three.
Final remarks
=============
At the time of writing this paper, the enumerating sequences $(|\mathcal{C}_n(p)|)_{n\geq 0}$, for $p\in\{000,110,210\}$, are not recorded in [@Sloa], and it will be interesting to explore potential connections of these sequences with other known ones.
According to Theorem \[th012\], for any $k\geq 0$, the set of fixed length Catalan words with $k$ descents avoiding $p=001$ is equinomerous with those avoiding $q=012$, and a natural question that arises is to find a constructive bijection between the two sets; and similarly for $(p,q)=(102,201)$, see Theorem \[th102\], and for $(p,q)=(101, 120)$, see Theorem \[th120\]. In the same vein, some of the enumerating sequences obtained in this paper count classical combinatorial classes (see Tables \[Tab1\] and \[Tab2\]) and these results deserve bijective proofs.
Finally, our initiating study on pattern avoidance on Catalan words can naturally be extended to patterns of length more than three, vincular patterns and/or multiple pattern avoidance. For example, some of the patterns we considered here hide larger length patterns (for instance, an occurrence of $210$ in a Catalan word is a part of an occurrence of $01210$), and some of our results can be restated in this light.
[10]{}
M. Albert, C. Homberger, and J. Pantone. Equipopularity classes in the separable permutations. , 22(2):P2.2, 2015. (electronic).
J.-L. Baril, S. Kirgizov, and V. Vajnovszki. Patterns in treeshelves. , 340(12):2946–2954, 2017.
F. Bergeron, N. Bergeron, R.B. Howlett, and D.E. Taylor. A decomposition of the descent algebra of a finite [C]{}oxeter group. , 1:23–44, 1992.
M. B[ó]{}na. Surprising symmetries in objects counted by [C]{}atalan numbers. , 19(1):P62, 2012. (electronic).
E. Deutsch. Dyck path enumeration. , 204:167–202, 1999.
I. Gessel and G. Viennot. Binomial determinants, paths, and hook length formulae. , 58:300–321, 1985.
C. Homberger. Expected patterns in permutation classe. , 19(3):P43, 2012. (electronic).
E. Mäkinen. Left distance binary tree representations. , 27(2):163–169, 1987.
T. Mansour and V. Vajnovszki. Efficient generation of restricted growth words. , 113:613–616, 2013.
K. Rudolph. Pattern popularity in $132$-avoiding permutations. , 20(1):P8, 2013. (electronic).
N.J.A. Sloane. The on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences. vailable electronically at [http://oeis.org]{}.
R.P. Stanley. , volume 2. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[Providing reliable and surreptitious communications is difficult in the presence of adaptive and resourceful state level censors. In this paper we introduce Tithonus, a framework that builds on the Bitcoin blockchain and network to provide censorship-resistant communication mechanisms. In contrast to previous approaches, we do not rely solely on the slow and expensive blockchain consensus mechanism but instead fully exploit Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer gossip protocol. We develop adaptive, fast and cost effective data communication solutions that camouflage client requests into inconspicuous Bitcoin transactions. We propose solutions to securely request and transfer content, with unobservability and censorship resistance, and free, pay-per-access and subscription based payment options. When compared to state-of-the-art Bitcoin writing solutions, Tithonus reduces the cost of transferring data to censored clients by 2 orders of magnitude and increases the goodput by 3 to 5 orders of magnitude. We show that Tithonus client initiated transactions are hard to detect, while server initiated transactions cannot be censored without creating split world problems to the Bitcoin blockchain. ]{}'
author:
- Ruben Recabarren
- Bogdan Carbunar
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Evading Internet censorship is difficult in the presence of state level censors that continuously adapt and employ state of the art technologies [@MSRMBP14; @BlueCoat; @Cisco; @FinFisher; @HackingTeam] to e.g., block IP addresses, perform deep packet inspection, and corrupt protocols including BGP hijacking [@Iran] and DNS manipulation [@PJLEFWP17]. In this paper we propose a new approach to bypass such censors, that exploits the distributed resilience of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency, and the substantial collateral damage [@HH15; @ZH16; @FLHWP15] inflicted by blocking access to or tampering with its blockchain and network.
We introduce Tithonus[^1], a framework that leverages Bitcoin transactions to provide unobservable and censorship-resistant communications, and financially reward participation.
We survey transaction-based Bitcoin blockchain writing mechanisms, and show that their high cost and low bitrate make them unsuitable for censorship resilient communications. Instead, we observe that transactions do not need to reach the blockchain in order to communicate data, and leverage the Bitcoin network to propagate and receive transactions in seconds. We reduce the fees paid in such [*swift transactions*]{}, to the level where they are valid and unobservable by censors. To further improve the goodput of Tithonus communications and reduce their observability, we document, correct, extend and implement [*staged transactions*]{}.
We introduce new techniques to transmit messages of arbitrary size written into multiple Tithonus transactions, that preserve their sequence and unobservability. Unlike previous solutions like Catena [@TD17] and Blockstack [@ANSF16] that use the immutability and unequivocation of the blockchain to persist data, we delegate security to a higher layer and use the blockchain in its most insecure form. This enables our proposed [*hidden sequencing*]{} techniques to achieve significantly lower costs and higher goodput than state of the art solutions, and prevent a monitoring censor from learning relationships between data units of the same message.
Tithonus provides mechanisms to bootstrap trust and establish secure channels, and enables clients to access both static and dynamic censored content with flexible payment options. Tithonus minimizes the number and size of client initiated messages, and camouflages them into popular Bitcoin transactions.
Further, we propose an [*altruistic directory*]{} approach, where clients find and download blockchain-persisted, static content for free, with unobservability, uncensorability and integrity assurances. We introduce an [*on-demand, pay-per-access*]{} solution, where clients securely request and pay for new content, with unobservability and censorship resilience, while the Tithonus server communicates and caches content, with uncensorability and integrity assurances.
The Bitcoin infrastructure used for Tithonus communications renders ineffective censorship that uses IP blocking and network protocol manipulation. We reveal however that the Bitcoin network has a significant number of non-conformant nodes in countries with known censorship practices. We show that Tithonus is robust to such nodes, and this robustness is not affected by the use of low fee transactions, in the absence of congestion. As a consequence, Tithonus is able to provide an optimally cheap solution within a given cryptocurrency ecosystem. Furthermore, our experiments show that Tithonus is practical when considering the reach and number of Bitcoin nodes available in censored countries.
The use of payments enables communications through the Bitcoin ecosystem, provides incentives for the Tithonus service operation, and prevents DoS attacks. Our evaluation is done on the cryptocurrency with the highest market share, thus the hardest to censor but also the most expensive. In summary, we introduce the following contributions:
[**Communications over Bitcoin’s gossip protocol**]{}. We are the first to propose the use of Bitcoin’s gossip protocol as a direct medium to exchange arbitrary information instead of relying on the slow and more expensive blockchain consensus mechanism.
[**Bitcoin based censorship circumvention**]{}. We are the first to leverage the collateral damage inflicted by blocking Bitcoin, and the intrinsic censorship resistance of its blockchain and network, to develop censorship resilient communication solutions.
[**Tithonus**]{}. We develop secure, fast and cost effective solutions to communicate data between censored areas and the free world with censorship resistance and unobservability. We devise techniques to embed arbitrary encrypted data indistinguishable from public keys in Bitcoin transactions.
[**Prototype implementation**]{}. We implemented Tithonus infrastructure components in Python. When compared to state-of-the-art Blockchain writing solutions, Tithonus reduces the cost of sending data to Bitcoin nodes in censored countries, by 2 orders of magnitude, and increases the writing efficiency 3 fold, resulting in a goodput increase of between 3-5 orders of magnitude. When using the lowest fee, 1/8 of the nodes in censored countries relayed Tithonus transactions in under 5s.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
[**Bitcoin transactions**]{}. We briefly describe the components of a Bitcoin transaction, some of which are used to store Tithonus data, see Section\[sec:background:writing\]. A Bitcoin transaction (see Figure \[fig:txn:p2sh\] for an illustration) consists of a series of inputs and outputs that follow a set of rules. An input consists of (1) a [*pointer to a previous transaction*]{} that contains a funding output, (2) an [*offset*]{} pointing to the specific output on the funding transaction, and (3) a *script* (called the *scriptSig* script) used to verify that a user is authorized to spend the balance. An output consists of (1) a [*value*]{} that is to be transferred from the sum of values specified on the list of inputs and (2) a [*script*]{} (called the *scriptPubKey* script) that specifies how to claim the transferred value in future transactions. The transaction is invalid if the sum of the values from the inputs is smaller than or equal to the sum of the outputs. The balance after subtracting the output values is considered to be the [*miner fee*]{}.
Blockchain Writing {#sec:background:writing}
------------------
![Pay-To-Script-Hash (p2sh) transaction with [*scriptSig*]{} overloading (1,635 bytes). A *preparing* transaction prepares the spending of the *redeeming* transaction, that overloads *scriptSig*.[]{data-label="fig:txn:p2sh"}](./figures/txns/p2sh_transaction_decoded.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
We survey relevant solutions for writing in Bitcoin transactions, which are persisted into the blockchain.
[**Overwriting destination addresses**]{}. One of the first studied blockchain writing solutions [@kaminskyPayToHash] used the output address bytes in the [*scriptPubKey*]{} to store arbitrary data. Two types of contracts are most commonly used for this: Pay-to-PubkeyHash (p2pkh) and Pay-to-Script-Hash (p2sh). The p2pkh writing method (used by e.g., Apertus [@Apertus]) uses the 20 bytes of a destination address to store arbitrary data. Similarly, the output overloading of a p2sh transaction allows for the overwriting of the redeeming script hash (20 bytes) Since this is arbitrary data, redeeming this output becomes highly unlikely.
![Input (and output) type distribution between August 2016 and August 2017. Tithonus leverages the observation that p2pkh and p2sh inputs and outputs are the most frequent, to generate transactions that do not stand out.[]{data-label="fig:output:distrib"}](./graphs/output.distrib/output_types){width="0.89\columnwidth"}
[**Overwriting destination public keys**]{}. A similar technique overwrites public keys instead of destination addresses, using an old Bitcoin contract, the Pay-To-PubKey (not the Pay-To-PubKey Hash). While this script is now considered obsolete, it is still valid and accepted by some miners. Depending on the use of compressed or uncompressed public keys, this technique can insert 33 or 65 bytes of effective payload data.
[**OP\_RETURN**]{}. This writing technique, used by Blockstack [@ANSF16] and Catena [@TD17] to prevent equivocation, requires the use of an OP\_RETURN opcode in a scriptPubKey script, which marks the transaction as invalid. Thus, its outputs are un-spendable, and immediately prunable from the Bitcoin un-spent transaction set. Officially, this contract allows for writing 80 bytes after the OP\_RETURN opcode.
[**Overwriting input scripts**]{}. A writing technique which we call [*staged transactions*]{}, has been documented [@inputWritingPeterTodd], to exploit the large script in p2sh inputs. It consists of two transactions, see Figure \[fig:txn:p2sh\]. The first, “staging” transaction has a p2sh output that specifies the hash of its redeeming script. In a second, “writing” transaction, the input script provides a [*redeemScript*]{} that satisfies the staging transaction’s conditions. The redeeming script along with the whole *scriptSig* can then be used to store data. Figure \[fig:txn:p2sh\] shows the use of a construct that simply pushes data to the virtual machine stack. However, other constructions are possible including using a MULTISIG script, that allows for any $m$ out of $n$ signatures to claim the corresponding balance. The outputs of the writing transaction can be p2pkh, OP\_RETURN or another p2sh (see above).
[**Input and output type distribution**]{}. Figure \[fig:output:distrib\] shows the distribution of the input types (identical to the distribution of output types) in transactions mined between August 2016 and August 2017. p2pkh inputs and outputs are the most frequent, especially in transactions with 2 p2pkh inputs or outputs. p2sh inputs and outputs are the next most popular ones. Thus, in order to embed data into transactions that are indistinguishable from regular Bitcoin transactions, a solution needs to use a mix of such inputs and outputs.
For a more detailed discussion on these writing techniques see for instance Sward et al. [@sward2018data].
Bitcoin Network {#sec:background:network}
---------------
The backbone of the Bitcoin network interconnects participating devices using a TCP/IP based protocol. Each node uses hardcoded rules to find other nodes, create outgoing connections to and optionally accept incoming connections from peers that participate in the network. Peers opportunistically exchange information about the Bitcoin system using specific messages.
The *inv* (inventory) message, is used to communicate information (i.e., hashes) about all new transactions and blocks in the network. A receiving full node needs to request further information for all previously unseen objects received from peers, by issuing a *getdata* message. However, nodes (e.g., light nodes) that are not equipped with enough resources to handle large volumes of object information, can use messages designed to install *Bloom filters*. Once a Bloom filter is installed, the relaying node only sends matching object information to the receiving node.
Each node in the network maintains a [*mempool*]{}, a local version of the memory pool containing unconfirmed transactions. Nodes use the *mempool* message to request the contents of the receiving node’s memory pool of transactions. In our experiments, we use the *mempool* message along with Bloom filters in order to efficiently check the reach of our messaging transactions.
System and Adversary Model {#sec:model}
==========================
![Illustration of system and adversary model. The Tithonus server leverages the Bitcoin network and blockchain, to provide censored clients with access to news, and bootstrapping information for other censorship resistance tools (source code, bridge IPs). The censor can control Bitcoin nodes and filter detected suspicious transactions.[]{data-label="fig:model"}](./figures/model/model.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We consider a system that consists of several participants, see Figure \[fig:model\] for an illustration. The [*user*]{} runs a Tithonus *client* and a Bitcoin node, to retrieve information from a [*target destination*]{}, e.g., content publisher. We assume that the user has control over her computer and can install arbitrary software. The node is only initially needed in order to access the Bitcoin network and blockchain, and retrieve the Tithonus client and keying material. However, we recommend the use of a full Bitcoin node even when the Tithonus client is not in use. Security reasons that we describe in the following sections are the basis for this recommendation. If storage and computational resources are a concern, the user may choose to sacrifice provable security for convenience and only “simulate” the use of a Bitcoin full node. This option may be susceptible to problems similar to the ones described by Houmansadr et al. in [@houmansadr2013parrot].
The [*censor*]{} is able to control (inspect, inject, suppress) the Internet communications of users within an area, e.g., country. The censor can fingerprint destination IPs, message contents and protocol semantics. We assume that censored clients cannot use other censorship-resistant tools. We assume that the censor is not willing to block or significantly hinder cryptocurrency use, and does not have the resources to modify or suppress access to any part of the blockchain, i.e., it does not control a majority of the network hashrate.
We assume that the target destination does not participate in censorship evasion efforts. Instead, the [*Tithonus service*]{}, located outside of the censored area, communicates with clients to assist them in connecting to target destinations. We assume a single Tithonus service, that may control multiple servers. We assume that the Tithonus service and its servers are trusted to follow the protocol and not perform Sybil, DoS or packet dropping attacks. We assume that the censor cannot identify the IPs of nodes used by Tithonus, and cannot eclipse [@HKZG15] the Bitcoin nodes controlled by Tithonus.
Further, the external server can use anonymizers, e.g. Tor, when contacting exchange web-servers but never to perform Bitcoin transactions. This policy avoids issues arising from using Bitcoin over Tor [@biryukov2015bitcoin].
We assume that the censor is aware of Tithonus, and can register any number of clients. In the following, we seek to protect only the communications of Tithonus clients whose devices have not been corrupted (e.g., installed malware on) by the censor.
**C-nodes**. We assume a censor who controls and deploys [*c-nodes*]{}, Bitcoin nodes that can monitor events propagated through the network. We introduce the [*c-node filter*]{} attack, where the censor allows censored nodes to only connect to peers inside the censored area, but not to nodes outside the censored area. C-nodes can connect to outside nodes, and their purpose is to detect and hinder Tithonus transactions. However, we assume that such disruptions are only directed towards interfering with the Tithonus system (e.g., corrupt information communicated through Tithonus, degrade its performance, including DoS attacks), and therefore actively avoid causing disruptions to the Bitcoin network.
We further consider a powerful censor that attempts indirect user identification by correlating Tithonus actions with transactions originated within the censored region. For this, the censor needs to deploy *snooping c-nodes*, honest-but-curious nodes outside the censored region. Otherwise, if the censor is not allowed to place nodes outside the censored area, an incredibly simple countermeasure against such *snooping nodes* would be to avoid peering with nodes within the censored region. Snooping c-nodes may try to peer with Tithonus nodes and collect transaction timestamps or spending patterns for later analysis.
Thus, we consider an adversary who is both internal and external. Specifically, the adversary is able to both (1) observe and control the entire network within the censored area, and (2) deploy nodes on the uncensored area, but not eclipse the Tithonus service.
[**DoS and packet dropping attacks**]{}. We further consider adversaries that launch denial of service (DoS) attacks against Tithonus, e.g., through excessive spurious/incomplete requests. However, since we assume an adversary unwilling to disrupt the Bitcoin network, we consider indiscriminate packet dropping attacks to be outside our threat model as we assume an adversary unwilling to disrupt the Bitcoin network.
Solution Requirements {#sec:requirements}
---------------------
![Tithonus communication protocol stack. Each layer uses the layers below to: communicate data units efficiently, transfer data of arbitrary size, establish secure channels, request and retrieve content. The application layer uses Tithonus to provide access to censored news, and other censorship resistance tools.[]{data-label="fig:tithonus"}](./figures/writing/tithonus_stack_v2){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We distinguish two directions of communication, the [*in-to-out*]{} communications are from censored clients (in) to the Tithonus server (out), while [*out-to-in*]{} communication are on the reverse direction.
We seek to build a Bitcoin based censorship-resistant system that satisfies several properties. [**Unobservability**]{}: The censor is unable to detect communications between the user and the publisher, even if it inspects the packets sent and received by the user, their size, timing and destination. [**Unblockability**]{}: The censor is unable or unwilling to block communications between the user and the publisher, even if it is able to identify such communications. [**Availability**]{}: The solution is resilient to DoS attacks. [**Communication integrity**]{}. The censor is unable to modify the communications between the user and the target destination. [**Ease of deployment**]{}: The solution is easy to bootstrap and deploy, and does not require altruistic participation. [**Performance**]{}: The solution minimizes costs and maximizes goodput.
Tithonus
========
XXXXXXXX=
1.\
2.\
3.\
4.\
5.\
6.\
7.
[**Overview**]{}. Most writing solutions surveyed in Section \[sec:background:writing\] have a high per-byte cost of communication (see $\S$ \[sec:evaluation:block\]), and low goodput, as a transaction needs to wait around 10 minutes until it can be mined into the blockchain. We introduce solutions that reduce the time and per-byte cost of transmitting data through Bitcoin transactions. In the following, we use [*data unit*]{}, to denote data that can be transmitted in a single transaction, and [*sender*]{} and [*receiver*]{} to refer to the communicating parties (censored client and Tithonus server).
We organize Tithonus into 5 layers, see Figure \[fig:tithonus\]. The unit layer embeds data units into transactions, see Section \[sec:background:writing\]. The transport layer optimizes transaction fees choices as to minimize the latency and cost per byte of content transmitted depending on the communication needs. The chaining layer communicates messages of arbitrary size. The security layer sets up the Tithonus root of trust, registers clients and establishes secure communication channels with the server. The content fetch layer enables clients to securely retrieve desired content through Tithonus. Tithonus provides access to static and dynamic content, with free, pay-per-access and subscription based payment options. As is the case for layering architectures [@CT1990], each module within a layer is independently combined with a module in a layer above it. For instance, Tithonus can use the Multisig construct from the Unit Layer with the On-Chain module from the Transport Layer.
[**Design choices**]{}. To avoid detection and censorship, client initiated requests need to have minimal size, and fit in a minimal number of transactions, of popular type. To prevent DoS attacks, each client request needs to be backed by previously deposited user funds.
Unit Layer {#sec:tithonus:unit}
----------
[**Making sense of staged transactions**]{}. Staged transactions described in Section \[sec:background:writing\] have never been properly documented, and older methods are likely no longer valid. For instance, previous documentation mentions that one can write up to 10,000 bytes in an input script while only 1,650 are effectively possible [@scriptSigActualSize]. Further, Bitcoin often implements new standard rules that modify the validity of new transactions. In its latest implementation: (1) The writer can only push 520 bytes at a time on the Bitcoin virtual machine stack. (2) The input script can only be 1,650 bytes in total, thus one can push a bit over 3 chunks of 520 bytes, but the last push operation needs to be the [*redeemScript*]{} in a p2sh redeeming transaction. (3) The redeemScript needs to empty the stack and push a true value before exiting.
Algorithm \[alg:staged\] presents the writing transaction’s *scriptSig* script of the staged transaction writing method ($\S$ \[sec:background:writing\]). The first three lines push on the stack the first three 520 byte chunks of data. Lines 5-7 are the [*redeemScript*]{}, that is first pushed on the stack (line 5), then pushes the last chunk of 75 remaining bytes of data (line 6) and then executes two double drop operations that consume a total of 4 items from the stack. The final operation pushes a TRUE value on the stack for the script to finish successfully (line 7). This *scriptSig* writes data units of up to 1,635 (i.e., 3 $\times$ 520 + 75) *effective* bytes.
[**Multisig p2sh construct**]{}. The writing technique described above is easily detectable (transactions with large input script sizes are uncommon), making it suitable for uncensorable, out-to-in communications only. We propose now an inconspicuous, in-to-out alternative that uses a “MULTISIG” pattern in the redeeming script to conceal Tithonus transactions among normal m-out-of-n multi-signature p2sh transactions. For Tithonus, we choose a 1-3 MULTISIG construct as it was traditionally the most common type of multi-signature transaction [@transactionTypes]. However, since the popularity of these constructs may change over time, Tithonus needs to be able to adapt to such changes. As a consequence, we describe techniques that are applicable to any MULTISIG construct but use the 1-3 MULTISIG as an example. In a 1-3 MULTISIG construct, the *redeemScript* contains placeholders for 3 public keys authorized to redeem the staging transaction. In a normal transaction, the rest of the *scriptSig* contains a valid signature corresponding to any one of these public keys. In a Tithonus transaction, the other two public key placeholders are instead filled with arbitrary payload data. Compressed Bitcoin public keys are 33 bytes (including 1 *prefix type* byte). However, these keys correspond to points of an elliptic curve, thus are distinguishable from encrypted data.
**Embedding encrypted data on public keys.** To generate elliptic curve points indistinguishable from random strings, we use ideas similar to the ones described by Bernstein et al. [@bernstein2013elligator]. Specifically, for curve secp256k1, we propose the use of the left most significant 28 bytes to encode our encrypted data $D$, with the exception of the ciphertext $2^{224}-1$ which has a negligible probability of occurrence. We pick a random 4-byte string $R$, smaller than 0xFFFFFC2F. Thus, we get $x = D, R$, a 32-byte candidate for the elliptic curve point’s $x$-coordinate that is smaller than $p$, the prime used by sec256pk1.
We then calculate $w = x^3 + 7$ and check if it is a quadratic residue (QR) in $\mathbb{F}_p$. We choose random $R$ values and repeat this process until $w \in$ QR($\mathbb{F}_p$). Since a random string has a $1/2$ chance of being a QR for secp256k1’s prime field, the expected number of trials is 2. Once we have found a suitable $w$, we use the corresponding $x = D, R$ value as the $x$-coordinate of the elliptic curve public key. We use $x$ with a prefix of either 0x02 or 0x03 to signal that this is the compressed representation of the public key. Thus, this procedure embeds 28 bytes of encrypted data indistinguishable from an elliptic curve public key. A proof sketch of this claim is provided in section \[sec:analysis\].
Transport Layer {#sec:tithonus:transport}
---------------
[**Swift transactions**]{}. The goal of the Bitcoin network is to distribute newly created transactions to all the Bitcoin nodes across the world ($\S$ \[sec:background:network\]). Thus, a receiver who runs a node does not need to wait until the transaction is mined into the blockchain, in order to access it. However, before propagating a new transaction to its peers, each node verifies its validity, i.e., that (1) the transaction fee equals or exceeds 1 satoshi per byte and (2) the value of each output exceeds 3 times the transaction fee.
We leverage these observations to propose a low cost, low latency [*swift transaction*]{} communication solution, that works with all of the communication methods above and of $\S$ \[sec:background\]. Swift transactions use minimal transaction fee rates and values sent to non-data storing outputs (e.g., p2pkh outputs, see $\S$ \[sec:background:writing\]). Swift transactions achieve low latencies as nodes controlled by Tithonus clients and the server will receive such transactions as they are propagated through the Bitcoin network, well before they are mined into the blockchain.
**On-Chain transactions**. The advantages of swift transactions are fully exploited only when the user is online. For asynchronous cases, on-chain transactions can increase the transaction fee to secure the data in the blockchain as soon as possible. This increases the chances that the user can access the information when they are online. On-chain transactions thus trade costs for highly reliable communications.
Chaining Layer {#sec:tithonus:chaining}
--------------
The chaining layer sends messages of arbitrary sizes, by signaling the message length, and the location and order of transactions storing individual data units sent through the unit layer. Solutions like Catena [@TD17] and Blockstack [@ANSF16], are unsuitable to provide efficient censorship resilient communications.
We propose a [**hidden sequencing**]{} solution to address these problems. The sender needs to embed into each data unit, the type of data (e.g., DATA, DIR, CERT, CREG, REQ) written by the layers above, see $\S$ \[sec:tithonus:security\] and \[sec:tithonus:fetch\]). The sender prefixes each of these data units with a 4 byte sequence number $SEQ$, that specifies the order of the data unit within the content. In the content’s first data unit, the sender also includes a 4 byte $LEN$ value, which specifies the number of data units in the content. If the content fetch layer specifies a key, the sender uses it to encrypt each unit. The sender writes each data unit into a swift transaction, e.g., in the p2sh input of a staged transaction, or a p2pkh output (see $\S$ \[sec:tithonus:unit\] and \[sec:background:writing\]), then injects all transactions in the Bitcoin network, in parallel. The sender can process multiple contents simultaneously, using a locally stored, atomically accessed $SEQ$ variable.
The receiver needs the 32 byte id of the transaction that stores the first data unit, and optionally, a decryption key. He recovers the $SEQ$ and $LEN$ values from the first unit, then accesses (and optionally decrypts) all p2sh inputs and p2pkh outputs of transactions in the mempool and nearby blocks in the blockchain, until he recovers all $LEN-1$ subsequent $SEQ$ numbered data units (see $\S$ \[sec:tithonus:security\] and \[sec:tithonus:fetch\] for more details).
Security Layer {#sec:tithonus:security}
--------------
The security layer enables clients to establish trust, and to register and establish secure communication channels with the Tithonus service.
While suspicious out-to-in transactions cannot be blocked, as they will eventually be persisted in the blockchain ($\S$ \[sec:evaluation\]), high numbers of client posted transactions are intrinsically suspicious and can be discovered and blocked by a c-node filtering censor ($\S$ \[sec:model\]). Thus, in the following, we seek to minimize the number of transactions posted by clients.
[**Setup**]{}. The Tithonus service creates a self signed public key certificate and uses the chaining layer to publish the certificate on the Bitcoin blockchain (data units of type CERT, see $\S$ \[sec:tithonus:chaining\] and Figure \[fig:altruistic:dir\]). We call this the [*root certificate*]{}. While an adversary may also write a certificate impersonating Tithonus, the root Tithonus certificate is the oldest one. Let $pk_T$ and $sk_T$ be the public and private keys of the Tithonus service. The certificate specifies the key agreement, key derivation, hash, symmetric encryption and message authentication code functions used (e.g., ANSI X9.63 [@ANSI.X9.63]). The certificate also includes a random tag value $Ttag$ and a standard fee rate, i.e., price in satoshis per written byte, for responding to client requests.
Tithonus publishes new certificates periodically, see Figure \[fig:altruistic:dir\] for an illustration. A new certificate is signed with the private key of the previous certificate. The client is responsible for finding all the certificates, starting from the oldest to the newest one, and verifying the chain of trust. For simplicity, the Tithonus certificate also includes a $SEQ$ number, set to 0 for the root.
Further, we use the chaining layer to write the Tithonus client on the blockchain. This allows censored users to download the client with as little information as the id of the first transaction storing it.
[**Client registration**]{}. Upon startup, a client $C$ inside the censored area follows ECIES [@S01] to establish a session key with the Tithonus server through an encrypted client registration ($CREG$) message. Specifically, the client generates a private key $sk_C \in_R \mathbb{Z}_n^*$ and a public key $pk_C = sk_C G$, where $G$ and $n$ are as specified in secp256k1. It then generates a Rijndael (28B block mode) encryption key $K_1$ and a hashing key $K_2$, using the KDF specified in the Tithonus certificate with input $S_x$, where $(S_x,S_y) = sk_C
pk_T$ is a point on the elliptic curve (shared secret) and $pk_T$ is the public key of the Tithonus server. $C$ then generates a random session tag identifier $R_{CT}$ to identify subsequent communications with the Tithonus server, and a “payment” Bitcoin address with public and private keys $pk_{fee}, sk_{fee}$. The client sends to the Tithonus server, the message: $$pk_C, E_{K_1}(Ttag, CREG, R_{CT}, sk_{fee}, padding)$$ where $CREG$ is a 1 byte long header type that differentiates client registration messages from other Tithonus communications. If the client needs to re-register (e.g., this procedure fails), the client needs to generate new keys to avoid observable duplicates. The AES encryption uses a function of $pk_C$ as initialization vector. When using ECIES, without padding, this message is 98B long, assuming a $Ttag$ and $R_{CT}$ size of 16B each, $sk_{fee}$ of 32B, $pk_C$ of 33B compressed form, and $CREG$ of 1B.
The client camouflages this message into 2 staged multisig p2sh transactions ($\S$ \[sec:tithonus:unit\]), where each staging transaction has 2 outputs, of type “p2pkh, p2sh”. Figure \[fig:output:distrib\] (Section \[sec:background:writing\]) shows that such transactions are the second most popular, thus do not stand out. Further, a client registers infrequently. We write the above message into the redeeming script sections of the p2sh inputs. Each of these inputs has a net capacity for storing 2 \* 28 bytes ($\S$ \[sec:tithonus:unit\], MULTISIG script). However, the $pk_C$ (33 bytes) element is stored in one of the MULTISIG addresses, leaving 28 bytes available in one of the p2sh inputs. The second p2sh provides another 56 bytes for a total of 84 bytes available for the second part of the $CREG$ message. Thus, the random $padding$ needs to be 19B (84 - 65) long.
The staging transactions have two p2pkh outputs. The first output is used to fund the second staging transaction thus links the 2 transactions. The second output contains the fee (in satoshi), which needs to cover the server’s expenses to write the reply in the blockchain.
To identify client registration messages, the Tithonus server processes all pairs of p2pkh;p2sh transactions. Let $T$ be a pair of writing transactions with p2sh inputs $I_1$ and $I_2$, and outputs $O_1$ and $O_2$. The server concatenates the 4 unused public keys placeholders from $I_1$ and $I_2$ (132B), reads the first 33B as candidate $pk_C$, strips the prefix bytes from the remaining 3 public key placeholders, generates candidate point $(S_x, S_y)
= pk_C sk_T$, then uses it as input for the KDF function to construct candidate keys $K_1$ and $K_2$. The server decrypts the remaining 84B (99B - 3 prefix bytes - 12 random pad bytes) using $K_1$. If the result does not start with ($Ttag, CREG$), the server drops the transaction, as it is either not a $CREG$ message or is corrupted. Otherwise, the server recovers from the decrypted message the session tag $R_{CT}$ and the private key $sk_{fee}$.
The server uses $sk_{fee}$ to compute the public key $pk_{fee}$. It then compares $H(pk_{fee})$ against the public key hash value stored in the p2sh output $O_2$ of transaction pair $T$. If the verification fails, the server drops the transaction. Otherwise, the server uses $sk_{fee}$ to redeem the fee from $O_2$, and creates a record for client $C$: $$R[C] = [pk_C, K_1, K_2, R_{CT}, H_{K_2}(R_{CT}, c), c=1, credit]$$ $R[C]$ contains the session and hashing keys, the fresh session tag, the message count denoting how many messages it has exchanged with the client, and the balance it has redeemed from the user’s payment. The server updates $R[C]$ each time it processes a message to/from client $C$: it increments $c$, decrements $credit$ and updates the tag $H_{K_2}(R_{CT}, c)$.
Tithonus allows clients to register multiple times, creating additional records for new $pk_{fee}$ keys. This prevents observability, by reducing the amount of repeated deposits to the same payment account. It also prevents Tithonus from learning detailed, client request profiles.
Content Fetch Layer {#sec:tithonus:fetch}
-------------------
Clients use the content fetch layer to request and fetch censored content. We introduce solutions to fetch static and dynamic content, with free, pay-per-access and subscription based payments.
![Altruistic directory organization. Client reads all certificate (CERT) transactions and verifies the chain of trust. Client then reads all directory entry (DIR) transactions and verifies that they are signed with the certificate that was valid when they were issued. DIR entries point to the first DATA transaction storing the content, which is sequenced by SEQ numbers.[]{data-label="fig:altruistic:dir"}](./figures/altruisticdir/altruisticdir.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
[**Altruistic directory: free, static content**]{}. The altruistic directory solution, illustrated in Figure \[fig:altruistic:dir\], allows clients to access censored content that is considered by Tithonus to be of public interest, e.g., the source code of other censorship-resistant systems (CRS), news articles, for free. Content is written in cleartext on the blockchain. Its authenticity is ensured through a signature with the most recent Tithonus private key. The client can fetch content listed in the altruistic directory without needing to register with the server (see $\S$ \[sec:tithonus:security\]).
Specifically, for each new piece of content that Tithonus decides to distribute for free, the server uses a two-step process. First, use the chaining layer to write the compressed content into the blockchain (data units of type DATA, see bottom part of Figure \[fig:altruistic:dir\]). As consumers for this content can not be expected to be online at the time of publishing, swift transactions are inadequate and the On-Chain transport module is preferable. Second, the server generates a new [*directory entry*]{}, that contains (1) a description of the content, (2) the id of the leading transaction in the blockchain, that stores the first data unit of the content, and (3) the Tithonus signature over the previous fields, with the most recent Tithonus private key (middle layer in Figure \[fig:altruistic:dir\]). It then uses the chaining layer to write this new directory entry into the blockchain, as data units of type DIR.
The client needs to retrieve and reconstruct the entire directory. To reduce the need of clients to parse each Bitcoin transaction looking for DIR entries, the server can write DIR entries into transactions using a specific input Bitcoin, included in the Tithonus certificate. The client then needs to only retrieve and parse a subset of the transactions to retrieve DIR entries. The client verifies the authenticity of DIR entries: the signature in each entry was generated using the public key stored in the Tithonus certificate that was valid when the DIR’s block was mined into the blockchain.
If the client wants to fetch a specific content listed in a DIR entry, it retrieves the id of the first transaction that stores the content’s DATA units, from its DIR entry, then uses the chaining layer to read the content from the blockchain ($\S$ \[sec:tithonus:chaining\]). The client monitors the blockchain to identify newly added directory entries.
[**On-demand, pay-per-access**]{}. We propose a content fetching approach where the client can unobservably request new content, then fetch it with confidentiality and integrity assurances, while the server can charge for writing new content, and cache popular content, thus reduce the cost and observability of subsequent requests. A client requests content through a $REQ$-type message: $$H_{K_2}(R_{CT},c++), E_{K_1}(Ttag, REQ, SEL, URI),$$ where $H_{K_2}(R_{CT},c)$ is used to denote a fresh session tag for client $C$, $c$ being $C$’s message counter. $c++$ signifies that the counter is incremented by both the client and the server after processing this message. $REQ$ is a 1B message type (request). $SEL$ is an 8B selector tuple (*offset*, *length*) that requests a specific offset (4B) and length (4B) of the content. $URI$ is the *null-padded* pointer to the content, which could be a known site (e.g., [www.bbc.com](www.bbc.com)) or a tinyurl returned by the server for a previous request (e.g., Google search results). The client uses 2 staged multisig p2sh transactions as in the client registration, where the staging transaction has 2 outputs (p2sh; p2pkh). The client camouflages the above message into the p2sh inputs (112B). The $H_{K_2}(R_{CT},c++)$ is embedded in the first 28B of one of the p2sh inputs with 8 bytes of random padding. Thus, since $Ttag$, $REQ$ and $SEL$ require a total of 25B, the null-padded $URI$ can be up to 59 bytes long (84 - 25). Just as in the case of the client registration, the first p2pkh output is used as a link to the second staging transaction while the second p2pkh is not used. The reason for choosing this transaction type is that it is the second most popular, accounting for $\approx$ 19% of all transactions when counting p2sh;p2pkh and p2pkh;p2sh inputs and outputs, see Figure \[fig:output:distrib\].
To identify $REQ$ messages, the server processes each pair of p2sh; p2pkh output transactions linked by the first p2pkh output. For each candidate pair, the server extracts the first 28B from the first p2sh input and concatenates the remaining 28 byte chunks of the remaining p2sh inputs. It then looks up the first 20B ($H_{K_2}(R_{CT},c)$) of the result, among the session tags of all hosted clients ($\S$ \[sec:tithonus:security\]). When it finds a match, the server increments the client’s $c$ count, recovers $C$’s $K_1$ key and decrypts the remaining 84B ($E_{K_1}(Ttag, REQ, SEL, URI)$). The server checks the user’s record balance, then fetches the content at the specified $URI$, determines the cost $fee$ required to send it through Tithonus (e.g., based on content size, whether it is cached or not, predicted popularity, see below) and sends the following reply: $$Ttag,H_{K_2}(R_{CT},c++), E_{K_1}(fee, RESP),rev(Ttag)$$ The response is embedded in a chain of p2sh staged transactions, each storing 1,635 bytes ($\S$ \[sec:tithonus:unit\]). The answer’s length is dependent on the available user’s balance. If this balance is insufficient, the server answers only the number of bytes covered by the balance starting at the specified offset. Otherwise, the request is ignored. The client needs to process all transactions chains marshalled by a $Ttag$ and its reverse ($rev(Ttag)$), both in the mempool and newly posted in the blockchain, in order to identify the server reply. Once a reply is identified by the $H_{K_2}(R_{CT},c++)$ tag, the client decrypts the rest of the chain and retrieves the requested content.
[**Subscription based access**]{}. Tithonus can convert the altruistic directory and cached content fetch solutions into subscription based solutions, to provide access to dynamic content, e.g, news services, RSS feeds. The client subscribes interest in published content (e.g., through a $URI$ as above), and transfers funds to the Tithonus server. The server periodically accesses the content, publishes updates using the chaining layer, then updates the client’s balance. The server may charge less per update if multiple clients subscribed to this content. The subscription can be update or time based, i.e., the client pays per update or time unit. For this, the service encrypts content with a key that it distributes (encrypted) to subscribed clients. The key can change after each update, or periodically (e.g., once per day).
Analysis {#sec:analysis}
========
In this section we analyze the ability of Tithonus to satisfy the requirements outlined in Section \[sec:requirements\].
[**Unobservability.**]{} In the following we analyze the ability of Tithonus to protect the user’s unobservable access to out-to-in communication and to ensure the indistinguishability of in-to-out requests.
[**Access to out-to-in communications**]{}. User nodes need to exhibit full node functionality thus can access free content published using the altruistic directory method, in an unobservable manner: Full Bitcoin nodes can only function if they fetch the entire blockchain, thus clients can just access the blockchain to read and verify the Tithonus public key certificate chain and the altruistic directory, then recover the desired content, all written in the blockchain. Thus, the Bitcoin ecosystem separates clients from the Tithonus service, providing potential for anonymity. Client nodes download the entire blockchain. Thus, the altruistic directory is equivalent to the trivial solution to the PIR problem, and requires no direct client contact with the Tithonus service. In the on-demand, pay-per-access solution, clients identify only through a random public key. Clients can register multiple public keys (i.e., pseudo-identities), to prevent the server from building and de-anonymizing profiles.
For the staged transactions issued for the client registration, cached content fetch and subscription based access method, we use the proposed patterns (e.g. p2pkh, p2sh inputs and outputs) only as templates: Tithonus camouflages client issued protocol messages in popular transaction types, whose distributions change overtime. While, currently, such transactions account for 20% of Bitcoin transactions, see Section \[sec:evaluation\], Tithonus adds inputs or outputs depending on the evolution of these changes but preserves the use of the underlying barebones transaction pattern.
Tithonus restricts the amount of content that a client can request per time unit (e.g., per day) to a value consistent with that of regular Bitcoin users. In addition, Payments issued by clients cannot be traced to the Tithonus service if at least one of the exchanges employed by the server does not collude with the censor.
[**Indistinguishability of in-to-out requests**]{}. This communication type makes use of multisig p2sh transactions embeddings (Section \[sec:tithonus:unit\]). Since this embedding directly uses the encryption output of a Rjindael cipher, its correctness follows from the correctness of the Rjindael algorithm [@duan2005functional]. We include a proof sketch that the Tithonus multisig p2sh constructs are indistinguishable from regular multisig p2sh transactions, in Appendix \[appendix:proof\].
[**Unblockability**]{}. The system’s resilience to censorship is based on the unwillingness of the censor to affect the Bitcoin ecosystem’s normal functioning, which stems from reasons ranging from economic to technical. We detail these reasons in $\S$ \[sec:discussion\].
[**Availability.**]{} The Tithonus server does not expose a traditional communication end-point, thus its service is not vulnerable to traditional DoS attacks based on excessive spurious/incomplete requests. All Tithonus requests need to be paid upfront and thus any increase on the number of requests is met with more resources afforded by the corresponding request fees. These fees can also include operation, maintenance and profit fees for the Tithonus service, converting a DoS attack into a wealth transfer from the attacker to the Tithonus infrastructure. A censor that floods the Bitcoin network with Tithonus transactions to exhaust its resources, will further lead to congestion and transaction fee rate spikes, thus disrupt the entire Bitcoin ecosystem, including e.g., e-commerce merchants and their customers.
[**Communication integrity**]{}. The client authenticates the Tithonus server through its ability to decrypt messages encrypted with the public key advertised in the Tithonus certificate. The client also verifies that specific messages (e.g., DIR entries) are signed with the private key of the Tithonus server. The server verifies that the client has provided the funds required to send back the replies through the Bitcoin network or blockchain. Both the client and the server use special fields in messages exchanged, to verify their integrity and authenticity. Further, the chaining layer preserves the order of the data units, and the use of erasure codes can provide resilience to data filtering.
[**Ease of deployment**]{}. Tithonus users only need to know the 32 bytes of the transaction id that stores the first data unit of the Tithonus client source code, in order to first fetch the source code, then compile and run it. Alternatively, a small Tithonus client [*bootstrapper*]{} can perform these operations.
[**Performance.**]{} Tithonus uses minimal values for transaction fess and adapts them according to the communication need (swift or on-chain transactions). In addition, the use of staged transactions maximizes the payload data output under the current Bitcoin transaction rules. Next, we evaluate the performance of Tithonus.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
==========
[**Ethical considerations**]{}. In our experiments, we did not interact with humans. We have only collected the country of location of nodes, and times when they were online. In the following we discuss the potential burden placed by Tithonus on Bitcoin miners and clients.
[**Burden on miners**]{}. Given the high costs of the mining hardware, electricity and overall maintenance, the main motivation for miner participation is financial. Tithonus does not add to these costs. For out-to-in communication, Tithonus transactions even add financial incentives to miners. Other blockchain-writing services, e.g., Catena, Apertus, place a similar burden on miners and clients. Thus, Tithonus does not expose them to any additional risk not already accepted by them. This is an inherent side effect of collateral damage-based solutions. In fact, mining activity has increased exponentially [@bitcoinhashrategrowth] despite the continued implementation of such un-anticipated uses of the blockchain.
[**Burden on clients**]{}. Users who run light clients, that do not fully participate on the gossip protocol, are unburdened by Tithonus transactions. Only clients that run “full nodes” are impacted by Tithonus. While their motivation to do so is transitively financial (i.e., to support miners who make a profit from mining them), we admit that Tithonus may place an unwanted burden on purely altruistic full nodes. In this respect, Tithonus is similar to other collateral damage based CRS systems that e.g., use domain fronting or CDN caches.
Tithonus Certificate {#sec:evaluation:block}
--------------------
We have written the first Tithonus certificate (714 bytes in compressed form) using a staged transaction ($\S$ \[sec:tithonus:unit\]). The resulting transaction is available at <https://tinyurl.com/y8u4avu6>. The cost was 1000 satoshis (1.117 sat/byte fee rate, i.e. almost min rate) to write an 895 bytes transaction containing the certificate. The p2sh input includes a small accompanying script that extracts the zip file from the raw transaction: $$\tt{echo\ rawTxn\ |\ dd\ skip=47\ bs=2\ count=714\ |}$$ $$\tt{sed\ 's/4cc0//'\ |\ xxd\ -r\ -p\ >\ tithonus\_cert.zip}$$ The transaction made it to the blockchain in $\approx$ 7 mins.
Swift Transactions {#sec:evaluation:swift}
------------------
We implemented components of the Tithonus infrastructure using 790 Python loc. We have prepared 8 p2pkh transactions with one input and two outputs. We have issued 4 types of transactions, each assigned a transaction fee of 1, 2, 4, and 8 times the minimum transaction rate $fee$ of 1 satoshi/byte.
We downloaded a list of 924 Bitcoin nodes’ IP addresses from earn.com from the 35 countries with least freedom of press according to reporters without borders (rsf.org). Only 12 of these countries had Bitcoin nodes that accepted incoming connections (“server nodes”). We use these nodes’ relay times to estimate the time for a Tithonus message to spread across the network. However, Tithonus does not require server nodes for operation. Tithonus is usable as long as the censor allows at least “client” nodes that peer to other “server nodes” (outside or inside the censored region). We initiated a connection with these server nodes inside censor areas. We were able to maintain connections to 530 nodes over the entire duration of the experiment, i.e., 24 hours, by answering *ping* messages but ignoring other commands.
![Violins show the probability density of relay times (for all 1-8 fee txns) over the nodes in each of 12 censored countries.[]{data-label="fig:txn:countries:all"}](./graphs/txn.countries/all_country_time){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We set up a [*sentinel node*]{} to connect to all these 530 nodes, added Bloom filters encoding our transactions, into all these nodes, and waited to receive our transactions with a voluntary *inv* message. We used *mempool* messages to retrieve the contents of non-relaying nodes’ mempool and verify they never received them.
We have set up a default installation of the Bitcoin reference client and allowed it to connect to 8 peers outside the censored countries. We injected our transactions from this node. We used the interval between the time when the sentinel node received a transaction, and the time when the transaction was injected into the network as an upper bound on the time our transaction took to reach its destination.
526 nodes relayed at least one of our transactions (99.24%), and 509 nodes relayed all 4 transactions. Half of the nodes received our transactions in less than 5s and 90% of the nodes received them in under 20s. Figure \[fig:txn:countries:all\] shows the distributions of relay times over the nodes in each of 12 censored countries. Most nodes in countries like China and Russia (who have the most nodes) relay the transactions in under 5s, but have a few nodes who take longer than 30s (but under 50s). All the nodes in the other countries relay our transactions in under 25s.
![Number of nodes in China, Russia and the other 10 censored countries together, that relay transactions in 5 seconds or less. Even at the lowest fee, 41.8% of the Chinese nodes and 45% of the Russian nodes relay the transaction.[]{data-label="fig:txn:nodes:all"}](./graphs/txn.nodes/all_relay_nodes){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
A censored client will receive a transaction if at least one of its peers receives it. To understand the ability of a censored node to receive low fee transactions, we plot the number of nodes per country that relay each of the 1-8 fee transactions. Figure \[fig:txn:nodes:all\] plots these numbers for CN, RU and the other 10 censored countries together, that relay our transactions in 5s or less. We see a linear increase in the number of CN and RU nodes who relay transactions, as a function of the transaction fee.
**Swift transaction’s reliability and speed**. Even at the lowest fee, 41.8% nodes in China and 45% in Russia relay the transaction in under 5 secs. Thus, if the Tithonus client connects to 8 random peers in any of these countries, it will receive even the lowest fee transactions with high probability in under 5 secs (e.g., 98.68% = $1 - (1
- 41.8\%)^8$ in China).
![Violins show the probability density of the relay time as a function of the transaction fee rate, over all the nodes in the 12 censored countries. We observe a decrease in relay times with the transaction fee. The median is 6s over all transaction fees. []{data-label="fig:txn:fee:all"}](./graphs/txn.violins/all_violin){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Further, we have evaluated the ability of an increase in the transaction fee to reduce the relay time of a message. Figure \[fig:txn:fee:all\] shows the probability density of the relay times over all the nodes in the 12 censored countries, for each of the 4 transaction fee rate types. The median relay time remains constant at 6s when the transaction fee rate increases from 1 to 8 satoshis per byte. This suggests no advantage in reducing relay times by increasing transaction fee rates in this interval.
The Price of Free Speech {#sec:evaluation:comparison}
------------------------
[**The cost of out-to-in communications**]{}. We have used Tithonus to send a 13,804B file (Tithonus logo) to nodes in the 12 censored countries. The file fit into 9 staged transactions, using a single p2sh input per transaction, and the minimum transaction fee rate (1 sat/B).
We used the same setup as in the previous experiment and obtained similar results in terms of reliability. Figure \[writing:times:distribution\] shows the probability distributions of the relay times of each of the 9 transactions, along with the time it took each transaction to be mined into the blockchain. All 9 transactions were permanently recorded in the blockchain, in at most 1.8 hours. This result suggests that filtering swift transactions is a useless censorship strategy: censorship only delays their delivery. In addition, selective filtering may harm pools and miners who do not mine these transactions [@decker2013information].
Further, the total cost of writing the 9 transactions on the blockchain was 14,722 satoshi, which includes 8 transactions of size 1,656 bytes and 1 transaction of size 1,474 bytes. At current prices (1 BTC $\approx$ \$), the Tithonus cost of sending the 14KB file was \$.
[**Tithonus cost for an average web user**]{}. We consider now a scenario where the user accesses a news article of an average of 1,200 words [@Article.Words]. Assuming an average of 6 characters per word [@wordLen], the total size of 7.2KB would require Tithonus to send 7.2 \* 1.07 = 7.7KB, i.e., including transaction overheads. Therefore, the price to write this to the blockchain is 7,704 satoshis or \$ (at the current rate of \$ per BTC).
[**The cost of in-to-out communications**]{}. The client registration process requires the creation of two *multisig transactions* for the registration process. Each subsequent resource request message requires 2 additional *multisig transactions* ($\S$ \[sec:tithonus:security\]). A p2sh multi-signature transaction with 2 outputs (p2sh, p2pkh) has a size of 395 bytes. We leverage the estimates from [@bitcoinfees] in order to determine a fee per byte that would allow our transactions to blend in with other p2sh-multisig transactions. The median fee per byte over the last 24 hours at the time of writing is [9]{} satoshi/B. Thus, the user needs to pay a total of satoshi ($\approx$ \$ at the current conversion rate) to register, and for each subsequent content request message.
\[tables:tithonus:download:time\]
[**Tithonus vs. VPN costs**]{}. We now evaluate Tithonus’ costs per expected request latency against those of a VPN. Table \[tables:tithonus:download:time\] summarizes our comparison. The top rows show the costs and latencies of the pay-per access and subscription modes of Tithonus. These costs assume the current median transaction fee rate according to [@bitcoinfees] for unobservability. In $\S$ \[sec:evaluation:swift\] we showed that increasing the fee rate for out-to-in communication has no effect on the speed at which swift transactions are propagated through the Bitcoin network. Further, for semi-interactive/concurrent communication (e.g., on-demand pay-per-access), the user is expected to be online at the time of the request. Thus, for this use case, there is really no need to wait for transactions to appear in the blockchain (see Table \[tables:tithonus:txncosts\] in the appendix). In fact, we have also shown ($\S$ \[sec:evaluation:swift\]) that having to resort to the blockchain because of a missing swift transaction is a low probability event (0.0132 in China).
To compare against VPN costs, we have not considered services that claim to provide only directional, i.e., in-to-out, communications (e.g., NordVPN, ViperVPN and ExpressVPN): since we are not in a censored country, we cannot verify their claims. Instead, we have focused on two popular VPN providers, HideMyAss and PureVPN, that publicize dual communication services (both in-to-out and out-to-in) for China, similar to Tithonus. The monthly costs for HideMyAss [@hmapricing] and PureVPN [@purevpnpricing] services at publication time are \$6.99 and \$4.91 respectively. Communication setup (payment verification and account activation) requires 60–90 min for PureVPN and 2–60 min for HideMyAss.
Surprisingly, we found that despite the service being openly publicized on their webpage, the access from within China and from the outside into China was effectively blocked. Customer support blamed the Great Firewall of China (GFW) and was unable to provide an expected resolution time. They in fact recommended asking for a refund which led us to believe this is not a temporary problem. Thus, the expected latency for using their service is $\infty$, and, since the number of requests per month that are available under any service plan is $0$, the cost per request turns out to also be $\infty$, see Table \[tables:tithonus:download:time\].
Tithonus Client Computing Overhead {#sec:evaluation:client}
----------------------------------
We used a 32-bit system with an Intel^^ Xeon^^ Gold 6126 CPU @ 2.60GHz with 8GB RAM to estimate the Tithonus client overhead. The time to retrieve the Tithonus root certificate from the 200GB blockchain, using simple string matching, was 15m.36sec. When equipped with the Bitcoin client and the specific transaction id, this time however becomes 4ms.
Depending on key sizes, in the on-demand, pay-per-access content fetch solution, a client can process 38.8–57.26 thousand Tithonus txn/sec with a CPU utilization of about 0.05%. Similarly, client registration and content request messages achieve a speed of 1.2–1.67 million Tithonus txn/sec. Further, for the altruistic directory and subscription service, our system achieved 2,850 ECDSA signature verifications per second. For comparison, the maximum transaction rate ever processed by the Bitcoin network is 20 txn/sec.
Tithonus Performance Comparisons {#sec:evaluation:comparison:tor}
--------------------------------
![Distribution of relay times by nodes in 12 most censored countries, and blockchain arrival times for 9 transactions carrying the Tithonus logo. Swift transactions are relayed by responding nodes in less than 40 seconds while all transactions eventually make it to the blockchain in less than 1.8 hours.[]{data-label="writing:times:distribution"}](./graphs/writing.times/logo_distrib){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
We now compare Tithonus with state of the art Blochain writing and censorship resistance solutions.
**Comparison with Catena**. In the experiment of $\S$ \[sec:evaluation:comparison\], the [*writing efficiency*]{} of our staged transactions is 0.93 (ratio of data bytes to total bytes). For the same file, Catena [@TD17] requires 172 transactions of size 282 bytes and 1 transaction of size 246, whose total size is 48,750 bytes, for a writing efficiency of 0.28. At their recommended rate of 70 satoshi/byte, the total cost of writing with Catena is 3,412,500 satoshi, or \$. Thus, Tithonus reduces the cost of sending information through the Bitcoin blockchain, by 2 orders of magnitude (231 times cheaper), and increases the writing efficiency by a factor of 3.
Further, the time for all Catena transactions to reach the blockchain amounts to around 1,730 minutes (28.8 hours), as a transaction can be written only after all the previous ones have been confirmed in the blockchain. The 9 Tithonus transactions took only 3.3s to be relayed by 1/8 of the good nodes in China, and they were all mined in the blockchain in under 1.8 hours. Thus, Tithonus improves on the transmission speed of a 14KB file by between 3 to 5 orders of magnitude (961 to 34,600 times faster). Tithonus achieves a goodput of 4,601 B/s compared with Catena’s 0.13 B/s.
[**Comparison with Tor**]{}. We deployed a VM with a paid VPN service that tunnels all traffic from our lab in the US to the Shanghai province in China. This infrastructure simulates a real life censored user. Since the Tor download page is censored, we assume that the Tor user found an acceptable and secure alternative way to download Tor, e.g., using Tithonus.
We tried all available Tor transports (obfs3, obfs4, meek, fte, scramblesuit) and only meek-azure was able to bootstrap enough relays to establish a circuit connection. In our experiments, this bootstrapping process lasted around 1.3 hours. In comparison, the communication setup for the *pay-per-access* mode in Tithonus requires 10–30 min (1–3 confirmations) until the first cryptocurrency exchange credits the Tithonus account [@BitfinexConfirmationTimes]. The meek pluggable transport uses the infrastructure of large third parties to inflict collateral damage to censorship attempts. Such *domain fronting*-based solutions depend on centralized third party collaboration, thus are not reliable (as recently evidenced by Google suddenly disabling its support [@googleFronting]). A Tor user may obtain this bootstrapping information through Tithonus.
Subsequently, we have used Tor to download the Tithonus logo (13,804 Bytes) several times using different circuits on each trial, and obtained download times ranging between 10 to 15s. The VPN overhead, which we measured using the ping tool with a payload of 13408 Bytes, was only 192 ms. Thus, Tor’s 10-15 sec result suggests a 5 fold performance decrease when compared to Tithonus.
[**Comparison with Collage**]{}. Collage [@BFV10] is a CRS that uses sites that host user-generated content to communicate hidden messages. A user embeds messages into cover traffic and posts them as content on a site. Unlike Tithonus, Collage communications are free. However, the latency and goodput of Tithonus are better: Collage required 9 jpeg photos to store 23 KB of data and took 1 minute to retrieve them. In contrast Tithonus achieves a 93% storage efficiency and 3-5 seconds to retrieve (from China!) a comparable amount of bytes.\
Non-Conformant Nodes {#sec:evaluation:analysis}
--------------------
![Distributions of Bitcoin node client types in 12 countries with least freedom of press. The only client expected to relay Tithonus transaction is the Satoshi client (Bitcoin Core fork). China has the lowest percentage of such clients, but still higher in absolute value than any of the other countries.[]{data-label="fig:client:distribution"}](./graphs/client.distrib/client_distrib.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
To understand why in the above experiments, only a fraction of Bitcoin nodes relayed our transactions, we have studied the advertised banners of the 1,526 contacted nodes. We have observed 67 total unique banners, which we grouped into 7 categories, including an “Other” category that contains banners with small representation (under 10 nodes).
The only nodes that can be expected to relay Tithonus transactions are the Bitcoin Core (Satoshi)-compatible clients. The rest of the clients, such as, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold, etc. have incompatible and independent blockchains. Thus, we consider all other nodes to be [*non-conformant*]{}, as they compete with the Satoshi nodes: they accept connections from Satoshi clients but do not relay Bitcoin nor Tithonus transactions. A Tithonus node that peers with such non-conformant (Bitcoin forking) nodes may be more vulnerable to c-node filtering attacks, and even eclipse attacks. Specifically, non-conformant nodes affect not only Tithonus but also the distribution of regular Bitcoin Core transactions. This occurs because Bitcoin Core nodes waste outgoing connection slots (only 8 available by default) when peering with nodes that effectively reduce their reachability and connectivity to the Bitcoin network. However, we note that even in the presence of a large percentage of non-conformant nodes, Tithonus transactions were relayed by a large number (99.24%) of conformant nodes in censored countries.
Figure \[fig:client:distribution\] shows the distribution of the advertised Bitcoin node types for the 1,526 nodes, over the top 3 censored countries in terms of node population and the remaining 9 as a whole. China has the highest percentage of non-conformant nodes, followed by Singapore. China is dominated by the Bitcoin Cash (ABC) client. The number of Satoshi nodes in China exceeds those in Russia, where they form the vast majority of nodes.
Discussion and Limitations {#sec:discussion}
==========================
[**Limitations of Tithonus**]{}. Tithonus is expensive, unsuitable for low-latency interactive communications, and limits the amount of content that can be requested per time unit. Tithonus is suitable when other solutions are blocked (e.g., VPNs [@VPN.China.a; @VPN.China.b; @VPN.Russia]) or their detectability may expose the user. Tithonus can be used to bootstrap other censorship-resistant systems, e.g., to download their source code or communicate Tor bridge IPs.
Tithonus communications are stored in the blockchain, where they can be accessed and decrypted by an adversary at a later time. However, Tithonus messages do not include client information. To attribute such messages to the source clients, an adversary would also need to monitor and record client communications, in which case the blockchain provides no advantage.
**Payment obfuscation.** The content fetch solutions described in $\S$ \[sec:tithonus:fetch\] require the client to transfer funds to an address, then enable the Tithonus service to redeem those funds. However, the server cannot just transfer the funds to a Tithonus controlled address or immediately spend the funds on an identifiable resource (e.g., through a transaction that uses as inputs multiple such addresses). Such actions would inform the censor about the identities of clients who use Tithonus. To address this vulnerability, the Tithonus server makes use of cryptocurrency exchanges that break the connection between the coins spent and the resource obtained. Since some of these exchanges could be in collusion or have been compromised by the censor, the Tithonus server needs to chain the use of several exchanges before performing the final use of the funds. Specifically, the funds are transferred to one exchange and traded to several different cryptocurrencies before being transferred to another exchange. Depending on the desired confirmation speed, transferring funds to an exchange currently incurs a Bitcoin transaction fee of 200-600 satoshis. In addition, trading operations have a cost of around 2% of the transaction nominal value.
[**Censorship resilience**]{}. The cost of blocking Bitcoin may be too large even for the most powerful censors. Censors may have invested heavily in cryptocurrencies [@ChinaMines] or have mining advantages over competitors [@asicBoost], thus may be reluctant to block cryptocurrencies. A censor who is unwilling to completely block the use of Bitcoin will be unable to prevent out-to-in communications from reaching the blockchain, thus censored clients (see $\S$ \[sec:evaluation:comparison\]).
Censoring in-to-out transactions suspected of being part of Tithonus can split the blockchain, as it will lead to inconsistent mempools and different blocks for inside and outside miners [@decker2013information]. The inherent false positive rate of any filtering algorithm will also lead to the censor blocking valid transactions. Tithonus seeks to increase this FPR, by making its transactions blend in Bitcoin. We also found evidence that the default Bitcoin node policy to select peers actively resists such attacks. In Section \[sec:evaluation:swift\] we show that even when 70% of the nodes in the censored area are non-conformant, Tithonus transactions reach most benign nodes in less than 19 seconds.
Further, we note that an adversary could exploit knowledge that the censor blocks Tithonus transactions (even if he allows their hashes) to deploy double spending attacks against users within the censored area. For instance, an adversary outside the censored area could issue a transaction to pay an “outside” service, that mimics Tithonus staged transactions. The censor would then prevent this transaction from reaching services in the censored area. The adversary then double spends the input address of this staged transaction, by issuing a legitimate (no Tithonus payload) transaction from it that pays a service within the censored area. Since the service did not see the first transaction, it will accept the second one.
[**Middleman blockchain attack**]{}. In an effort to remedy the shortcomings of the previous attack, the censor could attempt forcing censored users to make use of a censor-controlled *blockchain accessing service*. The goal of this attack would be to prevent censored nodes from directly accessing an uncensored version of the blockchain. Instead, censored nodes would need to contact this blockchain accessing service, “the middleman”, to fetch blockchain information and perform transaction and block verifications. The middleman would then be able to, e.g., prevent access to the blocks containing Tithonus data but still answer queries about the state of the Bitcoin network.
Such a service would however make participants inside the censored area vulnerable to attacks, e.g., double spending with merchants within the censored region. Specifically, attackers could attempt to exploit the inherent racing condition that arises from the time the middleman nodes receive a to-be censored transaction and a query from a user inside the censored region. In addition, the middleman service nodes would have to be publicly and easily identifiable for censored users to use them. This visibility makes them easy targets to attacks, e.g., DoS, selective malicious information feeding and even total eclipsing.
Bitcoin provides resilience to such attacks by incentivizing a diverse and distributed ecosystem of nodes. The middleman blockchain attack reduces this diversity and thus reduces the security of its participants, as studied by Decker and Wattenhofer [@decker2013information].
**Malleability concerns.** Since its creation, the Bitcoin ecosystem has struggled with the problem of transaction malleability. Thus, Tithonus transactions are also malleable. This vulnerability could pose problems for staged transactions that require integrity protections when sent simultaneously. However, in order for a censor to perform a “malleability + rushing” attack on Tithonus, it needs to win a race against the rest of the honest Bitcoin network and prevent un-tainted Tithonus-issued writing transactions from reaching their intended clients. Such a DoS attack could be easier achieved by direct filtering. However, such actions would harm the Bitcoin ecosystem and miners inside the censored area [@decker2013information], placing this attack outside of our threat model.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
[**Blockchain based censorship resistance**]{}. Wachs et al. [@wachs2014censorship] have evaluated the feasibility of building a censorship resilient, privacy preserving domain name system. Tomescu and Devadas [@TD17] proposed Catena, a blockchain-based non-equivocation solution. Catena uses transaction chains where each transaction has two outputs, one that stores data into an unspendable OP\_RETURN output and one that is spent in the following transaction in the chain. Catena transactions are easy to fingerprint by the censor and have lower goodput and a higher price than Tithonus ($\S$ \[sec:evaluation\]).
[**Proxy based and decoy routing censorship resistance**]{}. Tithonus imposes higher costs and latency than existing VPN services. However, VPNs are easy to block, with countries like China [@VPN.China.a; @VPN.China.b] and Russia [@VPN.Russia] curtailing access to VPNs. Decoy routing deploys relay stations to routers of participating ISPs and leverages covert channels (see below) to hide information inside requests to an overt destination, which is then detected and processed by a relay station. Decoy routing leverages collateral damage assumptions (see next) to prevent censorship. Many decoy routing systems are vulnerable to latency analysis and website fingerprinting attacks. Bocovich and Goldberg [@BG16] addressed this problem through a decoy routing solution that mimics access to an uncensored site.
Both proxy based solutions and decoy routing use intermediate participants to route traffic. Similar to Tithonus, intermediaries increase communication latency. Further, both decoy routing and proxy based CRS assume voluntary participation of multiple participants. Tithonus provides financial incentives for participation. Tithonus can be used to distribute IPs of Tor bridges, but does not prevent a censor from discovering and blocking them.
[**High collateral damage CRS**]{}. Emerging solutions attempt to bypass such attacks, by leveraging the unwillingness of censors to block access to infrastructure providing large scale access to benign resources. For instance, Holowczak and Houmansadr [@HH15] found that the Chinese firewall does not block IPs of CDN providers that store censored content, as they also store large amounts of benign content. However, Zolfaghari and Houmansadr [@ZH16] found that CDN based CRS (e.g., CacheBrowser [@HH15]) can leak the identity of destination websites and are vulnerable to website fingerprinting attacks. They designed CDNReaper, a CDN-aware based CRS that addresses these attacks, e.g., by processing the requested censored content.
Fifield et al. [@FLHWP15] further proposed domain fronting, that sets up circumvention proxies on web services that share IP addresses with other benign services. While blocking all such IPs (including CDN IPs) is possible to a powerful censor, it would block access to content considered benign and even useful to the censor.
[**Mimicry and tunneling based CRS**]{}. Mohajeri et al. [@MLDG12] proposed SkypeMorph, a mimicry based CRS that morphs Tor traffic to resemble the characteristics of Skype calls. Houmansadr et al. [@HRBS13] introduced FreeWave, a CRS that modulates censored traffic into acoustic signals which it tunnels over VoIP (i.e., Skype) connections. Unlike Tithonus, SkypeMorph and FreeWave communications are free. However, payments provide incentives for running the Tithonus service, and resilience against DoS attacks. Tor can be blocked even when using SkypeMorph, since a censor impersonating valid users can discover and block Tor bridges. SkypeMorph is vulnerable to packet drop attacks. In contrast, filtering attacks do not impact Tithonus when the censor does not want to affect Bitcoin usage.
Conclusions
===========
We introduced Tithonus, a new CRS built on the Bitcoin network and blockchain. We develop solutions for Tithonus clients to fetch censored data of arbitrary size, that are 2 orders of magnitude cheaper and 3-5 orders of magnitude faster than state of the art Bitcoin writing solutions. Tithonus is robust even in the presence of non-conformant nodes, and this robustness is not affected by the use of low fee transactions, in the absence of congestion. Thus, Tithonus is able to provide an optimally cheap solution within a given cryptocurrency ecosystem. Tithonus is practical when considering its reach of Bitcoin nodes available in censored countries.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank the shepherd and the anonymous reviewers for their excellent feedback. This research was supported by NSF grant CNS-1526494.
Proof Sketch of Indistinguishability of In-To-Out Requests {#appendix:proof}
==========================================================
We introduce the following indistinguishability game, played by a challenger and an adversary. First, the adversary chooses a message $M$ and sends it to the challenger. The challenger encrypts $M$ and takes the leftmost 28 bytes of the result to generate $D$. He then randomly picks a bit $b$. If $b=0$, the challenger generates and outputs a regular compressed public key. If $b=1$, he embeds $D$ in a public key as described in Section \[sec:tithonus:unit\] and outputs the embedding instead. The adversary then outputs a guess $b'$ for the challenger’s bit $b$. The adversary wins if $b'$ = $b$ with probability non-negligibly higher than 1/2.
We observe that to prove that the Tithonus multisig p2sh constructs are indistinguishable from regular multisig p2sh transactions, it suffices to show that our procedure for embedding encrypted data ($\S$ \[sec:tithonus:unit\]) produces outputs that are indistinguishable from a compressed elliptic curve public key. This sufficiency claim follows from the fact that a our p2sh construct simply consists of two of these embeddings and a real public key, whereas a regular p2sh Bitcoin transaction consists of 3 real public keys. Thus, if each of these embeddings are indistinguishable from public keys, our construct and regular p2sh transactions must be indistinguishable as well.
To see that our embeddings are indistinguishable from a compressed elliptic curve public key, we observe that [*by definition*]{}, a compressed public key consists of the prefix 0x02/0x03 followed by any random number $\tilde{x}$ that satisfies the following conditions $\mathcal{C}$:
$\tilde{x}$ is smaller than 0xFF...EFFFFFC2F (the 32 byte prime $p$ used in Bitcoin’s sec256pk1),
$\tilde{x}$ satisfies $\tilde{w} = \tilde{x}^3 + 7$ (the elliptic curve equation used in Bitcoin’s sec256pk1), where:
$\tilde{w}$ is a quadratic residue (QR) in $\mathbb{F}_p$.
In addition, [*by construction*]{}, our embedding consists of the prefix 0x02/0x03, followed by $x=D,R$ such that:
$D$ is smaller than 0xFF...FF ($2^{224}-1$) and $R$ is smaller than 0xFFFFFC2F, so that $x$ is smaller than the prime $p$,
$x$ also satisfies $w = x^3 + 7$, where:
$w$ is also a QR in $\mathbb{F}_p$.
Thus, to establish indistinguishability all we need to show is that $x=D,R$ is indistinguishable from a random number $\tilde{x}$ that satisfies conditions $\mathcal{C}$. To this end, we notice that, since $R$ is a random number, if an adversary is able to differentiate between $x$ and $\tilde{x}$, then she would also be able to differentiate between $D$ and a random number. Such an adversary would then also have a non-negligible advantage in differentiating the output of the Rjindael algorithm and a random number. Although there is in fact no proof that Rjindael is indeed a secure PRF, this is a generalized assumption about the Rjindael cipher [@daemen1999aes].
Finally, we observe that unspent keys in Tithonus multisig p2sh transactions are not suspicious: Bitcoin recommends that users do not reuse addresses, to prevent linkability attacks.
Tithonus Fees
=============
\[tables:tithonus:txncosts\]
The calculations presented in Section \[sec:evaluation:comparison\] select the minimum fee rate that achieves the fastest on-chain time according to [@bitcoinfees] (currently at [9]{} sat/byte). Table \[tables:tithonus:txncosts\] provides details for Tithonus transaction costs for different Bitcoin fee rates, including the minimum, the current Bitcoin median transaction fee (9 sat/byte), and other fees that are not recommended and that provide no advantage to users.
[^1]: Titan who was granted eternal life but not eternal youth.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The properties of pulse propagation in a nonlinear fiber including linear damped term added in the usual nonlinear Schrödinger equation is analyzed analytically. We apply variational modified approach based on the lagrangian that describe the dynamic of system and with a trial function we obtain a solution which is more accuracy when compared with a pertubative solution. As a result, the problem of pulse propagation in a fiber with loss can be described in good agreement with exact results.'
address:
- |
Departamento de Física, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana,\
44031-460, Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil.
- |
Departamento de Física e Matemática, Universidade Federal Rural de\
Pernambuco, 52171-030, Recife, PE, Brazil and Departamento de Física,\
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 50670-910, Recife, PE, Brazil.
author:
- 'Dagoberto S Freitas[^1]'
- 'Jairo R de Oliveira[^2]'
title: A Variational Approach in the Dissipative Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation
---
\[theorem\][Acknowledgement]{} \[theorem\][Algorithm]{} \[theorem\][Axiom]{} \[theorem\][Claim]{} \[theorem\][Conclusion]{} \[theorem\][Condition]{} \[theorem\][Conjecture]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Criterion]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Exercise]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Notation]{} \[theorem\][Problem]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Solution]{} \[theorem\][Summary]{}
In recent years the propagation of optical pulses in fibers has obtained a great attention not only from the theoretical as well as from the experimental point of view. The nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) has been employed to explain a variety of effects in the propagation of optical pulses. As is well known the balance between the self-phase modulation (SPM) and group velocity dispersion (GVD) leads to the so called solitons solutions for the NLSE[@agrawal; @zakharov]. Solitary wave solutions have been known to exist in a variety of nonlinear and dispersive media for many years. In the context of optical communications, Hasegawa and Tappent [@hasegawa] first made the important observation that a pulse propagating in an optical fiber with Kerr-law nonlinearity can form an envelope soliton. This offered the potential for undistorted pulse transmission over very long distances. Just as a balance between self-phase-modulation and group-velocity dispersion can lead to the formation of temporal solitons in single-mode fibers, it is also possible to have the analogous spatial soliton, where diffraction and self-focusing can compensate for each other [@zakharov]. The importance of studying optical solitons is from the fact that their have potential applications in optical transmission and all-optical processing. A soliton is a particular solution of the nonlinear-wave equation. Since analytical solution are known for only a few cases, investigations into the properties solutions are normally performed numerically using such approaches. However, it is often desirable to have an analytical model describing the dynamics of pulse propagation in a fiber.
In the theoretical treatment of these problems, considerable attention has been given to the variational approach [@firth; @kalson]. A variational approach was employed in [@kalson] deriving information about the various parameters that characterize the beam, which are qualitatively as well as quantitatively, in good agreement with numerical results. This result invalidates the possibility of pulse compression without external gratings which is erroneous and is only an artifact of the paraxial approximation. In the same sense Anderson [@anderson2] described the main characteristics of the temporal soliton as determined by NLSE. The discussion above does not consider the presence of the loss in the medium. It is well known that in real materials, the medium will not be purely transparent and the nonlinearity will not be of pure Kerr-law form, but will saturate. The problem of describing the physical properties of dissipative systems has been the subject of lengthily discussions [@ray; @herrera]. These results were recently applied to the problem of propagation of cw (continuous wave) Gaussian beams in a saturable medium with loss [@jovanoski]. In that work [@jovanoski] the diffraction is limited to one transverse solution. After that this problem was analyzed using a variational modified approach [@dago].
In this paper, we will analyses the dynamics interplay between nonlinearity and dispersion through optical medium with loss using a variational modified approach [@dago]. Exact analytical expressions for the behavior of the pulse are determined.
The starting point of our analysis is the Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation that describe the propagation of a pulse envelope in a nonlinear loss medium, $$i\frac{\partial u}{\partial \xi }+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial ^{2}u}{\partial
\tau ^{2}}+u\left| u\right| ^{2}=-i\Gamma u \label{nls}$$ where $u(\zeta ,\tau )$ is the normalized amplitude of the pulse, $\xi $ is the normalized coordinate, $\tau $ is the normalized time, and $\Gamma $ is the normalized loss parameter of the medium.
Now we can handle Eq.(\[nls\]) adequately in the form, $$\frac \partial {\partial \tau }\frac \partial {\partial u_\tau ^{*}}\left(
e^{\Gamma \xi }L\right) +\frac \partial {\partial \xi }\frac \partial {%
\partial u_\xi ^{*}}\left( e^{\Gamma \xi }L\right) -\frac \partial {\partial
u^{*}}\left( e^{\Gamma \xi }L\right) =0 \label{elmod}$$ where $$L=\frac 12|\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}|^2+i(u\frac{\partial u^{*}}{%
\partial \xi }-u^{*}\frac{\partial u}{\partial \xi })-\frac 12|u|^4$$ and $u^{*}$ is complex conjugate of $u$ and subindexes are the differentiation with respect to $\tau $ and $\xi $ . $L$ is the lagrangian of system without loss. The Eq.(\[elmod\]) is the Euler-Lagrange equation in the modified form that describe the propagation of the pulse in the medium with loss, and can be written in the form of the modified Hamilton’s principle [@herrera; @dago], $$\delta \int_0^\infty \int_0^\infty e^{\Gamma \xi }Ld\xi d\tau =0
\label{phmod}$$ Assuming a trial functional of the form $$u\left( \xi ,\tau \right) =A\left( \xi \right)
%TCIMACRO{\limfunc{sech}}
%BeginExpansion
\mathop{\rm sech}
%EndExpansion
\left( \frac \tau {w\left( \xi \right) }\right) \exp \left( i\phi \left( \xi
\right) \right) \text{,} \label{sphmod}$$ where $A$ is the amplitude of the pulse propagated, $w$ is the width and $\phi $ phase term. Using Eq.(\[sphmod\]) into the variational formulation, Eq.(\[phmod\]), we can integrate the $\tau $ dependence explicit to obtain $$\delta \int_0^\infty e^{\Gamma \xi }\left\langle L\right\rangle d\xi=0,$$ where $$\left\langle L\right\rangle =\frac{\left| A\right| ^2}{3w}+2iw\left( A\frac{%
dA^{*}}{d\xi }-A^{*}\frac{dA}{d\xi }\right) +4w\left| A\right| ^2\frac{d\phi
}{d\xi }-2w\frac{\left| A\right| ^4}3$$ is the average of $L$ in the time. Then, from the standard calculus, deriving $e^{\Gamma \xi }\left\langle
L\right\rangle $ with respect to $A$, $A^{*}$, $w$ and $\phi $ we obtain the following system of coupled ordinary differential equations $$\frac d{d\xi }\left( w\left| A\right| ^2\right) =-\Gamma w\left| A\right| ^2
\label{pdiss1}$$ $$w^2\left| A\right| ^2=1 \label{eqwA}$$ $$8w\left| A\right| ^2\frac{d\phi }{d\xi }=\frac{8w\left| A\right| ^4}3-\frac{%
2\left| A\right| ^2}{3w}-4iw\left( A\frac{dA^{*}}{d\xi }-A^{*}\frac{dA}{d\xi
}\right) \text{.} \label{fase}$$ The equations above describe the characteristics of the pulse and solving these equations we will obtain the full dynamics of the pulse through the medium. It is obvious that once Eq.(\[pdiss1\]) and Eq.(\[eqwA\]) are solved for $w$ and $\left| A\right| ^2$, the phase $\phi $ is easily obtained from Eq.(\[fase\]). In particular, if the longitudinal phase of the amplitude $A$ is introduced by writing $A=\left| A\right| e^{i\theta
\left( \xi \right) }$ the Eq.(\[fase\]) can be written as $$\frac d{d\xi }\left( \phi +\theta \right) =\frac 1{4w^2}.$$ from it we obtain $$\phi \left( \xi \right) +\theta \left( \xi \right) =\frac 1{8\Gamma w\left(
0\right) ^2}\left( 1-e^{-2\Gamma \xi }\right) \text{.} \label{rgfase}$$ The equation above describe the regularized phase of the pulse. This system of equation has analytic solution. From Eq.(\[pdiss1\]) we obtain $$w\left( \xi \right) \left| A\left( \xi \right) \right| ^2=w\left( 0\right)
\left| A\left( 0\right) \right| ^2e^{-\Gamma \xi }\text{.} \label{pdiss2}$$ The compatibility of Eqs.(\[pdiss2\]) and (\[eqwA\]) is possible when $$\left| A\left( \xi \right) \right| =\left| A\left( 0\right) \right|
e^{-\Gamma \xi }$$ and $$w\left( \xi \right) =w\left( 0\right) e^{\Gamma \xi }\text{,} \label{larg2}$$ where was used the relation $\left| A\left( 0\right) \right| ^2=1/w^2\left(
0\right) $, with $A\left( 0\right) $ and $\omega \left( 0\right) $ is the initial amplitude and width of pulse, respectively . Now we can write the amplitude $$A\left( \xi \right) =\left| A\left( 0\right) \right| e^{-\Gamma \xi
}e^{i\theta \left( \xi \right) }\text{.}$$ Using the result above into the trial functional, Eq.(\[sphmod\]), we canwrite the pulse in form $$u\left( \xi ,\tau \right) =\left| A\left( 0\right) \right| e^{-\Gamma \xi
}\sec h\left( \frac \tau {w\left( \xi \right) }\right) \exp \left[ i\left(
\phi \left( \xi \right) +\theta \left( \xi \right) \right) \right] \text{,}
\label{intens2}$$ where the regularized phase $\phi \left( \xi \right) +\theta \left( \xi
\right) $ is given by Eq.(\[rgfase\]) and width $w\left( \xi \right) $ by Eq.(\[larg2\]).
As would expect, the fiber loss is detrimental simply because the peak power decreases exponentially with the fiber length. As a result, the pulse width of the fundamental soliton also increase with propagation, as seen in the figure. However, these results are qualitatively better than the results obtained by using the inverse scattering method where $\Gamma $ is treated as a weak pertubation. The our results foresee that the amplitude as well as the width of the pulse suffer a smaller effect of the fiber loss that thought, and approximate more of exact numerical solution by a factor of 2 in the exponent of the exponentials[@hasegawa; @satsuma; @agrawal2].
In conclusion, the propagation of a pulse in a nonlinear loss medium has been analysed using a variational modified approach. This modified approach describes in a more consistent way the behavior of pulse in a dissipative system. The our results are more accuracy when compared with a pertubative solution where $\Gamma $ is treated as a weak pertubation.
G. P. Agrawal, Nonlinear Fiber Optics (Academic, San Diego, 1989)
V. E. Zakharov and A. B. Shabat, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 61, 118(1971) \[Sov. Phys. JETP 34, 62 (1972)\].
A. Hasegawa and F. Tappert, Appl. Phys. Lett. 23, 142 (1973).
W. J. Firth, Opt. Commun. 22, 226 (1977).
D. Anderson, M. Bonnedal and M. Lisak, Phys. Fluids. 22, 1838 (1979).
M. Karlsson, D. Anderson, M. Desaix and M. Lisak, Opt. Lett. 16, 1973 (1991).
D. Anderson, Phys. Rev. A27, 3135 (1983).
R. Y. Chiao, E. Garmire, and C. H. Yownes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 479 (1964).
C. E. Max, Phys. Fluids. 19, 74 (1976).
M. S. Sodha and V. K. Tripathi, Phys. Rev. A16, 201 (1977).
J. T. Manassah, P. L. Baldeck and R. R. Alfano, Opt. Lett. 13, 1090 (1988).
J. T. Manassah, P. L. Baldeck and R. R. Alfano, Opt. Lett. 13, 589 (1988).
Z. Jovanoski and R. A. Sammut, Phys. Rev. E50, 4087 (1994).
J. R. Ray, Am. J. Phys. 47, 626 (1979).
L. Herrera, L. Núñez, A. Patiño and H. Rago, Am. J. Phys. 54, 273 (1986).
D. S. Freitas, J. R. de Oliveira and M. A. de Moura, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 30 (1997).
H. Kogelnik, T. Li, Appl. Opt.5, 1550 (1966).
J. Satsuma and N. Yajiama, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 55, 284 (1974)
G. P. Agrawal, Nonlinear Fiber Optics (Academic, San Diego, 1989)\[see ch. 5.4\]
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Probability Ranking Principle states that the document set with the highest values of probability of relevance optimizes information retrieval effectiveness given the probabilities are estimated as accurately as possible. The key point of the principle is the separation of the document set into two subsets with a given level of fallout and with the highest recall. The paper introduces the separation between two vector subspaces and shows that the separation yields a more effective performance than the optimal separation into subsets with the same available evidence, the performance being measured with recall and fallout. The result is proved mathematically and exemplified experimentally.'
author:
- 'Massimo Melucci\'
title: Probability Ranking in Vector Spaces
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Information Retrieval (IR) systems decide about the relevance. The decision about relevance is subject to uncertainty. A probability theory provides a measure of uncertainty. To this end, a probability theory defines the event space and the probability distribution. The research in probabilistic IR is based on the classical theory, which describes events and probability distributions using, respectively, sets and set measures, according to Kolmogorov’s axioms [@Kolmogorov56].
Ranking is perhaps the most crucial IR task and the Probability Ranking Principle (PRP) reported in [@Robertson77] is by far the most important theoretical result to date. Although IR systems reach good results thanks to (classical) probability theory and parameter tuning, ranking is far from being perfect because useless units are often ranked at the top of, or useful units are missed from the retrieved document list.
The paper investigates whether an alternative probability theory may achieve further improvement. We propose Vector Probability to describe events and probability distributions using vectors, matrices and operators on them. The adoption of Vector Probability means a radical change: Vector Probability is based on vector subspaces whereas classical probability is based on sets such that the regions of acceptance and rejection of a hypothesis system are sets. We express Vector Probability by means of the mathematical apparutus used in Quantum Theory. However, the use of the mathematical apparatus of Quantum Theory does not end in an investigation or assertion of quantum phenomena in IR. Rather, we argue the superiority of vector probability for ranking documents over the classical probability theory. Every reflection on Quantum Theory and IR is out of the scope of the paper.
The paper shows that ranking in accordance with Vector Probability is more effective than ranking by classical probability given that the same evidence is available for probability estimation. The effectiveness is measured in terms of probability of correct decision or, equivalently, of probability of error. We propose a decision rule based on vector subspaces such that, in the long run, the IR system will deem a document relevant correctly at a higher recall than the recall measured in the event of ranking as a result of classical probability when the fallout is not more than a given threshold. So, the decision rule minimizes the probability of error.
We organize the paper as follows. Section \[sec:definitions\] provides the definitions used in the paper: this section can be skipped if the reader has knowledge about Quantum Theory and Probability; further definitions can be found in [@vanRijsbergen04]. Section \[sec:prob-relev\] introduces the aspects of the probability of relevance related to the subsequent sections. Section \[sec:vect-relev-prob\] explains Vector Probability. Section \[sec:relev-prob-repr\] describes an instance of the vector probability of relevance when the Poisson distribution is used for an observable of a document. Section \[sec:optim-observ\] introduces the optimal observable vectors. Section \[sec:optim-prob-rank\] shows that ranking by means of the optimal observable vectors is more effective than ranking by means of the best subsets of observed values. Section \[sec:experiments\] describes an experimental study that confirms the theory. Section \[sec:discussion\] is about the measurement of observable vectors and makes some remarks about the actual use. Section \[sec:related-work\] refers to the main related publications and Section \[sec:conclusions\] concludes the paper.
Definition IR Example or Corresponding Concept
---------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
Observable Term frequency, relevance, color, aboutness
Probability Distribution Distribution of probability of term frequency
State Relevance, aboutness, utility
Probability of Detection Recall
Probability of False Alarm Precision
Region of Acceptance Term frequencies that are higher than a threshold
Observable Vector Term frequency, relevance, color, aboutness
State Vector Distribution of Relevance, aboutness, utility probability
Definitions {#sec:definitions}
===========
We report and compare some definitions to IR concepts in Table \[tab:definitions\].
An observable is a property that can be measured from an entity.
A probability distribution is a function that maps observable values to the real range $\left[0, 1\right]$. As usual, the probabilities sums to $1$.
A classical probability distribution admits only *sets* of observable values.
The subsets of observable values can be defined by means of the set operations (i.e., intersection, union, complement).
A state, or hypothesis, is a condition of the measured entity and molds the probability distribution of the measurement.
In classical probability, “hypothesis” is more used than “state”. We use “state” because it is used in the formalism of Quantum Theory. We correspond the null state to non-relevance and the alternative state to relevance. An IR system decides between the relevance state and the non-relevance provided an observable value.
It is the probability that the system decides for relevance when relevance is true; it is also called power.
It is the probability that the system decides for relevance when relevance is false; it is also called size or level.
As the probability of detection and the probability of false alarm cannot be simultaneously optimized, the decision rules maximize the probability of detection when the probability of false alarm is fixed.
A region of acceptance consists of the observable values that induce the system to decide for relevance. The most powerful region of acceptance yields the maximum power for a fixed size.
Note that “acceptance” does often refer to the null state in Statistics.
The Neyman-Pearson lemma states that the maximum likelihood (ML) ratio test defines the most powerful region of acceptance .
$$\label{eq:18}
P_c = \xi (1-P_0) + (1-\xi)P_d$$
provided that $\xi$ the prior probability of the null state, $P_0$ is the probability of false alarm and $P_d$ is the probability of detection.
$$\label{eq:20}
P_e = \xi P_0 + (1-\xi) (1-P_d)$$
From \[eq:18\] and \[eq:20\], $P_e+P_c=1$.
A vector space over a field $\cal F$ is a set of vectors subject to linearity, namely, a set such that, for every vector ${|u\rangle}$, there are three scalars $a,b,c \in \cal F$ and three vectors ${|v\rangle}, {|x\rangle}, {|y\rangle}$ of the same space such that ${|u\rangle} =
a{|v\rangle}$ and ${|u\rangle} = b{|x\rangle}+c{|y\rangle}$. If ${|u\rangle}$ is a vector, ${\langleu|}$ is its transpose, ${\langlev|u\rangle}$ is the inner product with ${|v\rangle}$ and ${|v\rangle\langleu|}$ is the outer product with ${|v\rangle}$. If $\left|{\langlex|x\rangle}\right|^2 = 1$, the vector is normal. If ${\langlex|y\rangle} = 0$, the vectors are mutully orthogonal.
We adopt the Dirac notation to write vectors so that the reader may refer to the literature on Quantum Theory; a brief illustration of the Dirac notation is in [@vanRijsbergen04].
An observable is a collection of values and of vectors. The observable vectors are mutually *orthonormal* and 1:1 correspondence with the values.
An observable corresponds to a random variable in Statistics whereas the observable vectors correspond to the indicator functions.
A state vector defines a vector probability distribution. The possible states (or hypotheses) correspond to state vectors.
A state vector plays the role of parameters in Statistics.
The vector probability that ${x}$ is observed given the state ${m}$ is $\left|{\langlex|m\rangle}\right|^2$.
Vector probability is axiomatically defined in [@vonNeumann55] and is applied to IR in [@vanRijsbergen04]; the generalization to state matrices or density matrices is not necessary in this paper.
Probability of Relevance {#sec:prob-relev}
========================
Suppose that a document is represented through the random variable $X$ such that $X=x$ means that a term has frequency $x$. The decision is between relevance and non-relevance. Thus, the probability of detection is the probability that the observed frequency belongs to the region of acceptance when a document is relevant and the probability of false alarm is the probability that the observed frequency belongs to the region of acceptance when the document is not relevant.
The very general form of Probability Ranking Principle (PRP) and then the BM25 reported in are based on the ML ratio test. The PRP states that, if a cut-off is defined for the fallout (i.e., the probability of false alarm), we would clearly optimize (i.e., maximize recall, namely, probability of detection, or equivalently, precision) if we included in the retrieved set those documents with the highest probability of relevance [@Robertson77 page 297] which is the probability that $X=x$ when the document is relevant.
Therefore, the PRP and the Neyman-Pearson lemma state that, given a region of acceptance and then a probability of false alarm (i.e., fallout), the document ranking as a result of probability of relevance is optimal because the recall is maximum.
Vector Probability of Relevance {#sec:vect-relev-prob}
===============================
Suppose that $X$ is an observable (e.g., term frequency) and $x$ a value of the set $\left\{{0}, {1}, \ldots, {N}\right\}$. The orthonormal observable vectors that correspond to the values are ${|0\rangle}, {|1\rangle}, \ldots, {|N\rangle}$; the actual implementation of these vectors is not essential. A observable vector ${|x\rangle}$ correspond to $x$ and $$\label{eq:4} X = \sum_{x=0}^N x {|x\rangle\langlex|}$$
Suppose that ${p(x;m)}$ is the probability that $X=x$ given a parameter $m$. In the event of binary relevance, $m$ is either $m_0$ (non-relevance) or $m_1$ (relevance). Note that $m$ may refer to more than one parameter. However, we assume that $m$ is scalar for the sake of clarity.
Two relevance state vectors represent binary relevance: a relevance state vector ${|m_0\rangle}$ represents non-relevance state and an orthogonal relevance state vector ${|m_1\rangle}$ represents relevance state. Relevance state vectors and the observable vectors belong to an finite-dimensional vector space.[^1] Thus, either state vectors can be defined in terms of a given orthonormal basis of that space and, in particular, the observable vectors are a basis. The following expressions $$\begin{aligned}
{|m_0\rangle} = \sum_{x=0}^{N} {a(x;m_0)} {|x\rangle} \nonumber\\
{|m_1\rangle} = \sum_{x=0}^{N} {a(x;m_1)} {|x\rangle}\nonumber\\
{a(x;m)} = \pm \sqrt{{p(x;m)}}
\label{eq:5} \end{aligned}$$ establish the relationship between parametric distributions and vector spaces, namely, between the parameters $m_0, m_1$, the relevance state vectors ${|m_0\rangle}, {|m_1\rangle}$ and the observable $X$. The sign of ${a(x;m)}$ is chosen so that the orthogonality between the state vectors is retained. Equations \[eq:5\] are instances of superposition. In Physics, superposition models observables that are known only if they are measured. In IR, the event that an observable exists only if observed is a much debated hypothesis. Moreover, the orthogonality of the relevance state vectors and the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:9}
\left|{\langley|m\rangle}\right|^2&=& \left|\sum_{x=0}^N {a(x;m)} {\langley|x\rangle}\right|^2\\
{} &=& \left|{a(y;m)}\right|^2 \qquad \mbox{due to orthogonality}\\
{} &=& {p(y;m)}\end{aligned}$$ establish the relationship between probability distribution and vector-based representation of relevance.
Poisson-Based Probability of Relevance {#sec:relev-prob-repr}
======================================
The Poisson distribution is used because we want to make the illustration of the theory accessible in the remainder of the section and consistent with the past literature, e.g., . Moreover, the Poisson distribution is asymptotically derived from the Binomial distribution and approximates the Normal distribution.
The observable $X$ is the frequency of a term in a document. Thus, $X = x$ means that the term occurs $x$ times in a document. The Poisson probability distribution gives the probability that $X=x$, that is, $$\label{eq:3} {p(x;m)}={e^{-{m}}\frac{{m}^{x}}{{x}!}}$$ provided that $m$ is the expected term frequency. $X$ is defined in the set of natural number. However, we assume that $N$ is finite, large and equal to the maximum observable term frequency in the collection; indeed, the estimated probability that a term frequency is greater than $N$ is zero.
Two distinct parameters $m_0, m_1$ encode non-relevance and relevance, respectively, in parametric Statistics,. Thus, $${p(x;m_0)}\label{eq:7}$$ is the probability that the term occurs $x$ times in a *non-relevant* document and $${p(x;m_1)}\label{eq:8}$$ is the probability that the term occurs $x$ times in a *relevant* document.
---------------- --------------- ---------------
\[-6pt\] ${p(0;m)}$ ${p(1;m)}$
\[2pt\]
\[-6pt\] $m_0$ $\frac{1}{5}$ $\frac{4}{5}$
\[2pt\] $m_1$ $0$ $1$
\[2pt\]
---------------- --------------- ---------------
\[tab:example-0\]
For example, consider the probability distributions in Table \[tab:example-0\]. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
&& X = 0{|0\rangle\langle0|} + 1{|1\rangle\langle1|} = {|1\rangle\langle1|}\\
&& {|m_0\rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}} {|0\rangle} + \frac{2}{\sqrt{5}} {|1\rangle} \qquad {|m_1\rangle} = {|1\rangle}\\
&& {p(0;m_0)} = \left|{a(0;m_0)}\right|^2 = \frac{1}{5} \qquad
{p(0;m_1)} = \left|{a(0;m_1)}\right|^2 = 0\end{aligned}$$
The Poisson-based probabilities of detection and false alarm are, respectively, $$\label{eq:10}
P_d = \sum_{x=x_\alpha}^N {p(x;m_1)} \qquad P_0 = \sum_{x=x_\alpha}^N {p(x;m_0)}$$ assuming that $N$ is so large that ${p(x;m)} = 0, x > N$ and $\left\{x_\alpha, \ldots,
N\right\}$ is the region of acceptance of the state of relevance at *size* $\alpha$.
When the states are equiprobable and $m_1 > m_0$, the Poisson-based probability of error and the Poisson-based probability of correct decision are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:12}
P_e &=& \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{x=x_\alpha}^N {p(x;m_0)} + \sum_{x=0}^{x_\alpha-1} {p(x;m_1)}\right)\\
{} &=& \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\int_{m_0}^{m_1} \frac{t^{x_\alpha-1}e^{-t}}{\Gamma(x_\alpha)}dt\right)\\
P_c &=& \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{x=x_\alpha}^N {p(x;m_1)} + \sum_{x=0}^{x_\alpha-1} {p(x;m_0)}\right)\\
{} &=& \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\int_{m_0}^{m_1} \frac{t^{x_\alpha-1}e^{-t}}{\Gamma(x_\alpha)}dt\right)\end{aligned}$$ The greater the difference between $m_0$ and $m_1$, the greater $P_c$ and the smaller $P_e$. If $m_1 < m_0$, the superscript and the subscript of the integral function of swap. If $m_1 = m_0$, error and correct decision are equiprobable, i.e., the decision is ruled through coin tossing. In other words, the discrimination power increases when $|m_1 - m_0|$ increases. Note that the increase of $|m_1 - m_0|$ corresponds to making the relevance state vectors orthogonal.
Probability of error and probability of correct decision provide an alternative form of the decision procedure. From Equations \[eq:18\] and \[eq:20\], the maximum $P_d$ and the minimum $P_0$ minimize $P_e$ and maximize $P_c$. Suppose we have three size values: $\alpha_0 \leq \alpha_1 \leq \alpha_2$, thus yielding three power values $\beta_0 \leq
\beta_1 \leq \beta_2$. The prior probabilility minimizes the probability of error as follows: $$\label{eq:25}
\min P_e =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\xi\alpha_0 + (1-\xi)(1-\beta_0) & 0 \leq \xi < \xi_1\\
\xi\alpha_1 + (1-\xi)(1-\beta_1) & \xi_1 \leq \xi < \xi_2\\
\xi\alpha_2 + (1-\xi)(1-\beta_2) & \xi_2 \leq \xi < 1
\end{array}
\right.$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_1 &= \frac{\beta_1 - \beta_0}{\alpha_1 - \alpha_0 + \beta_1 - \beta_0} &= \frac{4}{7}
\\
\xi_2 &= \frac{\beta_2 - \beta_1}{\alpha_2 - \alpha_1 + \beta_2 - \beta_1} &= \frac{8}{23}\end{aligned}$$
Figure \[fig:polygonal\] shows an example of the polygonal curve with $\alpha_0=\frac{1}{4}, \alpha_1 = \frac{1}{2}, \alpha_2 = \frac{3}{4}$ and $\beta_0 =
\frac{1}{3}, \beta_1 = \frac{2}{3}, \beta_2 = \frac{4}{5}$. The abscissas of the intersection points are $\xi_1, \xi_2$.
Optimal Observable Vectors {#sec:optim-observ}
==========================
Let us recapitulate some facts. Neyman-Pearson’s lemma states that the set of term frequencies can be partitioned into two disjoint regions: one region includes all the frequencies such that relevance will be accepted; the other region denotes rejection. If a term is observed from documents and only presence/absence is observed, the set of the observable values is $\{0, 1\}$ and each region is one out of possible subsets, i.e., $\emptyset, \{0\}, \{1\}, \{0,1\}$.
If term frequency is observed instead, the observable values are $\{0, 1, \ldots, N\}$ and each region is one out of possible subsets of $\{0, 1, \ldots, N\}$. Note that the ML ratio test yields two subsets, i.e., $\{0, \ldots, x_\alpha-1\}$ and $\{x_\alpha, \ldots,
N\}$. An alternative region can be defined with only set operations (intersection, complement, union). However, set operations cannot define more powerful regions than that dictated by dint of the Neyman-Pearson lemma.
The subspaces are equivalent to subsets and they then can be subject to set operations *if* they are mutually orthogonal [@Griffiths02]. The subsets yielded by dint of the ML ratio test become $\{{|0\rangle\langle0|}, \ldots, {|x_\alpha-1\rangle\langlex_\alpha-1|}\}$ and $\{{|x_\alpha\rangle\langlex_\alpha|}, \ldots, {|N\rangle\langleN|}\}$ and can be subjected to set operations because they are mutually orthogonal.
Suppose that the vector subspaces that correspond to the subsets yielded by dint of the ML ratio test, are rotated so that the new subspaces are oblique to them. The new oblique subspaces cannot be reformulated in terms of the observable vectors through set operations and thus they represent something different.
Figure \[fig:subspaces\] shows three-dimensional vector space spanned by ${|e_1\rangle},
{|e_2\rangle}, {|e_3\rangle}$ to make the difference between subsets and subspaces. The ray (i.e. one-dimensional subspace) $L_x$ is spanned by ${|x\rangle}$, the plane (i.e. two-dimensional subspace) $L_{x,y}$ is spanned by ${|x\rangle}, {|y\rangle}$. Note that $L_{e_1,e_2} = L_{x,y} =
L_{e_1,y}$ and so on. According to [@Hughes89 page 191], consider the subspace $L_{e_2} \wedge (L_y \vee L_x)$ provided that $\wedge$ means “intersection” and $\vee$ means “span” (and not set union). Since $L_y \vee L_x = L_{x,y} = L_{e_1,e_2}$, $L_{e_2}
\wedge (L_y \vee L_x) = L_{e_2} \wedge L_{e_1,e_2} = L_{e_2}$. However, $(L_{e_2} \wedge
L_y) \vee (L_{e_2} \wedge L_x) = 0$ because $L_{e_2} \wedge L_y = 0$ and $L_{e_2} \wedge
L_x = 0$, therefore $$L_{e_2} \wedge (L_y \vee L_x) \neq (L_{e_2} \wedge L_y) \vee (L_{e_2} \wedge L_x)$$ thus meaning that the distributive law does not hold, hence, set operations cannot be applied to subspaces.
The key point is that, if the subspaces are rotated in an optimal way, we can achieve the most powerful regions; these regions cannot be ascribed to the subsets yielded by dint of the ML ratio test. The following Helstrom’s theorem is the rule to compute the most powerful regions of a vector space provided two state vectors.
\[the:helstrom\] Let ${|m_1\rangle}, {|m_0\rangle}$ be the state vectors. The region of acceptance at the highest probability of detection at every probability of false alarm is given by the eigenvectors of $${|m_1\rangle\langlem_1|} - {|m_0\rangle\langlem_0|}\label{eq:26}$$ whose eigenvalues are positive.
See [@Helstrom76]. (The ${|m_i\rangle\langlem_i|}$ are defined in Section \[sec:definitions\].)
An optimal observable vector is a vector that divides the region of acceptance from the region of rejection as stated by Theorem \[the:helstrom\].
The optimal observable vectors always exist due to the Spectral Decomposition theorem. [@Halmos87] The angle between the relevance state vectors ${|m_1\rangle}, {|m_0\rangle}$ determines the geometry of the decision between the two states. Suppose ${|\mu_1\rangle}, {|\mu_0\rangle}$ are two observable vectors. They are mutually orthogonal because are eigenvectors of and can be defined in the space spanned by the relevance state vectors. The probability of correct decision and the probability of error are given by the angle between the two relevance state vectors and by the angles between the observable vectors and the relevance state vectors; how the geometry defines the optimal ranking is described in the next section.
Optimal Probability Ranking {#sec:optim-prob-rank}
===========================
Figure \[fig:geometry-a\] illustrates the geometry of decision and the observable vectors. (The figure is in the two-dimensional space for the sake of clarity, but the reader should generalize to higher dimensionality than two.) The angles $\eta_0, \eta_1$ between the observable vectors and the relevance state vectors ${|m_0\rangle}, {|m_1\rangle}$ are related with the angle $\gamma$ between ${|m_0\rangle}, {|m_1\rangle}$ because the observable vectors are always mutually orthogonal and then the angle is $\frac{\pi}{2} = \eta_0 +
\gamma + \eta_1$.
The optimal observable vectors are achieved when the angles between an observable vector and a relevance state vector are equal to $$\label{eq:1}
\theta = \frac{\frac{\pi}{2}-\gamma}{2}$$ The rotation of the non-optimal observable vectors such that holds, yields the optimal observable vectors ${|\mu_1\rangle}, {|\mu_0\rangle}$ as Figure \[fig:geometry-b\] illustrates: the optimal observable vectors are “symmetrically” located around the relevance state vectors.
The replacement of the angle between an observable vector and a relevance state vector with the angle of yields the minimal probability of error and the maximal probability of correct decision, that is, $$\label{eq:2} Q_e = \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\sqrt{1-4\xi(1-\xi){|X|^2}}\right)
\qquad Q_c = 1-Q_e$$ (see [@Helstrom76]) given that $$\label{eq:24}
{|X|^2}= \left|{\langlem_0|m_1\rangle}\right|^2 = \left|\sum_{x=0}^N \sqrt{{e^{-{m_0}}\frac{{m_0}^{x}}{{x}!}}} \sqrt{{e^{-{m_1}}\frac{{m_1}^{x}}{{x}!}}}\right|^2$$ is the squared cosine of the angle between the relevance state vectors if the Poisson distribution is used.
Figure \[fig:probability-of-error\] superposes the polygonal curve plotted for $P_e$ and the bell-shaped curves plotted for $Q_e$ with ${|X|^2}=0.90$ and ${|X|^2}=0.50$. ${|X|^2}$ measures the degree to which the distributions of probability of relevance and non-relevance are distinguishable. The less they are distiguishable, the higher $Q_e$. Indeed, the probability of error increases when the distribution of probability of relevance is very similar to the distributions of probability of non-relevance.
We prove the following
\[sec:optim-observ-1\] For all $m_0, m_1, x_\alpha$, $$\label{eq:13}
Q_c \geq P_c \qquad Q_e \leq P_e$$
Let $x_\alpha \geq 0$ and let $m_1 \geq m_0$ – the complement is proved in similar way. $$\label{eq:14}
Q_c \geq P_c \ \mbox{if and only if} \ \sqrt{1-{|X|^2}} \geq \int_{m_0}^{m_1} \frac{t^{x_\alpha-1}e^{-t}}{\Gamma(x_\alpha)}dt$$ because and also hold for $Q_c, Q_e$. Moreover, holds if $$\label{eq:15}
1-{|X|^2}\geq \int_{m_0}^{m_1} \frac{t^{x_\alpha-1}e^{-t}}{\Gamma(x_\alpha)}dt$$ because the sides of lies between $0$ and $1$. The calculation of the angle between the relevance state vectors yields $$\label{eq:6}
{|X|^2}= e^{-\left|m_1-m_0\right|}\ .$$ The relationships between the Poisson distribution and the Gamma function allows us to state that $$\label{eq:17}
1-e^{-\left|m_1-m_0\right|} = e^{-m_1}\sum_{x=0}^{\infty} \frac{m_1^x}{x!} -
e^{-m_1}\sum_{x=0}^{\infty} \frac{m_0^x}{x!}$$ We split the summations in , thus achieving that holds if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
2 \sum_{x=0}^{x_\alpha-1} {e^{-{m_1}}\frac{{m_1}^{x}}{{x}!}} + \\
\nonumber
e^{-m_1}\sum_{x=x_\alpha}^{N} \left(\frac{m_1^x}{x!} - \frac{m_0^x}{x!}\right) + \\
\left( e^{-m_0} - e^{-m_1}\right) \sum_{x=0}^{x_\alpha-1} \frac{m_0^x}{x!} \geq 0
\label{eq:19}
\end{aligned}$$ Every operand of the sum is not negative, thus proving the left side of . The right side is proved in symmetric way due to when applied to $Q_e, Q_c$.
Proposition \[sec:optim-observ-1\] tells us that the decision as to whether a document is relevant is most effective when the test is function of the optimal observable vectors even if the Poisson-based probability is estimated as accurately as possible.
For all $m_0, m_1, x_\alpha$ and if $Q_0 = P_0$, $$\label{eq:21}
Q_d \geq P_d$$ \[sec:optim-observ-2\]
Let $Q_0 = P_0$, recall , and the left side of . Thus, $$\label{eq:16}
0 \leq Q_c - P_c = (1-\xi)(Q_d-P_d)$$ We have that $Q_c \geq P_c$ because $Q_d \geq P_d$ and $0 \leq \xi \leq 1$.
Corollary \[sec:optim-observ-2\] tells us that, once the probability of false alarm is fixed at an arbitrary size, the state that a document is relevant is correctly accepted with vector probability that is higher than any Poisson-based probability.
The key point is that the region of acceptance induced by the optimal observable vectors $\mu_1, \mu_0$ is more powerful than the region of acceptance of the PRP, when the Poisson distribution measures the probability of term frequency, all the other things being equal. A distribution different from Poisson’s or a different estimation of the probability values might revert the outcome of Corollary \[sec:optim-observ-2\]. Does the power of the region of acceptance induced through the optimal observable vectors and then Corollary \[sec:optim-observ-2\] depend on the probability of term frequency? In the remainder of the section, we generalize the result for either distribution of probability of term frequency.
The probability of term frequency is given by two items: (*i*) the probability values estimated for each $x$; (*ii*) the distribution used to compute the probability of term frequency.
As for (*i*), note that the vector probability and the classical probability of relevance are functions of the same probability distributions $p(x,m_0), p(x,m_1)$ for every $m_0,m_1$. Thus, the power of the region of acceptance induced through the optimal observable vectors and then Corollary \[sec:optim-observ-2\] do not depend on the probability values calculated for each $x,m$.
As for (*ii*), what distinguishes the probability of detection (and false alarm) computed with the optimal observable vectors from those computed with the region of acceptance given as a result of the PRP (i.e., the ML ratio test) is the region of acceptance. We prove that the region of acceptance given through the optimal observable vectors is always more effective than the region of acceptance given as a result of the PRP, that is, independently of the probability distribution of the observable.
Suppose that ${p(x;m_j)}, j=0,1$ are two arbitrary probability distributions indexed by the parameters $m_0,m_1$, the latter indicating the probability distribution of term frequency in non-relevant documents and in relevant documents, respectively.
For every ${p(x;m_j)}, j=0,1$ and $x_\alpha$ $$\label{eq:23}
Q_c \geq P_c \qquad Q_e \leq P_e$$
Consider Figures \[fig:geometry-a\] and \[fig:geometry-b\]. A probability of detection $p_d$ and a probability of false alarm $p_0$ defines the coordinates of ${|m_0\rangle}$ and ${|m_1\rangle}$ with a given orthonormal basis ${|e_0\rangle}, {|e_1\rangle}$ (that is, an observable): $$\begin{aligned}
{|m_0\rangle} = \sqrt{1-p_d}{|e_0\rangle}+\sqrt{p_d}{|e_1\rangle}
\\
{|m_1\rangle} = \sqrt{p_0}{|e_0\rangle}+\sqrt{1-p_0}{|e_1\rangle}
\label{eq:22}
\end{aligned}$$ The coordinates are expressed in terms of angles: $$1-p_d=\sin^2\eta_1 \qquad p_0 = \sin^2\eta_0$$ provided that $\eta_i$ is the angle between ${|m_i\rangle}$ and ${|e_1\rangle}$.
The probability of error is $$p_e = \xi p_0 + (1-\xi)(1-p_d) = \xi \sin^2\eta_0 + (1-\xi)\sin^2\eta_1$$ The probability of error is minimum when $\eta_0=\eta_1=\theta$ as shown in [@Helstrom76 page 99].
But, $\theta$ is exactly the angle between ${|m_i\rangle}, i=0,1$ and ${|\mu_i\rangle}$ and is defined as a result of Equation . The probability of error is then minimized when the observable vectors are the ${|\mu_i\rangle}, i=0,1$.
Therefore, $Q_e \leq P_e$ for all $P_e$, that is, for all the observable vectors. As $Q_c = 1-Q_e$, the probability of detection is also maximum.
Suppose, for example, that $X$ is a binary observable, that is, $x \in \{0,1\}$. The probability distributions are in Table \[tab:example-0\]. Suppose that the size of the test is $\alpha=\frac{1}{5}$. Thus, relevance is accepted when $X=1$, $P_d = \frac{4}{5}$, $P_0 = \frac{1}{5}$ and, if the states are equiprobable, $P_e = \frac{1}{2}\left(P_0 +
1-P_d\right) = \frac{1}{5}$ and $P_c = \frac{1}{2}\left(1-P_0 + P_d\right) =
\frac{4}{5}$.
The optimal observable vectors are $$\label{eq:30}
{|\mu_1\rangle} =
\left(
\begin{array}{r}
0.97 \\ -0.23
\end{array}
\right)
\qquad
{|\mu_0\rangle} =
\left(
\begin{array}{r}
0.23 \\ 0.97
\end{array}
\right)$$ These vectors can be computed in compliance with . Hence, the region of acceptance is the subspace spanned by ${|\mu_1\rangle}$ and, if the states are equiprobable, $Q_e = \frac{1}{2}\left(Q_0 + 1-Q_d\right) = 0.05$ and $Q_c = \frac{1}{2}\left(1-Q_0 +
Q_d\right) = 0.95$. Hence, if we were able to find the optimal observable vector and to actually measure it, retrieval performance would be much higher than the performance achieved through the classical region of acceptance.
sort data by increasing $f_w(x;m)$ and by $m$
Experimental Study {#sec:experiments}
==================
We have tested the theory illustrated in the previous sections through experiments based on the TIPSTER test collection, disks 4 and 5. The experiments aimed at measuring the difference between $P_e$ and $Q_e$ by means of a realistic test collection. To this end, we have used the TREC-6, 7, 8 topic sets. The experimental algorithm is explained in Figure \[fig:experiment-0\].
We have implemented the following test: ${p(x;m)}$ has been computed for each topic word and for each $m$ by means of the usual relative frequency $f_w(x;m)/\sum_x f_w(x;m)$ assuming that $f_w(x;m)$ is the frequency of $w$ in the documents with state $m$. Note that we do not aim at measuring effectiveness; rather, we aim at measuring the difference between probabilities of error *given* a document ranking.
Consider Figure \[fig:output-t439\]: $Q_e$ is always not greater than $P_e$ for every size $\alpha$ and for every prior probability $\xi$. The superposition of linear curves, one curve for each $\alpha$, yields a polygonal curve like Figure \[fig:polygonal\].
Some linear curves are secant because they cut a bell-shaped curve in two parts. However, they refer to different words: given a word, the linear curve is never secant of the bell-shaped curve.
Figures \[fig:output-t301\], \[fig:output-t303\], \[fig:output-t392\] illustrate the plots for other three topics; these topics are representative of the main types of plot – the plots of all the $450$ topics exhibit the similar pattern.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
The precedent example points out the issue of the measurement of the optimal observable vectors. Measurement means the actual finding of the presence / absence of the optimal observable vectors via an instrument or device. The measurement of term frequency is straightforward because term occurrence is a physical property measured through an instrument or device. (A program that reads texts and writes frequencies is sufficient.) The measurement of the optimal observable vectors is much more difficult because no physical property does correspond to them and cannot be expressed in terms of term frequencies. [@Griffiths02] Thus, the question is: what should we observe from a document so that the outcome corresponds to the optimal observable vector? The question is not futile because the answer(s) would effect automatic indexing and retrieval. In particular, if we were able to give an interpretation to the optimal observable vectors, retrieval and indexing algorithms could measure those vectors.
Following [@vanRijsbergen04], three interpretations of the optimal observable vectors can be provided:
(50,60)(-20,-25) (0,0)[(1,0)[35]{}]{}(1,33)[${|1\rangle}$]{} (0,0)[(0,1)[35]{}]{}(33,1)[${|0\rangle}$]{} (0,0)[(1,+1)[25]{}]{}(25,22)[${|\mu_1\rangle}$]{} (0,0)[(1,-1)[25]{}]{}(25,-23)[${|\mu_0\rangle}$]{}
- Geometrically, each vector is a superposition of other two independent vectors. Figure \[fig:geometry-c\] depicts the way the vectors interact and shows that the observation of a binary feature places the observer upon either ${|0\rangle}$ or ${|1\rangle}$ whenever he measure $0$ or $1$, respectively. There is no way to move upon ${|\mu_0\rangle}$ or ${|\mu_1\rangle}$ because $\mu_0, \mu_1$ cannot be measured.
- Probabilistically, the observable vectors and the state vectors are related as a result of the rule of Equation \[eq:9\]. (Also known as trace rule because the general form of the equation is the trace of two matrices.) As the observable vectors are mutually orthonormal by definition, they induce a valid probability distribution.
- Logically, the observable vectors are assertions, e.g., $X=x$ corresponds to ${|x\rangle}$. The basic difference between subspaces and subsets is that the vectors belong to a subspace if and only if they are spanned by a basis of the subspace. However, the logic to combine subspaces cannot be the set-based logic used to combine subsets.
In classical probability theory, if we observe $1$, we say that every document described by $1$ is either relevant or not relevant, when relevance is measured. In general, we say that it either possesses a property or does not, when a property is measured. Hence, if an observable is described as sets of values (e.g., the set of documents indexed by a term), we can always describe relevance as a set. That is, the union of the set of relevant documents indexed by a term with the set of relevant documents not indexed by the term.
The orthogonality between the observable vectors implements the mutually exclusiveness between the observable values. Hence, if we observe $0$, we can say only that we do not observe $1$, but cannot say anything about $\mu_1$ because ${|\mu_1\rangle}$ is oblique to ${|0\rangle}, {|1\rangle}$ and vector subspace complement, union and intersection are not the same as subset complement, union and intersection [@vanRijsbergen04].
At the present time, an IR system is capable of measuring observable vectors like ${|0\rangle}, {|1\rangle}$ which correspond to term occurrence. The documents can be ranked as specified by the PRP, thus achieving $P_e$, which is the current lower bound provided that the probabilities are estimated as accurately as possible [@Robertson77].
$Q_e$ and $Q_c$ can be achieved *if and only if* an IR system is capable of observing the optimal observable vectors (Theorem \[the:helstrom\]). If an IR system observed $\mu_0$ or $\mu_1$ in a document, the system would decide whether the document is relevant with probability of error $Q_e$.
The open problem is due to the difficulty of observing the optimal observable vectors in a document; if a system is given a textual document as input, how can it decide if the document would provide either ${|\mu_0\rangle}$ or ${|\mu_1\rangle}$ (or the corresponding eigenvalues) if the optimal observable vectors were measured? We shall pay a great deal of attention to the question because, if the problem were solved, the solution would give a significant breakthrough in IR research.
Related Work {#sec:related-work}
============
Van Rijsbergen’s book [@vanRijsbergen04] is the point of departure of our work. Helstrom’s book [@Helstrom76] provides the theoretical foundation for the vector probability and the optimal observabl vectors. Eldar and Forney’s paper gives an algorithm for the optimal observable vectors. Hughes’ book [@Hughes89] is an excellent introduction to Quantum Theory. An introduction to Quantum Theory and Information Retrieval can be found in . In the authors propose quantum formalism for modeling some IR tasks and information need aspects. The paper does not limit the research to the application of an abstract formalism, but exploits the formalism to illustrate how the optimal observable vectors significantly improve effectiveness. In , the authors propose ${|X|^2}$ for modifying probability of relevance; ${|X|^2}$ is intended to model quantum correlation (also known as interference) between relevance assessments.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The research in IR has been traditionally concentrated on extracting and combining evidence as accurately as possible in the belief that the observed features (e.g., term occurrence, word frequency) have to ultimately be scalars or structured objects. The quest for reliable, effective, efficient retrieval algorithms requires to implement the set of features as best one can. The implementation of a set of features is thus an “answer” to an implicit “question”, that is, which is the best *set* of features for achieving effectiveness as high as possible? We suggest to ask another “question” to achieve an even better answer: Which is the best *subspace*?
[10]{}
A.N. Kolmogorov. . Chelsea Publishing Company, New York, second edition, 1956.
S.E. Robertson. The probability ranking principle in information retrieval. , 33(4):294–304, 1977.
. . Cambridge University Press, UK, 2004.
J. Neyman and E.S. Pearson. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. , 231:289–337, 1933.
J. von Neumann. . Princeton University Press, 1955.
S.E. Robertson and H. Zaragoza. The probabilistic relevance framework: [BM25]{} and beyond. , 3(4):333–389, 2009.
S.P. Harter. A probabilistic approach to automatic keyword indexing: part 1: On the distribution of specialty words in a technical literature. , 26(4):197–206, 1975.
S.P. Harter. A probabilistic approach to automatic keyword indexing: part 2: An algorithm for probabilistic indexing. , 26(5):280–289, 1975.
S.E. Robertson and S. Walker. Some simple effective approximations to the 2-[P]{}oisson model for probabilistic weighted retrieval. In [*Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR)*]{}, pages 232–241, Dublin, Ireland, 1994.
Robertson, C.J. [van Rijsbergen]{}, and M.F. Porter. , chapter 4, pages 35–55. Butterworths, 1981.
R. B. Griffiths. . Cambridge University Press, 2002.
R.I.G. Hughes. . Harvard University Press, 1989.
Helstrom. . Academic Press, 1976.
P.R. Halmos. . Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, 1987.
Y.C. Eldar and G.D. Forney. On quantum detection and the square-root measurement. , 47(3):858–872, 2001.
Anonymous.
B. Piwowarski, I. Frommholz, M. Lalmas, and K. van Rijsbergen. What can quantum theory bring to information retrieval. In [*Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management*]{}, CIKM ’10, pages 59–68, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
G. Zuccon and L. Azzopardi. Using the quantum probability ranking principle to rank interdependent documents. In [*Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Retrieval Research (ECIR)*]{}, pages 357–369, 2010.
[^1]: In Quantum Theory, the vector spaces are complex Hilbert spaces. For the sake of simplicity, we do not consider the field.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The paper is devoted to a systematic study of the duality of processes in the sense that $E f(X_t^x,y)=E f (x, Y_t^y)$ for a certain $f$. This classical topic has well known applications in interacting particles, intertwining, superprocesses, stochastic monotonicity, exit - entrance laws, ruin probabilities in finances, etc. Aiming mostly at the case of $f$ depending on the difference of its arguments, we shall give a systematic study of duality via the analysis of the generators of dual Markov processes leading to various results and insights.'
author:
- Vassili Kolokoltsov and RuiXin Lee
title: 'Stochastic duality of Markov processes: a study via generators'
---
[**Key words:**]{} stochastic monotonicity, stochastic duality, generators of dual Markov processes, reflection and absorbtion
Introduction
============
The paper is devoted to a systematic study of the duality of processes in the sense that $E f(X_t^x,y)=E f (x, Y_t^y)$ for a certain $f$. This classical topic has well known applications in (and deep links with) interacting particles (see e.g. [@Lig] and references therein), intertwining (see e.g. [@Biane], [@CaPeYo], [@Dube], [@PPTS]), superprocesses (see [@EK], [@Myt]), stochastic monotonicity (see e.g. [@JMW] and [@Chenbook04]), exit - entrance laws (see [@CoRo]), ruin probabilities in finances (see [@Dje93]), birth and death processes (see [@VanDo], [@And]) and others. Aiming mostly at the case of $f$ depending on the difference of its arguments, we shall give a systematic study of duality via the analysis of the generators of dual Markov processes (extending the analysis of one-dimensional processes from [@Ko10], [@Ko03]) leading to various results and insights.
Objectives
----------
In stochastic analysis one meets various kinds of duality. For instance, the Markov processes $X_t^x$ and $Y_t^y$ with values in a Borel space $X$ are called dual with respect to the reference measure $\nu$ on $X$, if the duality equation $$\label{eqdefstanddual1st}
\int_X \E h(X_t^x) g(x) \nu (dx) =\int_X h(x) \E g(Y_x^t) \nu (dx)$$ holds for an appropriate class of functions $h,g$, see e.g. [@AnPaPa] and references therein for.
In another approach, the Markov processes $X_t^x$ and $Y_t^y$ (small $x,y$ here and in what follows stand for the initial points) with values in possibly different Borel spaces $X$ and $Y$ are called dual with respect to a Borel function $f$ on $X\times Y$, if $$\label{eqdefstanddual2nd}
\E f(X_t^x,y) =\E f(x,Y_t^y)$$ for all $x\in X, y\in Y$, where $\E$ on the left hand side and the right hand side correspond to the distributions of processes $X_t^x$ and $Y_t^y$ respectively, see e.g. [@Lig] and references therein for an extensive application of this notion in interacting particles.
A particular case of is the duality of one-dimensional processes ($X$ and $Y$ are real-valued) arising from stochastic monotonicity, where $f(x,y)=\1_{\{x\ge y\}}$ (we denote here and in what follows by $\1_M$ the indicator function of the set $M$) and hence turns to the equation $$\label{eqdefstanddual2ndmon}
\P (X_t^x \ge y) =\P (Y_t^y \le x),$$ see [@Sieg]. Other useful cases include $f(x,y)=e^{xy}$ or $f(x,y)=x^y$, used in particular in the theory of superprocesses, see e.g. Ch. 4 of [@EK] or Ch. 1 of [@Et]. For an application of duality in actuarial science see [@Dje93].
The analytic analogs of the duality of the 1st kind is successfully used in the theory of operator semigroups independently of their probabilistic content, see e.g [@AnPaPa] and references therein. We shall start now with a sketch of a systematic study of duality obtained by extending to general purely analytic setting aiming at the extension of the theory of to dualities generated by partial orders and more general translation invariant dualities arising from $f$ depending on the difference of their arguments.
There are many applications of duality in population dynamics, branching processes and other areas, see e.g. [@AlkHu] and references therein.
On the general notion of semigroup duality
------------------------------------------
For a topological (e.g. metric) space $X$ we denote by $B(X)$ and $C(X)$ the spaces of bounded Borel measurable and bounded continuous functions respectively. Equipped with the sup-norm $\|f\|=\sup_x |f(x)|$ both these spaces become Banach spaces. Bounded signed measures on $X$ are defined as bounded ${\sigma}$-additive functions on the Borel subsets of $X$. The set of such measures $\MC (X)$ equipped with the total variation norm is also a Banach space. The standard duality between $B(X)$ and $\MC(X)$ is given by the integration: $$(f, \mu)=\int_X f(x) \mu (dx).$$
Let $X,Y$ be two topological spaces. By a signed (stochastic) kernel from $X$ to $Y$ we mean a function of two variables $p(x, A)$, where $x\in X$ and $A$ are Borel subsets of $Y$ such that $p(x,.)$ is a bounded signed measure on $Y$ for any $x$ and $p(., A)$ is a Borel function for any Borel set $A$. We say that this kernel is bounded if $\sup_x \|p(x,.)\|<\infty$. We say that this kernel is weakly continuous if the mapping $x\mapsto p(x,.)$ is continuous with measures $\MC(Y)$ considered in their weak topology. If all measures $p(x,.)$ are positive, the corresponding kernel is called a stochastic kernel.
Any bounded kernel specifies a bounded linear operator $B(Y) \to B(X)$ via the formula $$Tg(x)=\int_Y g(z) p(x, dz).$$ $T$ is said to be the integral operator with the kernel $p$. The standard dual operator $T'$ is defined as the operator $\MC(X)\to \MC(Y)$ specified by the duality relation $$(f,T'\mu)=(Tf, \mu),$$ or explicitly as $$T'\mu(dy)=\int_X p(x, dy) \mu (dx).$$
Clearly the kernel $p(x,dz)$ is weakly continuous if and only if $T$ acts on continuous functions, that is, $T :C(Y) \to C(X)$.
Let $p(x,dz)$ be a bounded signed kernel from $X$ to itself, $T$ the corresponding integral operator, and let $f(x,y)$ be a bounded measurable function on $X\times Y$. Let us say that the operator $T^{D(f)}: B(Y)\to B(T)$ is $f$-[*dual*]{} to $T$, if $$\label{eqdefdualsemigroups}
(T^{D(f)}f(x,.))(y)=(Tf(., y))(x)$$ for any $x,y$, that is, the application of $T^D$ to the second argument of $f$ is equivalent to the application of $T$ to its first argument. Of course, if $T^{D(f)}$ is $f$-dual to $T$, then $T$ is $\tilde f$-dual to $T^{D(f)}$ with $\tilde f(y,x)=f(x,y)$.
We say that $f$ [*separates points of*]{} $X$ if, for any $x_1,x_2 \in X$, there exists $y \in Y$ such that $f(x_1, y)\neq f(x_2,y)$. The following is a bit more nontrivial notion. We say that $f$ [*separates measures on*]{} $X$ if, for any $Q_1,Q_2 \in \MC(X)$, there exists $y \in Y$ such that $\int f(x,y) Q_1(dx)\neq \int f(x,y) Q_2(dx)$. If this is the case, the integral operator $F=F_f:\MC(X)\to B(Y)$ given by $$\label{eqdefdualsemigroupsF}
(FQ)(y)=\int f(x,y) Q(dx)$$ is an injective bounded operator, so that the linear inverse $F^{-1}$ is defined on the image $F(\MC(X))$. Let us say that the function $FQ$ is $f$-generated by $Q$.
In [@CoRo] the authors call a function $g$ to be representable by $f$, if there exists a unique $Q$ such that $g=FQ$. Paper [@CoRo] deals with the application of duality to exit and entrance laws of Markov processes.
Basic tools
-----------
\[propdualop\] Let $f$ be a bounded measurable function separating measures on $X$ and $T$ an integral operator in $B(X)$ with a bounded signed kernel $p$. Then $T^{D(f)}$ is well defined on $F(\MC(X))$ and its action on the $f$-generated functions coincides with $T'$, that is $$\label{eqpropdualop}
T^{D(f)}=F \circ T' \circ F^{-1},$$ or equivalently $$\label{eqpropdualop1}
F^{-1} \circ T^{D(f)} = T' \circ F^{-1}.$$ In other words, the $f$-dual operator $T^{D(f)}$ is obtained by the ’dressing’ of the standard dual $T'$ by the operator $F$.
Let $g\in F(\MC(X))$ be given by $g(y)=\int f(x,y) Q_g(dx)$. Then $$T^{D(f)}g(y)=\int_X (T^{D(f)}f(x,.))(y) Q_g(dx)$$ $$=\int_X (Tf(.,y))(x) Q_g(dx)=\int_X\int_Y f(z,y) p(x,dz)Q_g(dx)=\int_Y f(z,y) \tilde Q (dz),$$ with $$\tilde Q(dz)=\int p(x,dz) Q_g(dx).$$ Thus $T^{D(f)}g$ is $f$-generated by $\tilde Q=T'Q_g$, as required.
Equation is a particular case of the so-called intertwining, see [@Biane], [@CaPeYo], as well as [@Dube], [@PPTS], [@HiYo] for exciting recent developments. Relations for discrete Markov chains are analyzed in detail in [@HuiMar].
Representation has a direct implication for the theory of semigroups.
\[propdualsemi\] Let $f$ be a bounded measurable function separating measures on $X$ and $T_t$ a semigroup of integral operators in $B(X)$ specified by the family of bounded signed kernel $p_t(x,dz)$ from $X$ to $X$, so that $T_0$ is the identity operator and $T_tT_s=T_{t+s}$, which, in terms of kernels, rewrites as the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation $$\int_X p_t(x,dz) p_s (z,dw)=p_{t+s}(x, dw).$$ Then the dual operators $T_t^{D(f)}$ in $F(\MC(X))$ also form a semigroup, so that $$\label{eqpropdualopesemig}
T_t^{D(f)}=F \circ T'_t \circ F^{-1}.$$
This is straightforward from and the standard obvious fact that $T_t'$ form a semigroup in $\MC(X)$.
The duality is of course also included in the general scheme above, that is, the dual can still be expressed as . For instance, if $\nu(dx)$ has a density $\nu(x)$ with respect to Lebesgue measure and $T'$ can be reduced to the action on functions, then $F^{-1}$ is the multiplication on $nu(x)$ and $f(x,y)=\de (x-y) \nu^{-1}(x)$.
It is also worth noting that the assumption of boundedness of $f$ is not very essential. If it is not bounded (and we shall discuss interesting examples of such situations later), the integral operator $F$ will not be defined on all bounded measures, but only on its subspace. This will be reflected in the domain of $T^{D(f)}$, but the whole scheme of Proposition \[propdualop\] still remains valid.
Links with differential equations and stochastic processes
----------------------------------------------------------
Let us explain briefly the main ideas on the application of the above results to the theory of differential equations and stochastic processes. Precise details for concrete situations will be discussed below.
Let a semigroup $T_t$ in $B(X)$ be generated by a (possibly unbounded) operator $L$ in $B(X)$ defined on an invariant (under all $T_t$) domain $D\subset B(X)$, so that $$\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}T_th=\lim_{t\to 0} \frac{1}{t} (T_th-h)=Lh, \quad h\in D,$$ with convergence in some appropriate topology (say, strongly or point-wise) and thus the operators $T_t$ represent resolving operators for the Cauchy problem of the equation $\dot h =Lh$. Then implies that $$\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}T_t^{D(f)}g= F \circ \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0} T' \circ F^{-1}g=F \circ L' \circ F^{-1}g,$$ that is, the generator of the semigroup $T_t^{D(f)}$ is $$\label{eqdualgengen}
L^{D(f)}=F \circ L' \circ F^{-1},$$ so that the operators $T_t^{D(f)}$ represent resolving operators for the Cauchy problem of the equation $\dot g =L^{D(f)}g$. Here $L'$ is of course the standard dual operator to $L$. Thus duality can yield explicit solutions for equations of this kind. Of course, our arguments were heuristic as we did not pay attention to the domain of definition of $L'$, which should be done in concrete situations. The main difficulty here is to characterize the operator $F_f$.
Next, in order to be able to fill the duality equation with probabilistic content, i.e. to rewrite it as , the semigroups $T_t$ and $T_T^{D(f)}$ should be positivity preserving and generate some Markov processes.
This question effectively reduces to the question of whether, for a given conditionally positive operator $L$, the corresponding dual $L^{D(f)}$ is also conditionally positive.
It is seen now that the basic questions to be addressed to make the theory work for concrete functions $f$ are (i) the characterization of the operators $F$ and $F^{-1}$ (for the analytic part of the story) and (ii) the criteria for conditional positivity of $L^{D(f)}$ (for its probabilistic content).
As we shall see it is often convenient to reduce the operator $F$ to some subclass of Borel measures $Q$, where its inverse can be explicitly found. For instance, it is often easier to work with $Q$ having density with respect to some reference measure.
Content and plan of the paper
-----------------------------
We shall apply formulas and to characterize classes of dual Markov processes with respect to various functions $f$ depending on the difference of its arguments. Section \[secPardu\] deals with duality on $\R^d$ arising from Pareto and similar partial orders. The full characterization of duality is given in terms of generators for basic classes of Feller processes. Section \[secdualfromLevygen\] discusses several examples of duality with operator $F^{-1}$ being the Laplacian or a fractional Lapacian. Section \[secdualbound\] initiates an application of formulas and to the study of duality for processes in domains with a boundary. To circumvent specific difficulties arising from the boundary, we introduce here an additional tool of a regularized dual.
The extension of the theory to time-nonhomogeneous Markov processes will be analyzed in [@Kolopre].
Duality from orders and other binary relations {#secPardu}
==============================================
Basic notions
-------------
As our basic example we consider $f$-duality for functions $f$ arising from translation-invariant partial orders, or more generally, from translation-invariant binary relations. Namely, let $X$ be a topological linear space and $M$ a Borel subset of $X$. Then $M$ defines a translation-invariant binary relation $R_M$ on $X$ such that $xR_My$ means, by definition, that $x-y\in M$, or $x\in y+M$.
Let $\tilde M=\{(x,y)\in X\times X: xR_My\}$. Let us say that the duality arises from the binary relation $M$, if $$\label{eqfdualbinary}
f(x,y)=f_M(x,y)=\1_{\tilde M}(x,y)=\1_{x-M}(y)=\1_{y+M}(x).$$
If $f$-duality arises from a translation-invariant binary relation $R_M$ and if both $T_t$ and $T_t^{D(f)}$ are known to be integral operators with kernels $p_t(x,dz)$ and $p_t^{D(f)}(y,dw)$ respectively, one can give another instructive proof of Proposition \[propdualsemi\] bypassing representation and using instead Fubbini’s theorem, as was done in [@Sieg] for standard one-dimensional duality. Namely, it is sufficient to show the semigroup identity $T_{t+s}^{D(f)}=T_s^{D(f)}T_t^{D(f)}$ applied to the functions $f(x,.)=\1_{x-M}$, as it then extends to the whole $F(\MC(X))$ by linearity. And for these functions we have $$(T_{t+s}^{D(f)}\1_{x-M})(y)=(T_{t+s}\1_{y+M})(x)=(T_t(T_s\1_{y+M}))(x)=\int p_t(x,dz)(T_s\1_{y+M})(z)$$ $$=\int p_t(x,dz)(T^{D(f)}_s\1_{z-M})(y)
=\int p_t(x,dz) \left( \int \1_{z-M}(w) p_s^{D(f)}(y,dw)\right).$$ Applying Fubbini’s theorem this rewrites as $$\int p_s^{D(f)}(y,dw) \int \1_{w+M}(z) p_t(x,dz)=\int (T_t \1_{w+M})(x) p_s^{D(f)}(y,dw)
=T_s^{D(f)} (T_t^{D(f)} \1_{x-M})(y),$$ as required.
If $M$ contains the origin and is closed under the addition of vectors, then the relation $R_M$ is a pre-order (i.e. it is reflexive and transient) and can be naturally denoted by $\ge_M$. If this is the case and $T_t$ and $T_t^{D(f)}$ are integral operators with positive stochastic kernels thus specifying Markov processes, then duality relation or equivalently turns to the equation $$\label{eqdefdualfrompreorder}
\P (X_t^x \ge_M y) =\P (Y_t^y \le_M x),$$ extending one-dimensional duality .
The basic example we are going to analyze now is the Pareto partial order in $X=\R^d$, i.e. $\ge_M$ with $M=\R^d_+$, and its natural extension with $M=C(e_1, \cdots, e_d)$ the cone generated by $d$ linear independent vectors $\{e_1, \cdots, e_d\}$ in $\R^d$: $$\label{eqdefconepolyhedron}
C(e_1, \cdots, e_d)=\{x=\sum_{j=1}^d \al_j e_j: \quad \al_j \ge 0, \, j=1, \cdots, d\}.$$ Of course the relation $\ge_M$ with such $M$ is again a Pareto order, but in a transformed system of coordinates.
Let us start with $M=\R^d_+$ corresponding to the Pareto order, which we shall denote just by $\ge$ omitting the subscript $M$. The corresponding dual semigroups or processes (if exist) will be referred to as Pareto dual. In this case $$\label{eqParetoF}
(FQ)(y)=\int f_M(x,y) Q(dx)=\int_{x\ge y} Q(dx)$$ is just the usual multidimensional distribution function for the measure $Q$ on $\R^d$. It is known (and easy to see) that $FQ$ characterizes $Q$ uniquely implying that $F$ is injective and thus $f_M$ separates measures on $\R^d$ yielding the main condition of Proposition \[propdualop\]. Moreover, if $Q$ has a density $q$ with respect to Lebesgue measure, then $q$ can be found from $FQ=g$ by differentiation: $$\label{eqParetoFinv}
q(y_1,\cdots, y_d)=F^{-1}g(y)=(-1)^d\frac{\pa^d g(y)}{\pa y_1 \cdots \pa y_d}.$$ Thus, for the Pareto order, the operator $F^{-1}$ has the simple explicit expression.
In the case of the orders arising from the cones $M=C(e_1, \cdots, e_d)$ given by this formula generalizes to $$\label{eqdensityofdistributioncon}
q(y_1,\cdots, y_d)=(F^{-1}g)(y)
=(-1)^d\frac{\frac{\pa ^d g}{\pa y^d}(y)[e_1,e_2, \cdots, e_d]}{|\det (e_1, e_2, \cdots, e_d)|},$$ where $\det (e_1, e_2, \cdots, e_d)=\det (e_i^j)$ is the determinant of the matrix whose $i$th columns consist of the coordinates of the vector $e_i$ and $$\frac{\pa ^d g}{\pa y^d}(y)[e_1,e_2, \cdots, e_d]
=\sum_{i_1, i_2, \cdots , i_d}
\frac{\pa ^d g}{\pa y_{i_1} \cdots \pa y_{i_d}}(y) e_1^{i_1}e_2^{i_2} \cdots e_d^{i_d}.$$
For completeness, let us sketch a proof of this formula. If a measure $Q$ on $\R^d$ has a continuous density $q$, so that $$g(x)=FQ(x)=\int_{y+C(e_1, \cdots, e_d)}q(z) dz,$$ the function $q$ can be clearly found as the limit $$\label{eqdensityofdistributionfun}
q(y) =\lim_{h\to 0}\int_{y+\Pi (he_1, \cdots, he_d)} q(z) \, dz |\Pi (he_1, \cdots, he_d)|^{-1},$$ where $$\Pi (he_1, \cdots, he_d)=\{x=\sum_j \al_j he_j, \quad \al_j\in [0,1]\}$$ is the parallelepiped built on the vectors $\{he_1, \cdots, he_d\}$ and $$|\Pi (he_1, \cdots, he_d)|=h^d |\det (e_i^j)|$$ is its Euclidean volume.
From simple combinatorics it follows (see e.g. [@Kallen]) that $$\int_{y+\Pi (he_1, \cdots, he_d)} q(z) \, dz$$ $$=g(y)-\sum_j g(y+he_j)+\sum_{i<j} g(y+he_i+he_j)
+\cdots +(-1)^d g(y+he_1+\cdots +he_d).$$ Let us expand all terms in Taylor series up to the derivatives of order $d$. As the final expression should be of order $h^d$ (to get a limit in ) we conclude that all terms with the derivatives of orders less than $d$ necessarily cancel, so that $$\int_{y+\Pi (he_1, \cdots, he_d)} q(z) \, dz$$ $$\label{eqdensityofdistributionfun1}
=\frac{1}{d!} h^d \left(-\sum_j \frac{\pa ^d g}{\pa y^d}[e_j]
+\sum_{i<j} \frac{\pa ^d g}{\pa y^d}[e_i+e_j]
+\cdots + (-1)^d \frac{\pa ^d g}{\pa y^d}[e_1+\cdots +e_d]\right) +O(h^{d+1}),$$ where $O(h^{d+1})$ denotes the expression of order $h^{d+1}$ that does not contribute to the limit in , and where we use the well established (though a bit ambiguous) notation for the action of the higher order derivative on equal vectors: $$\frac{\pa ^d g}{\pa y^d}(y)[v]=\frac{\pa ^d g}{\pa y^d}(y)[v, \cdots, v].$$ It remains to note that all terms in expansion containing products of coordinates of coinciding vectors should vanish (otherwise, using different scaling on $e_i$ we would arrive to a contradiction with the existence of the limit in ). The only non-vanishing terms should contain the products of $d$ coordinates of all $d$ vectors. All these products comes from the last term in the sum leading to .
For instance, let us consider a ’two-dimensional light cone’ $$\label{eqdeftwodimlightcone}
C(e_1,e_2)=\{(x,y): y\ge |x|\} \in \R^2,$$ corresponding to vectors $e_1=(1,1), e_2=(-1,1)$. Then formula for the inverse operator turns to the simple wave operator $$\label{eqdensityofdistributionlightcon2dim}
q(x, y)=F^{-1}g(x,y)
=\frac12 \left(\frac{\pa ^2 g}{\pa y^2}-\frac{\pa ^2 g}{\pa x^2}\right) (x,y).$$
Duality from Pareto order: global analysis
------------------------------------------
Let us now make the detailed analysis of the duality arising from the standard Pareto order in $\R^d$, i.e. with $M=\R^d_+$. We aim at (i) finding explicitly the dual operator $L^{D(f)}$ for the main classes of the generators of Feller processes in $\R^d$ including diffusions and jump processes and (ii) establishing criteria (in terms of the initial operator $L$) ensuring that this dual operator is conditionally positive and specifies a Markov process, so that the duality relation holds that we shall write simply as $$\label{eqdefdualfromParetoorder}
\P (X_t^x \ge y) =\P (Y_t^y \le x)$$ for the case of the Pareto partial order.
Let us analyze formula from Proposition \[propdualop\]. In the case of duality arising from Pareto order and the operator $T$ being integral with a probability kernel $p(x,dz)$ (i.e. all measures $p(x,.)$ are probability measures, as is the case for transition operators of Markov processes) it states that for a distribution function $g$ of a measure $Q$ on $\R^d$. i.e. $g(x)=\int_{z\ge x} Q(dz)$ we have $$\label{eqpropdualopPar1}
T^{D(f)}g(x)=F \circ T' \circ F^{-1}g(x)=\int_{y\ge x} \int_{\R^d}p(z,dy) Q(dz).$$ We are interested in the question of when this operator can be extended to all bounded measurable $g$ as a positive operator preserving constants, i.e. as an integral operator with a probability kernel.
Assume first that the measure $Q$ has a continuous density $q$ so that holds, i.e. $$q(x)=(-1)^d \frac{\pa g^d}{\pa x_1 \cdots \pa x_d}.$$ In this case $$\label{eqpropdualopPar2}
T^{D(f)}g(x)=(-1)^d \int_{y\ge x} \int_{\R^d} p(z,dy) \frac{\pa g^d}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} dz.$$
We like to get rid of the derivatives of $g$. To be able to do it, let us assume that the kernel $p(x,dz)$ is weakly continuous and has weakly continuous mixed derivatives, that is, for any $I\subset \{1, \cdots, d\}$ (including $\{1, \cdots, d\}$ itself) the mixed derivative $$\label{eqD1}
\frac{\pa p^{|I|}}{\pa z_I} (z, dy)$$ is a well defined weakly continuous kernel (possibly signed). Then, integrating the integral over $z$ in by parts $d$ times and assuming that all boundary terms vanish, we get $$\label{eqpropdualopPar3}
T^{D(f)}g(x)= \int_{\R^d} \left( g(z) \int_{y\ge x} \frac{\pa p^d}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z, dy) \right) dz.$$ This is an integral operator with the integral kernel (more precisely its density) $$p^D(x,z)=\int_{y\ge x} \frac{\pa p^d}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z, dy).$$ For this operator to be positive and constant preserving, necessary conditions are that, for all $x\in \R^d$, $$\label{eqD2}
\int_{y\ge x} \frac{\pa p^d}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z, dy)\ge 0,$$ $$\label{eqD3}
\int\left( \int_{y\ge x} \frac{\pa p^d}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z, dy)\right) dz =1.$$
From the integration by parts it is seen that for the last condition to hold it is sufficient to assume that for any subset $I\subset \{1, \cdots, d\}$ excluding the whole set $\{1, \cdots, d\}$, $$\label{eqD4}
\lim _{z_{\bar I} \to -\infty} \int_{\R^{|I|}} dz_I \int_{y\ge x} \frac{\pa p^{|I|}}{\pa z_I} (z_I,z_{\bar I}, dy)=0,$$ and there exists a finite limit $$\label{eqD5}
\lim _{z_{\bar I} \to \infty} \int_{\R^{|I|}} dz_I \int_{y\ge x} \frac{\pa p^{|I|}}{\pa z_I} (z_I,z_{\bar I}, dy),$$ which equals $1$ for the empty set $I$. Moreover, one sees by inspection that this condition also ensures that integrating by parts for a $g$ having finite density , all boundary terms will in fact vanish, justifying equation .
Thus we have proved the following statement.
\[propglobalParetodualan\] Suppose an integral operator $T$ in $B(\R^d)$ is given by a probability kernel $p(x,dy)$ having all mixed derivatives well defined and weakly continuous and such that holds, holds for any subset $I\subset \{1, \cdots, d\}$ excluding the whole set $\{1, \cdots, d\}$, and there exists a finite limit , which equals $1$ for the empty set $I$. Then the Pareto dual operator $T^{D(f)}$ is also an integral operator with a probability kernel.
Condition is of course not directly verifiable. Therefore we shall see how it can be read from the generator of the process.
Duality from Pareto order: deterministic and diffusion processes
----------------------------------------------------------------
We plan now to find the generators of the dual processes, when they exist. Let us start with the simplest case of deterministic processes generated by the first order differential operators of the form $$\label{eqdetermgen}
L\phi(x) =(b(x), \nabla \phi (x))=\sum_{j=1}^d b_j(x) \frac{\pa \phi}{\pa x_j}.$$
In this case the dual operator is well defined on functions and $$L'g(x)=-{\div} (gb)(x)=-\sum_j \frac{\pa}{\pa x_j}[b_j(x) g(x)].$$
For a vector $x=(x_1, \cdots, x_d) \in \R^d$ let us denote $\check {x}_i$ the vector in $\R^{d-1}$ obtained from $x$ by deleting the coordinate $x_i$. For a function $g(x)$ let us write $g(\check {z}_i, x_i)$ for the value of $g$ on the vector, whose $i$th coordinate is $x_i$, and other coordinates are those of the vector $z$. Let us write $d\check {z}_j$ for the product of differentials $dz_k$ with all $k=1, \cdots, d$ excluding $j$.
Integrating by parts and assuming that $g$ decays quickly enough so that the boundary terms at infinity vanish, we have $$L^{D(f)}g(x)= FL' F^{-1}g(x)=(-1)^{d+1}\int_{z\ge x} \sum_j \frac{\pa}{\pa z_j}\left[b_j(z) \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d}\right]\, dz_1\cdots dz_d$$ $$\label{eqdetermgendual}
=(-1)^d\sum_j \int_{\check{z}_j \ge \check{x}_j}b_j(\check {z}_j, x_j) \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (\check {z}_j, x_j)\, d\check {z}_j.$$
In general one cannot simplify this expression much further, and this is not a conditionally positive operator (it does not have a Lévy-Khintchin form with variable coefficients) without further assumptions.
\[propParetodualdeterm\] Let $L$ have form with all $b_j \in C^1(\R^d)$ (the space of bounded continuous functions with bounded continuous derivatives). Then $L^{D(f)}$ is given by , so that the solution to the Cauchy problem of the equation $\dot g=L^{D(f)}g$ is given by the corresponding formula with $F$ and $F^{-1}$ given by and . Moreover, if each $b_j$ depends only on the coordinate $x_j$, then $$\label{eqourdualdeterm}
L^{D(f)}g(x)=-b_j(x_j)\frac{\pa g}{\pa x_j},$$ that is, $L^{D(f)}$ coincides with $L$ up to a sign and the dual process exists and is just the deterministic motion in the opposite direction to the original one.
Formula is straightforward from and the assumptions made on $b_j$. This makes the last statement plausible. However, strictly speaking, having the generator calculated on some subclass of functions does not directly imply that the semigroup $T^{D(f)}$ coincides with the semigroups on $C(\R^d)$ generated by operator . The simplest way to see that this is in fact the case is via durect calculations with the semigroup $T_t^{D(f)}$ itself. Namely, if the deterministic Markov process $X_t^x$ with generator can be expressed as $X_t^x =X^t(x)$ via the solutions $X^t(x)$ of the Cauchy problem for the ODE $\dot x=b(x)$, its transition kernel takes the form $p_t(z, dy)=\de (y-X^t(z))$. Then becomes
$$\label{eqpropdualopPar2det}
T_t^{D(f)}g(x)=(-1)^d \int_{X^t(z)\ge x} \frac{\pa g^d}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} dz.$$
Under the assumption that $b_i$ depend only on $x_i$, the coordinates of $X^t(z)$ are themselves solutions $X_i^t(z_i)$ of the one-dimensional ODE $\dot x_i =b_i(x_i)$, so that one has $$\label{eqpropdualopPar2det1}
T_t^{D(f)}g(x)=(-1)^d \int_{X^t_i(z_i)\ge x_i} \frac{\pa g^d}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} dz.$$ From the obvious monotonicity of one-dimensional ODE this rewrites as $$\label{eqpropdualopPar2det2}
T^{D(f)}g(x)=(-1)^d \int_{z_i\ge (X^t_i)^{-1} (x_i)} \frac{\pa g^d}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} dz
=g((X^t)^{-1}(x)),$$ which is of course the semigroup generated by the operator .
Let us turn to a diffusion operator having the form $$\label{eqdiffgen}
L\phi(x)=(a(x)\nabla, \nabla)\phi(x)=\sum_{i,j=1}^d a_{ij}(x) \frac{\pa^2 \phi}{\pa x_i \pa x_j}(x)$$ with a positive definite diffusion matrix $a(x)=(a_{ij}(x))$.
In this case $$L'g(x)=\sum_{i,j=1}^d \frac{\pa^2}{\pa x_i \pa x_j}[a_{ij}(x)g(x)],$$ and consequently $$L^{D(f)}g(x)= FL' F^{-1}g(x)=(-1)^{d}\int_{z\ge x} \sum_{i,j=1}^d \frac{\pa^2}{\pa z_i \pa z_j}
\left[a_{ij}(z) \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d})\right] \, dz_1\cdots dz_d.$$ Let us integrate twice by parts the terms containing mixed derivatives and integrate once by parts the remaining terms. This yields $$L^{D(f)}g(x)= (-1)^{d-1}\sum_{j=1}^d \int_{\check{z}_j \ge \check{x}_j}\frac{\pa }{\pa x_j}
\left[a_{jj}(\check {z}_j, x_j) \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d}(\check {z}_j, x_j)\right]\, d\check {z}_j$$ $$+ 2(-1)^d \sum_{i<j} \int_{\check{z}_{ij} \ge \check{x}_{ij}}
\left[a_{ij} \frac{\pa^d g}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d}\right](\check{z}_{ij}, x_i,x_j)\, d\check {z}_{ij},$$ where $\check {z}_{ij}$ denotes the vector in $\R^{d-2}$ obtained from $z$ by deleting $i$th and $j$th coordinates, and $(\check{z}_{ij}, x_i,x_j)$ is the vector with $i$th and $j$th coordinates taken from the vector $x$, and other coordinates taken from the vector $z$. In case $d=1$, the second sum in this expression is of course empty.
Again in general case one cannot simplify this expression essentially. However, assuming additionally that the coefficients $a_{ij}$ depends only on the coordinates $x_i,x_j$ (in particular, $a_{ii}$ depends only on $x_i$), we have $$L^{D(f)}g(x)= (-1)^{d-1}\sum_{j=1}^d \int_{\check{z}_j \ge \check{x}_j}\frac{\pa }{\pa x_j}
\left[a_{jj}(x_j) \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d}(\check {z}_j, x_j)\right] \, d\check {z}_j$$ $$+ 2(-1)^d \sum_{i<j} \int_{\check{z}_{ij} \ge \check{x}_{ij}}
a_{ij} (x_i,x_j)\frac{\pa^d g}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d}(\check{z}_{ij}, x_i,x_j)\, d\check {z}_{ij}.$$ Integrating by parts with respect to the variables $\check {z}_j$ in the first sum and the variables $\check {z}_{ij}$ in the second, yields (assuming the boundary terms at infinity vanish) $$\label{eqourdualdiff}
L^{D(f)}g(x)=\sum_{j=1}^d \frac{\pa }{\pa x_j}
\left[a_{jj}(x_j) \frac{\pa g(x)}{\pa x_j}\right]
+ 2 \sum_{i<j} a_{ij} (x_i,x_j)\frac{\pa^2 g}{\pa x_i \pa x_j},$$ or $$\label{eqourdualdiff1}
L^{D(f)}g(x)=Lg(x)+\sum_{j=1}^d \frac{\pa a_{jj}(x_j)}{\pa x_j}
\frac{\pa g(x)}{\pa x_j}.$$
\[propParetodualdiff\] Let $L$ have form with a positive definite diffusion matrix $a(x)=(a_{ij}(x))$ and with all $a_{ij} \in C^1(\R^d)$, so that $L$ generates a Feller diffusion in $\R^d$ that we denote $X_t^x$. If the coefficients $a_{ij}$ depends only on the coordinates $x_i,x_j$, then $L^{D(f)}$ is given by and it also generates a diffusion process in $\R^d$ that we denote $Y_t^y$, and the duality relation holds.
Again formula makes the statement very plausible, but to deduce from additional argument is of course needed. This goes as follows.
But notice first that it is sufficient to prove the statement under additional assumption that coefficients $a_{ij}$ are infinitely smooth with all derivatives bounded (actually we need twice differentiability for the above calculation of $L^{D(f)}$ and $d$ times differentiability for the formulas of Proposition \[propglobalParetodualan\] to make sense) and the operator $L$ is strictly elliptic, because any $L$ of type can be approximated by the sequence of $L$ of the same form but strictly elliptic and with smooth coefficients. Passing to the limit in the duality equation allows one to prove its validity for the general case.
Next, under this smoothness and non-degeneracy assumption, it is well known from the standard theory of diffusions (or Ito’s processes) that operator generates a unique Feller process such that its semigroup $T_t^{D(f)}$ preserves the space $C^2_{\infty}(\R^d)$ of twice continuously differentiable functions vanishing at infinity with all its derivatives up to order two. Hence, the Cauchy problem for the equation $$\dot g=L^{D(f)}g$$ is well posed in classical sense for initial functions $g_0$ from $C^2_{\infty}(\R^d)$. It is then straightforward to see that both functions $T_t^{D(f)}g_0$ and $F \circ T'_t \circ F^{-1}g_0$ satisfies this equation. Consequently these two functions coincide implying for the semigroups $T_t$ and $T_t^{D(f)}$, as required.
Thus we have shown that under appropriate assumptions the $f$-dual operators to the first order and diffusion operators respectively are again first order and diffusion operators respectively defining the $f$-dual or Pareto dual processes.
It is instructive to see which diffusions are self-dual. This is given by the following result that is a direct consequence of Propositions \[propParetodualdiff\] and \[propParetodualdeterm\].
\[propParetoselfdualdiff\] Let $$\label{eqdiffParselfdual}
L\phi(x)=\sum_{i,j=1}^d a_{ij}(x_i,x_j) \frac{\pa^2 \phi}{\pa x_i \pa x_j}(x)+\frac12 \sum_{j=1}^d a'_{jj}(x_j) \frac{\pa \phi}{\pa x_j}(x)$$ with a positive definite (possibly not strictly) diffusion matrix $a(x)=(a_{ij}(x))$ such that $a_{ij}$ depend only on $x_i,x_j$ and are continuously differentiable (with bounded derivatives). Then the diffusion generated by $L$ is self-dual in the Pareto sense.
Application to other cones
--------------------------
Generalization of our results to orders arising from cones $C(e_1, \cdots, e_d)$ can be obtained by the change of variables, though the calculations quickly become rather cumbersome. Let us consider only the simple example of the two-dimensional cone . The question we are going to answer is as follows: under what conditions the diffusion operator $$\label{eqtwodimdiff}
Lg(x,y)=a(x,y)\frac{\pa ^2g}{\pa x^2} +2b(x,y)\frac{\pa ^2g}{\pa x \pa y}+c(x,y)\frac{\pa ^2g}{\pa y^2}$$ generates a diffusion that has a dual in the sense of the order generated by $C$, and how the dual generator looks like. Having in mind the relation with the standard Pareto order we can expect that the coefficients should depend in certain way on two arbitrary functions of one variable and one arbitrary function of two variables. This is in fact the case as the following result shows.
\[proplightconetwodimdualdiff\] Let $L$ of form with smooth coefficients generate a Feller diffusion $X_t^x$. If the coefficients have the form $$\label{eq1proplightconetwodimdualdiff}
\begin{aligned}
& a(x,y)=\al (x+y)+\be (x-y) +{\omega}(x,y), \\
& c(x,y)=\al (x+y)+\be (x-y) -{\omega}(x,y), \\
& b(x,y)=\al (x+y)-\be (x-y)
\end{aligned}$$ with some smooth functions $\al, \be,{\omega}$, then $X_t^x$ has the dual diffusion $Y_t^y$ so that holds with $M=C(e_1,e_2)$ of form , where $Y_t^y$ is generated by the operator $$\label{eq2proplightconetwodimdualdiff}
L^{D(f)}g=Lg+4 (\al ' (x+y)+\be' (x-y)) \frac{\pa g}{\pa x}(x,y)+4 (\al ' (x+y)-\be' (x-y)) \frac{\pa g}{\pa y}(x,y).$$
Formulas are obtained from Proposition \[propParetodualdiff\] by rotation of coordinates, that is by change $x'=x+y, y'=x-y$.
Duality from Pareto order: jump processes
-----------------------------------------
Let us now turn to the generators $L$ of pure jump processes, that is $$\label{eqjumpgen}
L\phi(x)=\int_{\R^d} (\phi(w)-\phi(x))\nu (x,dw)$$ with some bounded stochastic kernel $\nu$. For a measure $Q$ having a density with respect to Lebesgue measure, let us write shortly $L'q$ for the measure $L'Q$. We have $$L'q(dz)=\int_{\R^d} q(x) \nu(x,dz) dx-q(z) dz \int_{\R^d} \nu (z, dw).$$ Consequently, relabeling the variables of integration, we have $$F\circ L' (q)=(-1)^d \int_{z\ge y} (L'q)(dz)$$ $$=(-1)^d \int_{w\ge y} \int_{\R^d} q(z) \nu(z,dw) \, dz- (-1)^d \int_{z\ge y} \int_{\R^d} q(z) \nu(z,dw) \, dz.$$ The integrals in the two terms partially cancel. Namely, we can write $$F\circ L' (q)=(-1)^d \int q(z) \left( \1_{z\ge y} \left[\int_{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw)-\int \nu (z,dw)\right]+\1_{z\ngeq y} \int_{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw)\right) \, dz,$$ implying $$F\circ L' (q)=(-1)^d \int q(z) \left[\1_{z\ngeqslant y} \int_{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw)- \1_{z\ge y} \int_{w\ngeq y} \nu (z,dw)\right] \, dz.$$ Hence, for a smooth ($d$ times differentiable) function $g$ we can write either $$L^{D(f)}g=F\circ L' \circ F^{-1} g (y)$$ $$\label{eqjumpdual1}
=(-1)^d \int \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d}
\left[\1_{z\ngeq y} \int_{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw)- \1_{z\ge y} \int_{w\ngeqslant y} \nu (z,dw)\right] \, dz,$$ or $$L^{D(f)}g=F\circ L' \circ F^{-1} g (y)$$ $$\label{eqjumpdual2}
=(-1)^d \int_{w\ge y} \int_{\R^d} \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} \nu(z,dw) \, dz
- (-1)^d \int_{z\ge y} \int_{\R^d} \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} \nu(z,dw) \, dz.$$
If $\nu (z,dw)$ depends smoothly on $z$, this expression can be rewritten by moving the derivatives from $g$ to $\nu$. For this transformation expression is more handy than . To perform the integration by parts in its second term we shall use the following simple formula (with a straightforward proof by mathematical induction) $$\label{eqbypartsmultidim}
\int_{z\ge y} \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} \phi (z) dz
=(-1)^d \sum _{I\subset \{1, \cdots, d\}} \int_{z_I \ge y_I} g(y_{\bar I}, z_I)
\frac{\pa^{|I|} \phi}{\pa z_I}(y_{\bar I}, z_I) dz_I,$$ which is valid when the boundary terms at infinity vanish, for instance if either $\phi$ or $g$ vanish at infinity with all its derivatives. Here $|I|$ is the number of indices in $I$, the integral over the set $\{z_I \ge y_I\}$ is $|I|$-dimensional and $(y_{\bar I}, z_I)$ denotes the vector whose coordinates with indices from $I$ are those of the vector $z$ and other coordinates are from the vector $y$.
Using this formula we transform into the expression $$L^{D(f)}g(y)=F\circ L' \circ F^{-1} g (y)$$ $$= \int_{w\ge y} \int_{\R^d} g(z) \frac{\pa^d \nu }{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z,dw) \, dz
-\sum _{I\subset \{1, \cdots, d\}} \int_{z_I \ge y_I} dz_I g(y_{\bar I}, z_I)
\int_{\R^d} \frac{\pa^{|I|} \nu}{\pa z_I}(y_{\bar I}, z_I, dw).$$ Singling out from the sum the terms corresponding to $I$ being empty and $I$ being the whole set $ \{1, \cdots, d\}$, this rewrites as $$\int_{w\ge y} \int_{\R^d} g(z) \frac{\pa^d \nu }{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z,dw) \, dz
-\int_{z\ge y} \int_{\R^d} g(z) \frac{\pa^d \nu }{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z,dw) \, dz$$ $$-{\sum}' _{I\subset \{1, \cdots, d\}} \int_{z_I \ge y_I} dz_I g(y_{\bar I}, z_I)
\int_{\R^d} \frac{\pa^{|I|} \nu}{\pa z_I}(y_{\bar I}, z_I, dw)
-g(y) \int_{\R^d} \nu (y,dw),$$ where $\sum'$ denotes the sum over all proper subsets $I$, i.e. all subsets $I$ excluding empty set and the whole set $ \{1, \cdots, d\}$. Performing the cancelation in the first two terms yields finally (see the trick leading to ) $$L^{D(f)}g(y)=F\circ L' \circ F^{-1} g (y)=-g(y) \int_{\R^d} \nu (y,dw)$$ $$-\sum' _{I\subset \{1, \cdots, d\}} \int_{z_I \ge y_I} dz_I g(y_{\bar I}, z_I)
\int_{\R^d} \frac{\pa^{|I|} \nu}{\pa z_I}(y_{\bar I}, z_I, dw)$$ $$\label{eqjumpdual3}
+ \int_{\R^d} g(z) dz \left[\1_{z\ngeq y} \int_{w\ge y} \frac{\pa ^d\nu}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z,dw)
- \1_{z\ge y} \int_{w\ngeq y} \frac{\pa ^d\nu}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z,dw)\right].$$
For instance, for $d=1$ $$\label{eqourdualjumponedim}
L^{D(f)}g(y)=\int_{-\infty}^y g(z) \, dz \int_{w\ge y} \frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z, dw)
-\int_y^{\infty} g(z) \, dz \int_{w<y}\frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z, dw) - g(y) \int \nu (y,dw),$$ which is the formula essentially obtained in [@Ko03] and [@Ko10], and for $d=2$ $$L^{D(f)}g(y)=-g(y_1,y_2) \int \nu (y,dw)$$ $$-\int_{z_1\ge y_1} g(z_1,y_2) dz_1 \int \frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z_1}(z_1,y_2, dw)
-\int_{z_2\ge y_2} g(y_1,z_2) dz_2 \int \frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z_2}(y_1,z_2, dw)$$ $$\label{eqourdualjumptwodim}
+\int g(z_1,z_2) dz_1dz_2 \left[\1_{z\ngeq y} \int_{w\ge y} \frac{\pa ^2\nu}{\pa z_1 \pa z_2} (z,dw)
- \1_{z\ge y} \int_{w\ngeq y} \frac{\pa ^2\nu}{\pa z_1 \pa z_2} (z,dw)\right].$$
It is worth stressing that one should be cautious in using these formulas as they may not be true for $f$ not vanishing at infinity, say even for a constant function $f$ (so that these formulas cannot be used even for checking conservativity condition $L^{D(f)} \1=0$). Generally one has to use the following extension of (also proved by direct induction) that is valid whenever $g$, $\phi$ are smooth and such that for all $I\subset \{1, \cdots ,d\}$ and $y_{\bar I}$ there exist finite limits of the functions $g(y_{\bar I}, z_I)$, $\phi (y_{\bar I}, z_I)$ and their derivatives in $z_I$, as $z_I\to \infty$ (here $\infty$ means precisely $+\infty$):
$$\int_{z\ge y} \frac{\pa^d g(z)}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} \phi (z) dz$$ $$\label{eqbypartsmultidimgen}
=(-1)^d \sum _{I\subset \{1, \cdots, d\}} \int_{z_I \ge y_I}
\left[ \sum_{J\subset \bar I} (-1)^{|J|} g(y_{\bar I \setminus J}, \infty_J, z_I)
\frac{\pa^{|I|} \phi}{\pa z_I}(y_{\bar I \setminus J}, \infty_J, z_I)\right] dz_I,$$ where $(y_{\bar I \setminus J}, \infty_J, z_I)$ denotes the vector with $\bar I \setminus J$ -coordinates from $y$, $I$-coordinates from $z$ and other coordinates being $+\infty$. For instance, in case $d=2$ we have $$\int_{y_1}^{\infty}\int_{y_2}^{\infty} \frac{\pa^2 g(z)}{\pa z_1 \pa z_2} \phi (z) \, dz
=\int_{y_1}^{\infty}\int_{y_2}^{\infty} \frac{\pa^2 \phi (z)}{\pa z_1 \pa z_2} g (z) \, dz$$ $$+\int_{y_1}^{\infty} \left[ g(z_1, y_2) \frac{\pa^2 \phi}{\pa z_1 } (z_1, y_2)- g(z_1, \infty) \frac{\pa^2 \phi}{\pa z_1 } (z_1, \infty)\right] dz_1$$ $$+\int_{y_2}^{\infty} \left[ g(y_1, z_2) \frac{\pa^2 \phi}{\pa z_2 } (y_1, z_2)- g(\infty, z_2) \frac{\pa^2 \phi}{\pa z_2 } (\infty, z_2)\right] dz_2$$ $$\label{eqbypartsmultidimgen}
+g(y_1,y_2)\phi(y_1,y_2)-g(\infty,y_2)\phi(\infty,y_2)-g(y_1,\infty)\phi(y_1,\infty)+g(\infty,\infty)\phi(\infty,\infty).$$
Assuming that for all $y$ $$\label{eqcondonedimduinf}
\lim_{z\to -\infty} \int_{w\ge y} \nu (z, dw) =0, \quad \lim_{z\to \infty} \int_{w < y} \nu (z, dw) =0,$$ equation rewrites in the equivalent conservative form $$\label{eqourdualjumponedim1}
L^{D(f)}g(y)=\int_{-\infty}^y (g(z)-g(y)) \, dz \int_{w\ge y} \frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z, dw)
-\int_y^{\infty} (g(z)-g(y)) \, dz \int_{w<y}\frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z, dw).$$
\[propParetodualjump\] Let $L$ have form with a bounded weakly continuous stochastic kernel $\nu$, so that $L$ generates a $C$-Feller (i,e. its semigroup preserves continuous functions) jump process in $\R^d$ that we denote $X_t^x$. Then $L^{D(f)}$ is given by . If the kernel $\nu$ has continuous bounded mixed derivatives, so that $$\frac{\pa ^{|I|}\nu}{\pa z_I}(z,dw)$$ is again a bounded kernel (possibly signed) for any nonempty subset $I\in \{1, \cdots d\}$ (including the whole set $\{1, \cdots d\}$), then $L^{D(f)}$ can be rewritten as . Finally $L^{D(f)}$ generates itself a $C$-Feller Markov process that we denote $Y_t^y$ if and only if the following conditions hold:
All mixed derivatives of orders from $1$ to $d-1$ of the jump rates are non-positive, i.e. $$\label{eq1propParetodualdiff}
\int_{\R^d} \frac{\pa ^{|I|}\nu}{\pa z_I}(z, dw) \le 0$$ for any proper subset $I$ of $\{1, \cdots d\}$; and $$\label{eq2propParetodualdiff}
\begin{aligned}
& \int_{w\ge y} \frac{\pa ^d\nu}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z,dw) \ge 0, \quad z \ngeq y, \\
& \int_{w\ngeq y} \frac{\pa ^d\nu}{\pa z_1 \cdots \pa z_d} (z,dw) \le 0, \quad z \ge y.
\end{aligned}$$
If this is the case, the duality relation holds.
Everything is proved apart from the criterion for the generation of a Markov process. To get it one only has to note that the operator $\int g(z) \mu (y, dz) -\al (y) g(y)$ with given kernel $\mu$ and function $\al$ is conditionally positive (and generates a process) if and only if the kernel $\mu $ is stochastic (i.e. positive), and that the kernels from various terms in are mutually singular, so that this positivity condition should be applied separately to each term.
One completes the proof by the same argument as used at the end of the proof of Proposition \[propParetodualdiff\].
Couple of remarks are in order here. Condition is not very transparent. A simple particular case to have in mind is when the kernel $\nu$ decomposes into a sum of kernels depending on all variables but for one, i.e. $$\nu (z, dw) =\sum_j \nu_j(z_1, \cdots, z_{j-1}, z_{j+1}, \cdots , z_d, dw),$$ in which case the condition becomes void (thus trivially satisfied). On the other hand, conditions are easy to check. To visualize this condition it is instructive to observe that if $q$ is a density of a positive measure on $\R^d$, then the distribution function $$g(x) =\int_{z\ngeq x} q(z) dz$$ is positive, but has all mixed derivatives negative. Even more specifically, if $\nu$ decomposes into a sum of kernels depending on one variable only, that is $$\nu (z, dw) =\sum_j \nu_j(z_j, dw),$$ all conditions of Proposition \[propParetodualjump\] are reduced to an easy to check requirement that all rates $\int \nu_j(z_j,dw)$ are decreasing functions of $z_j$.
Let us note that the method of the calculation of dual used above can still be used for processes with a boundary. For instance, let us consider a process on $\R_+$ with the generator $$\label{eqjumpgenonedimb}
L\phi(x)=\int_{\R_+} (\phi(w)-\phi(x))\nu (x,dw).$$ The operator $L'$ takes the form $$L'q(dz)=\int_{\R_+} q(x) \nu(x,dz) dx-q(z) dz \int_{\R_+} \nu (z, dw)$$ and the same calculations as above yield $$L^{D(f)}g(y)=\int_0^y g(z) \, dz \int_{w\ge y} \frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z, dw)
-\int_y^{\infty} g(z) \, dz \int_{0\le w<y}\frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z, dw)$$ $$\label{eqourdualjumponedimb}
- g(y) \int \nu (y,dw) +g(0) \int_{w\ge y} \nu (0, dw),$$ that is, an additional term appears arising from additional boundary taken into account while integrating by parts. Under assumption , this rewrites in the equivalent conservative form $$L^{D(f)}g(y)=\int_0^y (g(z)-g(y)) \, dz \int_{w\ge y} \frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z, dw)$$ $$\label{eqourdualjumponedimb1}
-\int_y^{\infty} (g(z)-g(y)) \, dz \int_{0\le w<y}\frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z, dw) +\int_{w\ge y} (g(0)-g(y)) \nu (0, dw).$$
We assume strong smoothness condition for $\nu$, which forces the dual Lévy kernel to have a density. This is not necessary. Just assuming monotonicity of $\int_{w\ge y} \nu (z, dw)$ and $\int_{w<y} \nu (z, dw)$ (and thus the existence almost sure of non-negative derivatives of these functions of $z$), we obtain, instead of , the formula $$\label{eqourdualjumponedim1}
L^{D(f)}g(y)=\int_{-\infty}^y (g(z)-g(y)) \, d_z \int_{w\ge y} \nu (z, dw)
-\int_y^{\infty} (g(z)-g(y)) \, d_z \int_{w<y} \nu (z, dw),$$ with similar modifications for and analogously for $d$-dimensional case.
Let us mention the link with the theory of stochastic monotonicity. A Markov process $X_t^x$ is called stochastically monotone with respect to Pareto ordering if the function $\P(X_t^x \ge y)$ is a monotone function of $x$ for any $y$. Stochastic monotonicity is studied for various classes of processes, see [@ChWa], [@Chenbook04], [@Ko03], [@Kobook11], [@Zh], [@JMW], [@Rabe] and references therein. If duality holds, then $X_t^x$ is obviously stochastically monotone, but, generally speaking, this condition is too weak to ensure duality, because stochastic monotonicity of a positive function on $\R^d$ does not imply (apart from one-dimensional case) that it is the multi-dimensional distribution function for some positive measure. Therefore it is remarkable enough that for diffusion processes with generators the conditions of stochastic monotonicity and of the existence of Pareto dual coincide. Even for deterministic processes this is already not so, as for stochastic monotonicity of processes generated by operators , $b_j$ are allowed to depend on other coordinates $x_k$ (in a monotone way, see e.g. [@ChWa] and references therein to previous works). Stochastic monotonicity and related duality are well developed for Markov chains, see e.g. [@And] and [@VanDo], for birth and death processes and one-dimensional diffusions see [@CoRo].
We assumed boundedness of all coefficients involved. This simplification leads to the most straightforward formulations that catch up the essence of duality. Of course, extensions to unbounded kernel rates, diffusion coefficients, etc, are possible under the conditions that ensure that all processes involved are well defined.
Arbitrary Feller processes
--------------------------
We have analyzed three classes of the generators $L$ separately. But it is clear that if we consider a process with the generator being the sum of the generators of different classes, then applying conditions of the results above to each term separately will ensure that the dual to the sum is also conditionally positive and generates a process leading to the duality relation . For simplicity, we shall give the corresponding result for one-dimensional Feller processes, but extension to higher dimensions is straightforward. For this case, the generators of the dual were obtained in [@Ko10] (which contains an annoying systematic typo with the wrong sign $'-'$ before the second term of ) by approximating continuous state space generators by discrete Markov chains. The method of the present paper will give the same result without any technical restrictions used in [@Ko10] this yielding the complete characterization.
\[propParetodualonedimful\] Let a Feller process $X_t^x$ in $C_{\infty}(\R)$ have a generator $$\label{eq1Paretodualonedimful}
Lg(x)=a(x) \frac{d^2}{dx^2} g(x)+b(x) \frac{d}{dx} g(x)+ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} (g(z)-g(x)-(z-x)g'(x)\1_{|z-x|\le 1})\nu (x, dz)$$ with $a, b\in C^2(\R)$, $a$ being non-negative, and with the weakly continuous Lévy kernel $\nu$ such that, for any $y$, conditions hold and the functions $$\label{eq2Paretodualonedimful}
\int_{w\ge y} \nu (z, dw), \quad -\int_{w< y} \nu (z, dw)$$ are non-decreasing in $z$, for $z<y$ and $z>y$ respectively, so that their derivatives exist almost surely and are non-negative. Moreover $$\label{eq3Paretodualonedimful}
\1_{z<y} d_z \int _{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw) +\1_{z>y} d_z \int _{w < y} \nu (z,dw)$$ is a Lévy kernel (it integrates $\min (1,(w-z)^2)$ and the integral $$\int_{y-1}^{y+1} (z-y)\left[\1_{z<y}(\nu (y, dz)+d_z \int _{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw))
+ \1_{z>y}(\nu (y, dz)-d_z \int _{w < y} \nu (z,dw))\right]$$ exists, at least in the sense of the main (or the Cauchy) value. Then the dual process $Y_t^y$ exists (in the sense of ) and has the generator $$Lg(y)=a(y) \frac{d^2}{dy^2} g(y)+(a'(y)-b(y)) \frac{d}{dy} g(y)$$ $$+\int_{-\infty}^y (g(z)-g(y)-(z-y)g'(y)\1_{|z-y|\le 1})d_z \left(\int _{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw)\right)$$ $$-\int_y^{\infty} (g(z)-g(y)-(z-y)g'(y)\1_{|z-y|\le 1})d_z \left(\int _{w < y} \nu (z,dw)\right)$$ $$\label{eq1Paretodualonedimful}
+g'(y) \int_{y-1}^{y+1} (z-y)\left[\1_{z<y}(\nu (y, dz)+d_z \int _{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw))
+ \1_{z>y}(\nu (y, dz)-d_z \int _{w < y} \nu (z,dw))\right]$$
Formula is obtained by combining , and . Conditions given ensure that the dual operator is well defined as a Lévy-Khintchin type operator with variable coefficients.
As shown in [@Ko10] and Theorem 5.9.2 of [@Kobook11], conditions of stochastic monotonicity (monotonicity of functions ) are sufficient for the operator to generate a Feller process, so that this condition can be dispensed with.
As a corollary of Proposition \[propParetodualonedimful\], we can get now the full characterization of self - duality.
\[propParetoselfdualonedimful\] Let a Feller process $X_t^x$ in $C_{\infty}(\R)$ have a generator . Then it is self dual (in the sense of ) if and only if the following conditions holds: $$\label{eq1propParetoselfdualonedimful}
b(x)=a'(x)/2, \quad d_y \nu (y,dz)+d_z \nu (z, dy)=0.$$ In particular, if $\nu$ has a density $\nu (z,w)$, which is differentiable with respect to the first argument, then the second equation of rewrites as $$\label{eq2propParetoselfdualonedimful}
\frac{\pa \nu}{\pa y} (y,z)+\frac{\pa \nu}{\pa z} (z,y)=0.$$ Clearly, this condition is satisfied for $\nu (y,z) =g(|y-z|)$ with a smooth $g$, which corresponds to symmetric Lévy generators.
The condition on $b$ follows from Proposition \[propParetoselfdualdiff\]. The condition on $\nu $ arises by the comparison of the integral terms of with separately for $y>z$ and $y<z$.
Stochastic $f$-duality from translation invariant $f$ {#secdualfromLevygen}
=====================================================
We have analyzed in some detail the duality arising from Pareto ordering. In general case explicit calculations are not always available. However, we shall propose here some general scheme for the analysis of translation-invariant $f$, that is $f$ depending only on the difference of their arguments: $$f(x,y)=f(y-x),$$ with some other function $f$ that we still denote by $f$ (with some ambiguity).
Thus the operator $F$ from when applied to a measure $Q$ with density $q$ takes the form $$\label{eqdefdualsemigroupsFsep}
g(y)=(FQ)(y)=\int_{\R^d} f(y-x) q(dx),$$ i.e. it becomes a convolution operator. It is then well known that under appropriate regularity assumptions, $f$ is the fundamental solution of the pseudo-differential operator $L_f$ with the symbol $$\label{eqfundsolFourier1}
L_f(p)=\frac{1}{\hat f(p)},$$ where $$\hat f(p)=\int e^{-ixp} f(x) dx$$ is the Fourier transform of $f$.
In fact, by the definition of the fundamental solution, $$L_f \left(\frac{1}{i} \frac{\pa}{\pa x}\right) f(x) =\de (x),$$ which by taking the Fourier transform from both sides rewrites as $$L_f(p)\hat f (p)=1,$$ as claimed.
Hence $g(y)$ from solves the equation $L_fg=q$, so that $F^{-1}=L_f$. Of course, for an arbitrary $f$, the operator $L_f$ can be quite awkward and the identification of the appropriate classes of functions $q,g$ quite nontrivial. Let us consider the case when everything is well understood, namely the case of $L_f$ being a Laplacian, or more generally, its fractional power.
It is well known that the fundamental solution for the Laplace operator ${\Delta}$ in dimension $d\ge 3$ is the function $$f(x)=-\frac{1}{(d-2){\sigma}_{d-1}} \frac{1}{|x|^{d-2}},$$ where ${\sigma}_{d-1}$ is the area of the unit sphere in $\R^d$. Hence the dual operator takes the form $$\label{eqpropdualopLap}
T^{D(f)}={\Delta}^{-1} \circ T' \circ {\Delta},$$ and the generator for the corresponding dual semigroup becomes $$\label{eqpropdualopLapgen}
L^{D(f)}={\Delta}^{-1} \circ L' \circ {\Delta}.$$ Let $L$ be a diffusion operator of the special kind: $$Lg(x)=a(x){\Delta}g(x)$$ with a nonnegative bounded smooth function $a(x)$. Then $L'={\Delta}\circ a(x)$ and thus $$\label{eqpropdualopLapgen}
L^{D(f)}={\Delta}^{-1} \circ L' \circ {\Delta}=L,$$ so that $L$ is self $f$-dual.
Noting that in dimensions $d=2$ the fundamental solution for the Laplacian is known to be $\log |x|/2\pi$ we get the following.
\[propdualbyLap\] Let $X_t^x$ be the Feller diffusion generated by the operator $Lg(x)=a(x){\Delta}g(x)$ in $\R^d$ with a nonnegative bounded smooth function $a(x)$. Then, for all $x,y \in \R^d$, we have $$\label{eq1propdualbyLap}
\E \frac{1}{|X_t^x-y|^{d-2}}=\E \frac{1}{|X_t^y-x|^{d-2}},$$ $$\label{eq2propdualbyLap}
\E \log |X_t^x-y|=\E \log |X_t^y-x|, \quad d=2$$ for $d\ge 3$ and $d=2$ respectively.
Turning to the fractional Laplacian $|{\Delta}|^{\al/2}$ in $\R^d$ with $\al \in (0,2)$, $d\ge 2$, let us recall that the inverse operator is given by the so-called Riesz potential $$|{\Delta}|^{-\al/2}g(x)= I^{\al}g(x)= \frac{1}{H_d(\al)} \int_{\R^d} \frac{g(y)\, dy}{|x-y|^{d-\al}},$$ where $$H_d(\al)=2^{\al} \pi ^{d/2} \frac{{\Gamma}(\al/2)}{{\Gamma}((d-\al)/2)},$$ see e.g. [@Hel]. Hence, the operator $|{\Delta}|^{\al/2}$ is $L_f$ for $$f(x)=\frac{1}{H_d(\al)}\frac{1}{|x|^{d-\al}}.$$
Let us consider a stable-like process generated by the operator $$Lg(x)=-a(x)|{\Delta}|^{\al/2} g(x)$$ with a positive smooth function $a(x)$. Then $L'=|{\Delta}|^{\al/2} \circ a(x)$ and thus $$\label{eqpropdualopLapgen}
L^{D(f)}=|{\Delta}|^{-\al/2} \circ L' \circ |{\Delta}|^{\al/2}=L,$$ so that $L$ is self $f$-dual. Thus we proved the following extension of Proposition \[propdualbyLap\]:
\[propdualbyLapfr\] Let $X_t^x$ be the stable-like process generated by the operator $Lg(x)=a(x)|{\Delta}|^{\al/2} g(x)$ in $\R^d$ with $d\ge 2$, $\al \in (0,2]$ excluding the case $d=\al=2$ (for which holds), and with a nonnegative bounded smooth function $a(x)$. Then, for all $x,y \in \R^d$, $$\label{eqpropdualbyLapfr}
\E \frac{1}{|X_t^x-y|^{d-\al}}=\E \frac{1}{|X_t^y-x|^{d-\al}}.$$
Stochastic duality for processes in $\bar \R_+$ {#secdualbound}
===============================================
Reflected and absorbed diffusions in $\bar \R_+$
------------------------------------------------
We shall deduce some consequences from our general approach to processes on $\R_+$ that are dual in the sense . $C_{\infty}^k(\R^d)$ will denote the space of $k$ times differentiable functions on $\R^d$ with all these derivatives vanishing at infinity. $C_{\infty}^k(\bar \R_+)$ is the restriction of functions from $C_{\infty}^k(\R)$ on $\bar \R_+=\{x\ge 0\}$.
Consider a Feller process $X_t^x$ on $\R$ generated by operator under the conditions of Proposition \[propParetodualonedimful\] assuming additionally that
\(A) $a\in C^2(\R)$ and is an even function such that $a(x) \ge 0$, $b\in C^2(\R)$ and is an odd function (implying $b(0)=0$), the support of $\nu$ is in $\R_+$ for $x\ge 0$ and $\nu (-x,dy)=R\nu (x,dy)$, where $R$ denotes the reflection of the measure with respect to the origin (so that, by definition, $\int \phi (y) R\nu (x, dy)=\int \phi (-y) \nu (x, dy)$).
Then, as is well known, see e.g. Theorem 6.8.1 in [@Kobook11], the magnitude $|X_t^x|$ is itself a Markov process on $\R_+$, also referred to as $X_t^x$ reflected at the origin. Moreover, if the transition probabilities of $X_t^x$ are $p_t(x,dy)$, then $|X_t^x|$ has the transition density $$p^{ref}_t(x,dy)=p_t(x,dy)+R p_t(x, dy),$$ and the semigroup $T_t^{ref}$ of $|X_t^x|$ can be obtained from the semigroup $T_t$ of $X_t^x$ by the restriction to even functions.
\(i) Assuming that the kernel $\nu$ is twice smooth would imply that the space $C^2_{\infty}(\R)$ is an invariant core for $X_t^x$ and consequently that the subspace of functions $f$ from $C_{\infty}^2(\bar \R_+)$ such that $f'(0)=0$ is an invariant core for $|X_t^x|$. (ii) If $X_t^x$ were a diffusion, the process $|X_t^x|$ on $\bar \R_+$ would be stochastically monotone by the coupling argument, see e.g. Sect II,2 of [@Lig]) and hence by Siegmund’s theorem [@Sieg] it had a Markov dual $Y_t^y$ on $\bar \R_+$ (in the sense ) with absorbtion at the origin. In our case monotonicity follows from the construction of the dual below, which turns out to be given by a semigroup with a conditionally positive generator.
\[propdualdifRplus\] Under the conditions of Proposition \[propParetodualonedimful\], assumption (A) above and finally assuming that the measure $\nu (0, dw)$ is bounded, the dual process $Y_t^y$ is a Feller on $\bar \R_+$ absorbed at the origin and generated by the operator
$$L^Dg(y)=a(y) \frac{d^2}{dy^2} g(y)+(a'(y)-b(y)) \frac{d}{dy} g(y)+\int_{w\ge y} (g(0)-g(y) \nu (0, dw)$$ $$+\int_0^y (g(z)-g(y)-(z-y)g'(y)\1_{|z-y|\le 1})d_z \left(\int _{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw)\right)$$ $$-\int_y^{\infty} (g(z)-g(y)-(z-y)g'(y)\1_{|z-y|\le 1})d_z \left(\int _{w < y} \nu (z,dw)\right)$$ $$\label{eq1Paretodualonedimfulb}
+g'(y) \int_{y-1}^{y+1} (z-y)\left[\1_{z<y}(\nu (y, dz)+d_z \int _{w\ge y} \nu (z,dw))
+ \1_{z>y}(\nu (y, dz)-d_z \int _{w < y} \nu (z,dw))\right]$$ The semigroup $T_t^D$ of $Y_t^y$ is given explicitly by the formula $$\label{eq2propdualdifRplus}
(T^D_tg)(y)=g(0) \int_y^{\infty} p^{ref}_t(0,dz) +\int_0^{\infty} g(x) \left( \int_y^{\infty} \frac{\pa}{\pa x} p_t^{ref}(x,dz) \right) dx.$$
Using with $F^{-1}g(x)=-g'(x)$ we get for $g\in C_{\infty}^1(\bar \R_+)$ $$\label{eq3propdualdifRplus}
(T^D_tg)(y)=-\int_y^{\infty} dz \int_0^{\infty} g'(x) p_t^{ref} (x,dz) \, dx,$$ and hence $$\label{eq4propdualdifRplus}
(T^D_tg)(y)= g(0) \int_y^{\infty} p_t^{ref} (0,dz) +\int_0^{\infty} dx \int_y^{\infty} g(x) \frac{\pa}{\pa x} p_t^{ref} (x,dz),$$ yielding as required.
It is worth stressing that this formula implies the conservativity condition $T^D_t \1=\1$ (preservation of constants by $T^D_t$), because $$\lim_{x\to \infty} \int_y^{\infty} p_t^{ref} (x,dz) =1$$ by the Feller property and hence $$\label{eq5propdualdifRplus}
\int_0^{\infty} \frac{\pa}{\pa x} \left( \int_y^{\infty} p_t^{ref}(x,dz) \right) dx=1- \int_y^{\infty} p_t^{ref}(0,dz).$$
Operators $T_t^D$ form a semigroup by Proposition \[propdualsemi\]. The form of the generator follows from . As it is conditionally positive, the semigroup $T^D_t$ preserves positivity and preserves constants thus being a semigroup of a Markov process. Moreover, as also seen directly from , $T^D_tf(0)=f(0)$, so that the value at the origin is preserved meaning that this process is absorbing at the origin.
\(i) Formula is valid only for $g$ vanishing at infinity, and extends it (yields a minimal extension) to bounded functions on $\bar \R_+$. Plugging $g=1$ into yields zero, not $1$. (ii) The attempt to use integration in in opposite direction, at least when $p_t(x,dz)$ has a density $p_t(x,z)$, and using $\lim_{x\to \infty} p^{ref}_t(x,z)=0$ would give $$\int_y^{\infty} dz \left( \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\pa}{\pa x} p_t^{ref}(x,z) \, dx \right)=- \int_y^{\infty} p_t^{ref}(0,z) \, dz,$$ which is different from the r.h.s. of .
It is worth noting additionally that if $a(0)\neq 0$ and $\nu =0$, then the subspace of functions $g$ from $C_{\infty}^2(\bar \R_+)$ such that $g''(0)=0$ is an invariant core for $Y_t^y$. In fact, the condition $L^Dg(0)=0$ (following from $T^D_tg(0)=g(0)$) implies $g''(0)=0$. On the other hand, if $a(0)=0$ and $\nu =0$, then $a(x)=ax^2(1+o(1)), b(x)=bx(1+o(1))$ as $x\to 0$ with $a\ge 0, b\in \R$ implying that $0$ is an unaccessible boundary point, so that $X_t^x=|X_t^x|$ for $x>0$. In this case nothing comes out of the origin, so that $p^{ref}_t(0,z)=0$ for all $z>0$ implying that the first term on the r.h.s. of vanishes and hence that $0$ is also unaccessible for $Y_t^y$ (which follows also from its generator). In particular, if additionally $b(x)=a'(x)/2$, the process $|X_t^x|$ is self-dual on $\R_+$.
There is an extensive literature on the absorption - reflection link presented in Proposition \[propdualdifRplus\], mostly because of its natural interpretation in terms of ruin probabilities having important applications in insurance mathematics. For piecewise deterministic Markov processes it was obtained in [@AsPe] (see also [@As98]) and used effectively in [@Dje93] for assessing ruin probabilities via large deviations. Then it was extended to diffusions with jumps in [@SigRy], and to Lévy processes in [@AsPi]. Our result is an extension of the corresponding result from [@SigRy], as we do it for arbitrary stochastically monotone processes. Our proof is quite different, as it is more elementary, using effectively only formula .
Second dual and regularized dual
--------------------------------
Extension of the previous result to processes with a boundary from the right or with two boundaries is if course natural, see [@AsPi], but not quite straightforward. We shall clarify the aspects of duality (even the definition has to be modified), needed for these cases reducing our attention to diffusions just for simplicity
It is natural to ask whether the second dual coincides with the original process. For diffusions on $\R^d$ this is in fact the case, as is seen from Proposition \[propParetodualdiff\]. However, for processes on $\R_+$ this dies not hold, as seen already from Lévy’s example of reflected Brownian motion. In fact, reflected BM cannot be dual to absorbing BM, as any dual process on $\R_+$ should be absorbing at the left end, that is at the origin, as seen directly from . However, the reflected BM is ’almost dual’ to the absorbing BM in the sense that $\P (Y_t^y \le x)=\P (X_t^x \ge y)$ (with $Y$ reflected and $X$ absorbing BM) holds for all $y\neq 0$ and all $x$. This suggests that the usual definition of duality imposes unnatural restrictions on the boundary. Consequently we shall give the following definition. Let $X_t^x$ be a stochastically monotone process on $[a, \infty)$ such that $\P (X_t^x \ge y)$ is right continuous in $x$. A process $Y_t^y$ on $[a, \infty)$ will be called a [*regularized dual*]{} to a process $X_t^x$ on $[a, \infty)$ if holds for all $x\ge a, y>a$, and the distribution for $y=a$ is defined by continuity as $$\label{eqdefstanddual2ndmonreg}
\P (Y_t^a \le x)=\P (Y_t^{a_-} \le x)=\lim_{y\to a} \P (Y_t^y \le x).$$
\(i) One could also relax the condition for $x=a$ defining $\P (Y_t^y \le a)=\lim_{x\to a} \P (Y_t^y \le x)$, but this would lead to the same result, as for usual definition, due to the right continuity of $\P (X_t^x \ge y)$ in $x$. (ii) If one only assumes monotonicity of the function $\P (X_t^x \ge y)$, it would become natural to define the dual distribution $\P (Y_t^y \le x)$ as the right continuous modification of the function $\P (X_t^x \ge y)$.
The following statement is now clear.
\[propdualdifRplussec\] Under the assumptions of Proposition \[propdualdifRplus\] the initial reflected process $|X_t^x|$ is a regularized dual to $Y_t^y$. Thus the second regularized dual to $|X_t^x|$ coincides with $|X_t^x|$.
The usual (not regularized) dual of $Y_t^x$ from Proposition \[propdualdifRplus\] is a rather pathological process $Z_t^z$, whose distributions coincides with that of $|X_t^z|$ for $z\neq 0$, but the origin is an unattainable point without escape from it. Thus $Z_t^z$ should be ’reflected from the origin’ without touching it.
Of course one can deal with reflected processes on $\bar \R_-$ by introducing a symmetric notion of duality. Namely, for a process $X_t^x$ on an interval of $\R$ let us say that $Y_t^y$ is its [*right dual*]{}, if $\P (Y_t^y \le x)=\P (X_t^x \ge y)$ holds for all $x,y$ (that is, it is the usual duality used above) and [*left dual*]{} if $\P (Y_t^y < x)=\P (X_t^x > y)$ holds for all $x,y$, which is equivalent to $\P (Y_t^y \ge x)=\P (X_t^x \le y)$. Thus, by definition, $Y_t^y$ is right dual to $X_t^x$ if and only if $X_t^x$ is left dual to $Y_t^y$. The theory of left dual processes on $\R_-$ (and their regularized version) is completely analogous to the theory of right dual process on $\R_+$.
[99]{}
R. Alkemper, M. Hutzenthaler. Graphical representation of some duality relations in stochastic population models. Electron. Comm. Probab. 12 (2007), 206–220 (electronic).
W.J. Anderson. Continuous -Time Markov Chains. Probability and its Applications. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer 1991.
L. Angiuli, D. Pallara, F. Paronetto. Analytic semigroups generated in $L^1({\Omega})$ by second order elliptic operators via duality methods. Semigroup Forum 80:2 (2010), 255-271.
S. Asmussen. Subexponential Asymptotics for Stochastic Processes: Extremal Behavior, Stationary Distributions and First Passage Probabilities. Ann. Appl. Prob. [**8:2**]{} (1998), 354-374.
S. Asmussen and M. Pihlsgard. Loss Rates for Lévy Processes with Two Reflecting Barriers. Math. Oper. Res. [**32:2**]{} (2007), 308-321.
S. Asmussen and S. S. Petersen. Ruin Probabilities Expressed in Terms of Storage Processes. Adv. Appl. Prob. [**20:4**]{} (1988), 913-916.
Ph. Biane. Intertwining of Markov Semi-Groups, some Examples. In: Séminaire de probabilités XXIX, Lectre Notes in Mathematics v. 1613, Springer 1995, p. 30-36.
P. Carmona, F. Petit and M. Yor. Beta-gamma random variables and intertwining relations between certain Markov processes. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 14:2 (1998), 311–367.
M. F. Chen, F.Y. Wang. On order-preservation and positive correlations for multidimensional diffusion process. Prob. Th. Rel. Fields [**95**]{} (1993), 421-428.
M. F. Chen. From Markov Chains to Non-Equilibrium Particle Systems, World Scientific, Singapore, 2nd Ed. 2004.
J. Th. Cox, U. Rösler. A duality relation for entrance and exit laws for Markov processes. Stochastic Processes and their Aplications [**16**]{} (1983), 141- 156.
B. Djehiche. A Large Deviation Estimate for Ruin Probabilites. Scand. Actuarial J. 1 (1993), 42-59.
J. Dubédat. Reflected planar Brownian motions, intertwining relations and crossing probabilities. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist. 40:5 (2004), 539–552.
A.M. Etheridge. An Introduction to Superprocesses. University Lecture Series [**20**]{}, AMS, Providence, RI, 2000.
S.N. Ethier, Th. G. Kurtz. Markov Processes – Characterization and Convergence. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics, New York Chicester: Wiley 1986.
I.M. Gelfand and G. E. Shilov. Generalized Functions. V.1: Properties and Operations. Transl. from Russian. Academic Press 1964.
S. Helgason. The Radon transform. Progress in Mathematics, 5. Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass., 1980. Sec Ed. 1999.
F. Hirsch, M. Yor. Fractional intertwinings between two Markov semigroups. Potential Anal. 31:2 (2009), 133–146.
Th. Huillet, S. Martinez. Duality and intertwining for discrete Markov kernels: relations and examples. Adv. in Appl. Probab. 43:2 (2011), 437–460.
O. Kallenberg. Foundations of Modern Probability. Second ed., Springer 2002.
V.N. Kolokoltsov. Measure-valued limits of interacting particle systems with $k$-nary interactions I. One-dimensional limits. Probability Theory Related Fields [**126**]{} (2003), 364-394.
V. N. Kolokoltsov. Stochastic monotonicity and duality for one-dimensional Markov processes. arXiv:1002.4773 (2010). Mathematical Notes [**89:5**]{} (2011), 652-660.
V. N. Kolokoltsov. Markov processes, semigroups and generators. DeGruyter Studies in Mathematics v. 38, DeGruyter, 2011.
V. Kolokoltsov. On stochastic duality for time nonhomogeneous Markov processes. Preprint 2013.
Th. Liggett. Interacting Particle Systems. Springer, 2005.
L. Mytnik. Superprocesses in random environments. Ann.Prob. [**24**]{} (1996), 1953-1978.
P. Patie, Th. Simon. Intertwining certain fractional derivatives. Potential Anal. 36:4 (2012), 569–587.
L. Rabehasaina. Monotonicity properties of multi-dimensional reflected diffusions in random environment and applications. Stochastuc rocesses and their Applications [**116**]{} (2006), 178-199.
D. Siegmund. The equivalence of absorbing and reflecting barrier problems for stochastically monotone Markov processes. Ann. Probability 4:6 (1976), 914-924.
K. Sigman and R. Ryan. Continuous-Time Monotone Stochastic Recursions and Duality. Adv. Appl. Prob. [**32:2**]{} (2000), 426-445.
E. A. Van Doorn. Stochastic monotonicity of birth-death processes. Adv. in Appl. Probab. 12:1 (1980), 59–80.
J.-M. Wang. Stochastic Comparison and Preservation of Positive Correlations for Lévy-type processes. Acta Math. Sinica, English Series, 25(2009), 741-758.
Y.H. Zhang Y. H. Sufficient and necessary conditions for stochastic comparability of jump processes. Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series, 2000, [**16:1**]{} (2000), 99-102.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have discovered a new transient low-mass X-ray binary, NGC 6440 X-2, with /ACIS, /PCA, and /XRT observations of the globular cluster NGC 6440. The discovery outburst (July 28-31, 2009) peaked at $L_X\sim1.5\times10^{36}$ , and lasted for $<$4 days above $L_X=10^{35}$ . Four other outbursts (May 29-June 4, Aug. 29-Sept. 1, Oct. 1-3, and Oct. 28-31 2009) have been observed with /PCA (identifying millisecond pulsations, Altamirano et al. 2009a) and /XRT (confirming a positional association with NGC 6440 X-2), with similar peak luminosities and decay times. Optical and infrared imaging did not detect a clear counterpart, with best limits of $V>21$, $B>22$ in quiescence from archival imaging, $g''>22$ during the August outburst from Gemini-South GMOS imaging, and $J\gsim18.5$ and $K\gsim17$ during the July outburst from CTIO 4-m ISPI imaging. Archival X-ray images of the core do not detect the quiescent counterpart ($L_X<1-2\times10^{31}$ ), and place a bolometric luminosity limit of $L_{NS}< 6\times10^{31}$ (one of the lowest measured) for a hydrogen atmosphere neutron star. A short observation 10 days into quiescence found two photons at NGC 6440 X-2’s position, suggesting enhanced quiescent emission at $L_X\sim6\times10^{31}$ . NGC 6440 X-2 currently shows the shortest recurrence time ($\sim$31 days) of any known X-ray transient, although regular outbursts were not visible in the bulge scans before early 2009. Fast, low-luminosity transients like NGC 6440 X-2 may be easily missed by current X-ray monitoring.'
author:
- 'C. O. Heinke, D. Altamirano, H. N. Cohn, P. M. Lugger, S. A. Budac, M. Servillat, M. Linares, T. E. Strohmayer, C. B. Markwardt, R. Wijnands, J. H. Swank, C. Knigge, C. Bailyn, J. E. Grindlay'
bibliography:
- 'src\_ref\_list.bib'
title: 'Discovery of a Second Transient Low-Mass X-ray Binary in the Globular Cluster NGC 6440'
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
The dense cores of globular clusters are known to be efficient factories for dynamically producing tight binaries containing heavy stars, and thus X-ray binaries [@Clark75; @Hut91; @Pooley03]. Thirteen luminous ($L_X>10^{35}$ ) low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) have previously been identified in Galactic globular clusters [see @Verbunt04], concentrated in the densest and most massive clusters [@Verbunt87; @Verbunt02]. Luminous LMXBs in globular clusters of other galaxies are clearly concentrated in the most massive, most metal-rich, and densest globular clusters [@Kundu02; @Sarazin03; @Jordan04]. A critical question for studies of globular cluster LMXBs is whether X-ray emission from a globular cluster is due to one LMXB or multiple LMXBs. This affects the inferred nature of sources [@Dotani90; @diStefano02; @Maccarone07] and luminosity functions [@Sivakoff07]. For example, an apparent contradiction in the qualities of the LMXB in M15 was resolved by the identification of two persistent X-ray sources in the cluster [@White01]. Identification with of multiple quiescent LMXBs in several globular clusters [@Grindlay01a; @Pooley02b; @Heinke03d] has suggested that transient LMXB outbursts from a cluster might arise from different sources, although some LMXBs possess distinctive characteristics [e.g. the Rapid Burster, @Homer01]. Here we report the discovery and outburst monitoring of the 14th luminous LMXB in a Galactic globular cluster, NGC 6440, the first cluster to show two luminous transient LMXBs (both of which show millisecond pulsations). In a companion paper, @Altamirano09 identify this LMXB as a new ultracompact accreting millisecond X-ray pulsar (AMXP), after discovering coherent 206 Hz pulsations [@Altamirano09b] and fitting the frequency drift to a 57.3 minute orbital period.
NGC 6440 is a globular cluster near the Galactic Center, at a distance of 8.5 kpc [@Ortolani94], with $N_H=5.9\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@Harris96]. A luminous X-ray source (MX 1746-20) was identified in this cluster in 1971 [@Markert75], and the cluster was detected at a much lower flux level in 1980 [@Hertz83], identified with quiescent emission from the luminous X-ray source. An X-ray source in the cluster (SAX J1748.9-2021) was observed in outburst again in 1998 [@intZand99], 2001 [@intZand01], and 2005 [@Markwardt05]. @Pooley02b observed the cluster with in 2000, identifying 24 sources within 2 core radii of the cluster. One (CX1) was positionally identified with a blue variable optical counterpart during the 1998 outburst [@Verbunt00], and with the outbursting LMXB in 2001 [@intZand01]. @Altamirano07 identified intermittent 442 Hz pulsations in both the 2001 and 2005 outbursts (the latter also identified by @Gavriil07). Thus, CX1 can be confidently held responsible for the 1998, 2001, and 2005 outbursts. We here identify a second transient luminous LMXB in NGC 6440, and confidently identify five outbursts from this transient during 2009 using its source position. Preliminary results were presented in @Heinke09d [@Heinke09f; @Heinke09e]; these results supersede those.
![ \[fig:image\] /ACIS-S images of NGC 6440 during the July 2009 outburst of NGC 6440 X-2 (upper left, 0.5-2.5 keV) and 13 days later (upper right, 0.3-7 keV). Below, we show a merged image from quiescent epochs in 2000 and 2003 (lower left, 0.3-7 keV), and an image from the 2001 outburst (lower right, 0.3-7 keV). The positions of NGC 6440 X-2 (red circle, 1”) and the cluster core (0.13’) and half-mass (0.58’) radii (large circles) are indicated. North is up, east to the left. ](f1.eps)
X-ray Analysis {#s:X-ray}
==============
Chandra in Outburst
-------------------
NGC 6440 was observed with the ACIS-S detector for 49.1 ks, from July 28, 2009 15:16 (TT) to July 29, 2009 05:15, using a 1/2 subarray. We searched for periods of elevated background, but found none. We used the level 2 event files provided by the CXC, and CIAO 4.1 [^1] for our analysis. Images were produced in the 0.3-7 keV and 0.5-2.5 keV bands, both of which are dominated by the scattered halo (a combination of dust grain scattering and the intrinsic point-spread function of the mirrors) and readout streak from a bright transient LMXB, heavily affected by pileup[^2]. Several faint point sources are clearly visible, which can be confidently identified with the cluster X-ray sources identified by @Pooley02b. In Fig. \[fig:image\], we show images of NGC 6440 during the 2009 outburst, shortly after the 2009 outburst, during quiescent observations in 2000 and 2003 [@Pooley02b; @Cackett05], and during the 2001 outburst [@intZand01]. Clearly this is a new transient.
The CIAO detection algorithm [wavdetect]{} was run on a 0.3-7 keV image of the cluster core to identify the positions of known cluster sources, which we shift ($\Delta$RA=+0.008s, $\Delta$Dec=+0.31) to align with the (ICRS) astrometry of @Pooley02b. We estimated (by eye) the center of the symmetric “hole” in the counts by matching circles to the doughnut-shaped locus of maximum countrate in the LMXB halo, in both wavebands. Our result is (J2000) RA=17:48:52.76(2), Dec=-20:21:24.0(1) (1$\sigma$ values, after our astrometric correction), giving it the IAU name CXOGlb J174852.7-202124, and (for shorthand) NGC 6440 X-2. Detailed analysis of the remaining cluster sources will be presented elsewhere.
To measure the spectrum and luminosity of the transient, we extracted a spectrum from the readout streak, excluding a 20” radius circle around the piled-up transient. Background was extracted from rectangular regions above and below the readout streak, computed response functions for the position of the transient, and corrected the exposure time of the spectrum. We binned the spectrum to 60 counts per bin to improve its statistics, and excluded data over 8 keV and below 0.5 keV. An absorbed power-law fits the data (Table 1, Fig. \[fig:spectrum\]), with photon index 1.7$\pm0.1$. We found no evidence for a 6.4 or 6.7 keV iron line, with a 90% upper limit of 0.4 keV on its equivalent width.
The lightcurve from the readout streak events shows a clear decline during the Chandra observation, by a factor of $\sim$40%. Power spectra from the readout streak events show a clear periodicity at 1000.0 seconds and its harmonics, identical to one of the spacecraft dither frequencies and thus a likely artifact (it is not seen in RXTE data). No other periodicities (such as the 57 minute orbital period, Altamirano et al. 2009a) were identified, suggesting that the transient is not seen at high inclination.
![ \[fig:spectrum\] Spectra of NGC 6440 X-2 during the July/August outburst as observed by /ACIS-S (black online), /PCA (triangles; red online), and /XRT (filled circles; green online). Top: data and absorbed power-law models. Bottom: residuals to fits. See Table 1 for details of spectral fits. ](f2.eps)
RXTE
----
The [*Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer*]{} () has conducted regular scans of the Galactic bulge region since 2000 (generally covering NGC 6440 twice/week), in part to search for faint transient sources below the sensitivity of ’s all-sky monitor [@Swank01], with results promptly made available[^3]. The PCA scans are significantly more sensitive in the Galactic Bulge than the All-Sky Monitor data. (Although dwell-by-dwell All-Sky Monitor data suggest a few points at $L_X\sim10^{38}$ ergs/s from NGC 6440, suggesting X-ray bursts, their 6-sigma maximum significance is matched by similar points from black hole candidates in the Galactic Center. Thus we cannot be assured of their reality.) Scans in late May 2009 showed evidence for an increased countrate from NGC 6440 (see 3rd red line in Fig. \[fig:lcurve\]). An outburst was confirmed by observations in early June (see below). No further activity was observed until a scan showed a 5-sigma detection on July 28, 2009, near the beginning of the observation. A pointed observation on July 30 showed a significant decline from the and bulge scan fluxes (details below). Later bulge scans (on Aug. 1st & 2nd) were consistent with a decay below the PCA’s (background-limited, due to its non-imaging nature) sensitivity (Fig. \[fig:lcurve\]).
A third bulge scan peak on August 29, 2009 triggered a pointed observation Aug. 30, which discovered millisecond pulsations from NGC 6440 X-2 with a frequency of 205 Hz [@Altamirano09]. Further observations starting on Sept. 1st found fluxes returning to quiescence. Upon identifying a fourth outburst with /XRT on Oct. 1st, 2009, a pointed observation on Oct. 2nd detected NGC 6440 X-2 near the detection limit ($\sim$1.5 mCrab). @Altamirano09 report the detection of pulsations at a 3.4 sigma level, further confirming the identification of this transient with NGC 6440 X-2. observations on Oct. 3rd found it below the PCA’s sensitivity limit. A fifth outburst was caught by /PCA on Oct. 28, returning to quiescence by Nov. 1st. Below we describe spectral analysis of these data; all /PCA timing analysis is described in @Altamirano09.
We extracted spectra from the PCA [@Jahoda06] detectors (PCU2 was consistently on, sometimes joined by other PCUs), excluding times when elevation angle ELV$<10$, source offset $>0.02$, or the time since the last South Atlantic Anomaly passage was $<$ 30 minutes. The background was modeled using the latest faint background model pca\_bkgd\_cmfaintl7\_eMv20051128.mdl, and the recorded times of South Atlantic Anomaly passage [^4]. Response files were created with the PCARMF (v. 11.1) tool. For spectral fitting we exclude data below 3 keV and above where the source can no longer be detected above our modeled background; this cut ranged between 10 and 30 keV, depending on the observation. HEXTE (cluster B, sensitive to the 20-200 keV energy range) did not detect the source even in the brightest (Aug. 30) pointed observation. $N_H$ was fixed to the cluster value, due to ’s relative insensitivity to $N_H$. All our reported $L_X$ values are for 0.5-10 keV (for consistency with other instruments; this extrapolation may incur additional systematic errors), and assume a distance of 8.5 kpc.
The July 30 pointed observation could be fit with an absorbed power-law with photon index 2.2$\pm0.1$, and a luminosity of $5\pm1\times10^{35}$ , 3.5 times lower than the July 28 observation (Table 1; but see below). The August 30 observation showed a photon index of 1.84$\pm0.02$ and $L_X=2.9\times10^{36}$ . The series of observations on Sept. 1 and 2 showed much lower fluxes, averaging $L_X=4\times10^{35}$ ; the longest also shows clear evidence of an iron line at 6.7$\pm0.2$ keV. However, simultaneous observations (see below) find much lower fluxes from the cluster of $6\times10^{34}$ , consistent with the quiescent cluster emission and inconsistent with the transient position. Therefore we attribute the /PCA flux observed on Sept. 1 to the Galactic Ridge emission at this location. Subtracting this flux from the July 30 /PCA measurement gives $L_X=1\pm1\times10^{35}$ , a very marginal detection, and makes its spectral parameters unreliable.
We refine our spectral fitting of the August 30 observation, by extracting spectra from only the top layer of PCU2 and modeling the inferred Galactic Ridge emission using our fits to the Sept. 1st data. Fitting with an absorbed powerlaw gives a good reduced chi-squared, but a residual near 6.5 keV suggests the addition of an iron line (this is in addition to the Galactic Ridge iron line seen in the Sept. data). Freezing $N_H$ to the cluster value, we obtain $\Gamma=1.78\pm0.03$, $L_X$(0.5-10 keV)$=2.4\pm0.1\times10^{36}$ , with an iron line at $6.6^{+0.6}_{-0.4}$ keV, of equivalent width $54\pm39$ eV (90% confidence). An F-test suggests this is reasonable, providing 3.6% probability of such a $\Delta \chi^2$ by chance. Other AMXPs have displayed evidence of Fe K lines (e.g. SAX J1808.4-3658, @Cackett09 [@Papitto09]; HETE J1900.1-2455, @Cackett10; Swift J1756.9-2508, @Patruno10), often showing relativistic broadening which our observations are unable to resolve.
Two /PCA observations were obtained during the early October outburst, both during the source’s decline. We identified pulsations in the first (Oct. 1st) observation, confirming that pulsations are common from this object [@Altamirano09]. The second (Oct. 3rd) occurred after NGC 6440 X-2 had dipped below the PCA’s sensitivity limit. We model the Galactic Ridge contribution to the Oct. 1st observation, using the Oct. 3rd observation, finding $\Gamma=1.78\pm0.15$, $L_X$(0.5-10)$=8.4^{+0.8}_{-0.5}\times10^{35}$ (see Table 1).
Three /PCA observations were able to detect the Oct./Nov. outburst. The first (on Oct. 28) identified pulsations again [@Altamirano09], at $L_X$(0.5-10 keV)$=8.6^{+0.9}_{-0.8}\times10^{35}$ ergs/s (see Table 1), after subtraction of Galactic Ridge emission. /PCA observations detected emission over background on Oct. 29 and (marginally) Oct. 30, and observations on Oct. 31 and after were consistent with Galactic Ridge emission.
![ \[fig:lcurve\] X-ray lightcurve of NGC 6440 over 6 months, with linear vertical scale. /PCA bulge scans are in black, with a box if they are $>4$ sigma above zero. /PCA pointed observations are magenta pentagons. observations are blue triangles (open if upper limits). The outburst observation is a red filled box. Red marks and dates at the top indicate the suggested 30.7 day recurrence epochs, which coincide with 5 clear episodes of X-ray activity. ](f3.eps)
The full /PCA galactic bulge scan data reveals seven times from 2000 to 2009 when NGC 6440’s count rates are 4 sigma above zero. The two brightest outbursts ($L_X>10^{37}$ ) have been identified with the other transient in NGC 6440, SAX J1748.9-2021=CX1 [@Altamirano07; @intZand01]. The other five potential outbursts are much fainter and briefer (only a single bulge scan point each, so lasting less than a week), of which three were discussed above. The other two are April 15, 2007 and March 20, 2009. A period of 30.7 days ($\pm$0.3 days, from the uncertainties in the peak of the late October outburst), with reference date MJD 55040.5, reasonably predicts the peaks of the four well-studied outbursts. The model predicts missed outbursts on April 27 (weak activity is suggested by bulge scans on April 18-20), May 28 (a bulge scan detection occurred May 25, followed by a faint detection June 4), and June 27 (no bulge scans conducted $\pm$10 days around this date). The bulge scan point in March is off the prediction by 7$\pm1$ days, indicating either that the outburst period has slightly decreased over time (as the April and May evidence also suggest), or that the March point is not a real outburst. Sensitive monitoring since Nov. 2 (up to Feb. 11, 2010) has not been possible due to solar constraints and an outburst of SAX J1748.9-2021 [@Suzuki10; @Patruno10b]. We show the bulge scan data in the relevant date range (and detections and upper limits from and ) in Fig. \[fig:lcurve\]; see also @Altamirano09. We use an absorbed power-law of photon index 2 to convert /PCA bulge scan fluxes to 0.5-10 keV unabsorbed fluxes with PIMMS[^5], and assume a distance of 8.5 kpc to estimate luminosities.
Swift
-----
Eighteen /XRT observations were performed, tracking five outbursts from NGC 6440 X-2 (see Table 1). We extracted all XRT spectra from 20-pixel radii (except for Oct. 1 and 28, see below), and background from a surrounding annulus. We downloaded the response matrix swxpc0to12\_20010101v009.rmf from the website[^6], and created effective area files using the XRTMKARF tool. Spectra with more than 50 counts were binned with 15 counts/bin for $\chi^2$ statistics, those with fewer used C-statistics (either binned with 5 counts/bin or unbinned), while we produced only luminosity limits for less than 10 detected counts.
A X-ray Telescope (XRT) observation on June 4, 2009 found enhanced X-ray emission from NGC 6440. Using the FTOOL XRTCENTROID on the June 4 XRT source, we identified a position of RA=17:48:52.73, Dec=-20:21:24.1 with an error radius of 5. This position is consistent with NGC 6440 X-2 (see Fig. \[fig:image\], \[fig:Swift6\]), but not with other known X-ray sources in NGC 6440, so we conclude it is the same source. A second observation on June 11 found much weaker emission, at position RA=17 48 52.64, Dec=-20 21 29.9, with error radius 7.3, consistent with either NGC 6440 X-2 or with the cluster center. Spectral fitting of the few detected photons with an absorbed power-law derives a photon index of 4.2$^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$ and $L_X=1.0^{+1.0}_{-0.5}\times10^{34}$ . This is consistent with emission from the rest of the cluster, containing a mixture of soft quiescent LMXBs and sources (likely cataclysmic variables) with harder spectra [@Pooley02b; @Heinke03d].
We obtained four observations soon after the initial discovery (Table 1). On July 31, /XRT found enhanced emission from NGC 6440 X-2’s position. Observations on Aug. 4, 6, and 10 found fluxes and positions consistent with the cluster center, and soft spectra (Table 1, Figs. \[fig:Swift6\], \[fig:inset\]). The centroid of the emission in the deepest of these observations (Aug. 6, 1.9 ks) is RA=17:48:52.9s, Dec=-20:21:35.1, error radius 6.1”, which is consistent with the cluster center but not with NGC 6440 X-2.
After the Aug. 29 bulge scan detection observed NGC 6440 on Sept. 1st, identifying emission from the location (RA=17:48:52.6, Dec=-20:21:24.9, error radius 4.8”) of NGC 6440 X-2 at $L_X=6\pm2\times10^{34}$ (Figs. \[fig:Swift6\], \[fig:inset\]). Further observations on Sept. 2 and 4 found faint emission, consistent in position and flux with the cluster.
monitoring on Oct. 1st found NGC 6440 X-2 back in outburst. The countrate was high enough to produce pileup (in photon counting mode); we fit the radial profile with a King model and identified a 6” core, so we extracted a spectrum from an annulus from 6” to 45” (20 pixels). On Oct. 2nd, identified a declining flux from NGC 6440 X-2, returning to quiescence by Oct. 4th (Figs. \[fig:Swift6\], \[fig:inset\]).
A observation on Oct. 29 confirmed that NGC 6440 X-2 was back in outburst, and relatively bright; we dealt with pileup as described above. Observations on Oct. 30 and 31st observed X-2’s decay, which by Nov. 1 was below /XRT’s detection limit (Figs. \[fig:Swift6\], \[fig:inset\]).
![ \[fig:Swift6\] X-ray images (0.7-7 keV) of NGC 6440 during and after the five observed outbursts from the XRT, each 2.5’ by 2.5’. The position of NGC 6440 X-2 is indicated (small red circle), as are the core and half-mass radii of NGC 6440 (blue circles), as in Fig. \[fig:image\]. Exposure times vary (see Table 1). Detections of NGC 6440 X-2 are seen on June 4, July 31, Sept. 1, Oct. 1, 2, 29, 30, and 31; the remaining emission is attributable to the other cluster sources (see Fig. \[fig:image\]). ](f4.eps "fig:")\
$
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.4]{f5a.eps} &
\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=.4]{f5b.eps}
\end{array}$
![ \[fig:inset\] X-ray lightcurve measurements of NGC 6440 X-2 over its five known outbursts, with a logarithmic vertical scale. /PCA bulge scans are black errorbars, with a box point if they are $>4$ sigma above zero (some points appear more significant than they are due to the log scale). /PCA pointed observation detections (background-subtracted, see text) are magenta pentagons. observations are blue triangles, or blue upper limits when they are not clear detections of NGC 6440 X-2. observations are the red filled box and series of red crosses (showing the lightcurve from the June observation). ](f5c.eps)
Chandra in Quiescence
---------------------
We combined two ACIS-S observations of NGC 6440 (total exposure 48 ks) when no transients were in outburst [ObsIDs 947 and 3799; @Pooley02b; @Cackett05] to look for evidence of NGC 6440 X-2’s X-ray emission in quiescence. The observations were reprocessed and aligned, and filtered to produce a 0.3-7 keV band image (Fig. \[fig:image\]). No photons lie within a 1” circle around NGC 6440 X-2. Using 2.3 photons as our 90% confidence upper limit [@Gehrels86], we compute limits on the unabsorbed quiescent luminosity. For a power-law of index 2.2, $L_X$(0.5-10 keV)$<7.4\times10^{30}$ , while for a hydrogen-atmosphere neutron star model [@Heinke06a], $L_X$(0.5-10 keV)$<1.6\times10^{31}$ and $L_{NS}$ (0.01-10 keV)$<6.0\times10^{31}$ (we use $L_{NS}$ as the total emission from the NS surface).
We obtained a 5 ks ACIS-S follow-up Director’s Discretionary Time observation on Aug. 10, 2009, to see if NGC 6440 X-2 had returned to full quiescence, or was continuing to accrete at $L_X$(0.5-10 keV)$\sim5\times10^{32}$ , similarly to SAX J1808.4-3658 at the end of its 2008 outburst [@Campana08]. Two photons were detected at the position of NGC 6440 X-2 (see Fig. \[fig:image\]). As the background is quite low ($<0.01$ photons expected), both photons are probably from NGC 6440 X-2. We estimate (for an assumed spectrum similar to that in outburst) $L_X=6^{+9}_{-4}\times10^{31}$ , with uncertainties from @Gehrels86 at 90% confidence. This confirms that NGC 6440 X-2 returned to quiescence, although it appears brighter than the limits from the 2000 and 2003 quiescent observations (above).
Optical/Infrared Observations
=============================
Archival NTT and HST
--------------------
The location of NGC 6440 X-2 has been previously observed by the European Southern Observatory’s New Technology Telescope (NTT) and by the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} () [@Piotto02]. The NTT imaging, in $R$ and $B$, was described by @Verbunt00, and the imaging in $V$ and $B$ was described by @Piotto02. We identified UCAC2 standards to place the NTT $R$ astrometric frame onto the ICRS frame, and then by identifying common stars in the WFPC2 and NTT frames, to place the astrometric frame onto the ICRS frame, with an uncertainty of 0.2” (1$\sigma$). No star can be identified within 4$\sigma$ of the transient position on the NTT and WFPC2 $B$ frames, but one star in the WFPC2 $V$ frame is located 0.4” from the transient position (Fig. \[fig:optical\]). Calibrating our photometry with that in @Piotto02, we find a magnitude of $V$=21.0$\pm0.2$ for this object. Based on objects in the image that are just barely detected in $B$, we estimate $B>22.0$. These images were probably taken during quiescence, and NGC 6440 X-2’s 57-minute orbital period indicates it will be very faint. As the ultracompact LMXB XTE J0929-314 in quiescence may have been detected with $M_V=13.2$ (D’Avanzo et al. 2009; thus it would have $V=31$ in NGC 6440), we think it unlikely that this star is the true counterpart.
Outburst and Decay
------------------
@Li09 reported that unfiltered images were taken of NGC 6440 on July 30 and 31, 2009 with the 0.76-m Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope (KAIT). Their image subtraction against previous (2007, 2008) KAIT observations revealed no evidence of an optical transient, with limiting magnitudes of 19.5-20.0.
We obtained images with the CTIO 4-meter telescope using the ISPI infrared imager on Aug. 2-4, 2009 in the J and K bands (Fig. \[fig:ISPI\]). The total exposure times were 12 min and 8 min per night, giving theoretical magnitude limits of 19.5 and 18 in J and K respectively (with a signal to noise ratio of 10). The airmass was around 1.1 and the seeing was 1” the first night, increasing to 1.5” the last night. The images have been taken using a dithered pattern and an offset blank field has been observed to estimate the sky contribution to the emission. We used IRAF common packages and the PANIC package [@Martini04] to reduce the data, and then Sextractor/Scamp [@Bertin06] to calibrate the astrometry and photometry of the image, using the 2MASS catalog as a reference [@Skrutskie06]. Based on the detection of sources around NGC 6440 X-2, a source of magnitude K=17 and J=18.5 would have been detected.
![ \[fig:optical\] Optical images of NGC 6440, plotting an 0.8” (4$\sigma$) error circle for NGC 6440 X-2. Upper left, archival NTT $R$ frame; upper right, new Gemini $g'$ frame; lower left, WFPC2 $V$ frame; lower right, WFPC2 $B$ frame. All 19” $\times$ 14”, with N at top. ](f6.eps)
![ \[fig:ISPI\] Infrared ISPI images (each 25”$\times$25”, N at top) with the CTIO 4-m on the dates specified. Top, images in $J$; bottom, images in $K$. Circles (0.8” in radius) indicate the positions of NGC 6440 X-2. ](f7.eps)
We obtained three 500 s frames in each of $g'$ (note that the $g'$ bandpass is between $V$ and $B$) and $r'$ using Gemini-South GMOS-S on Sept. 1, 2009, during the outburst decay (program GS-2009B-DD-2). Unfortunately the $r'$ frames were saturated at the location of the transient, but the $g'$ frames provided our best optical outburst limit (Fig. \[fig:optical\]). No star was seen within 0.8($4\sigma$) of the transient position. An approximate calibration of the $g'$ images was obtained using a star by star comparison with the $B,~V$ photometry of @Martins80. We determined the detection limit for stars within an annulus about the cluster center containing the location of the transient. Based on the faintest 5% of the stars in the annulus, the estimated detection limit is $g' \sim 22.0$. Thus we adopt $g'>22$ as an approximate limit for NGC 6440 X-2, at a time when found its X-ray luminosity to be $6\times10^{34}$ .
Discussion {#s:discuss}
==========
The discovery of millisecond pulsations [@Altamirano09] clearly identifies NGC 6440 X-2 as a neutron star LMXB system, and provides the orbital period of 57.3 minutes. The ultracompact nature of NGC 6440 X-2 confirms the trend [@Deutsch00] for globular clusters to have a higher fraction of ultracompact LMXBs than field systems, indicating a different formation mechanism [@Ivanova05]. However, it goes against the apparent trend [@Zurek09] for ultracompacts in globular clusters to have shorter periods than ultracompacts in the field. The lack of optical detections is not surprising, when the ultracompact orbit is considered. Using the relation between absolute magnitude, orbital period, and X-ray luminosity derived by @vanParadijs94, we predict $M_V=3.8$ and thus $V=21.8$ at peak. The scatter in this relation is about 1.5 magnitudes, and our optical observations all occurred during the outburst decays, so our limits on NGC 6440 X-2 are consistent with this relation.
NGC 6440 X-2’s outbursts are unusual among globular cluster LMXBs, both for the faintness of the outbursts (peak 0.5-10 keV $L_X=1.5\times10^{36}$ for the July outburst, $2.8\times10^{36}$ for the August outburst), but more importantly for their brevity. The July X-ray lightcurve indicates that the time spent above $10^{35}$ was no more than 4 days, and perhaps only 2.5 days (Fig. \[fig:inset\]), one of the shortest transient LMXB outbursts so far recorded [cf. @Natalucci00; @intZand04; @Wijnands07]. The August outburst lightcurve indicates $<3.5$ days spent above $10^{35}$ , and the lightcurves from the other outbursts, while less constraining, are consistent with this timescale (Fig. \[fig:inset\]). We note that another ultracompact AMXP, XTE J1751-305, has shown similarly short and faint outbursts [@Markwardt07; @Linares07; @Markwardt09].
Why does NGC 6440 X-2 show such faint and brief outbursts? The obvious drivers are accretion disk instabilities or magnetospheric instabilities. However, magnetospheric instabilities occur on much faster timescales (e.g. the Rapid Burster, Lewin 1993), and would require that the disk remain viscous (and thus ionized) between outbursts, which seems unlikely. Standard accretion disk instability models (e.g. Lasota 2001) predict quiescent periods 10 times longer, and brighter and longer outbursts, for systems with 57-minute orbital periods. Naively, we expect longer intervals between outbursts for a 57-minute system than for the other known ultracompact systems, if NGC 6440 X-2 is indeed an evolutionary descendant of systems like them, as it will have a larger disk and lower mass transfer rate (e.g. Deloye & Bildsten 2003). However, we are not aware of detailed modeling of outbursts of hydrogen-poor accretion disks with extreme mass ratios (and thus likely superhumps, Whitehurst 1988), suggesting an avenue for further study.
The X-ray record suggests that NGC 6440 X-2’s activity has significantly increased in the past year. It would be difficult to attribute this change to the disk (as it includes numerous outburst cycles), and we suggest that it represents a signal of mass-transfer variations from the donor. Cyclical variations in the orbital period are well-established in longer-period cataclysmic variables [@Borges08], LMXBs [@Wolff09], and black widow pulsars [@Arzoumanian94] and seem likely to be due to magnetic activity in the companion star. Such activity has also been suggested to explain SAX J1808.4-3658’s large current rate of orbital period increase [@Hartman08], and decades-long variations in mass transfer rates in LMXBs [@Durant09]. If such a mechanism is active here, it requires a partly nondegenerate, convective companion. Alternatively, the increased activity could indicate a change in the orbital parameters, induced by a distant companion (making this a triple system; testable with monitoring of future outbursts by RXTE) or a recent close interaction with another star (its position outside the core suggests this is less likely).
It is difficult to estimate NGC 6440 X-2’s mass transfer rate, due to its extreme faintness and the limitations of existing surveys. We identify two limiting cases, one based on its recent outburst history, and one using the full bulge scan light curve. For the first case, we estimate the outbursts as lasting 3 days at an average $L_X\sim1.5\times10^{36}$ , and occurring every 31 days. For canonical neutron star mass and radius estimates, this gives a time-averaged mass accretion rate of $3\times10^{-11}$ [${M_{\odot}}$]{}/year. Although this represents the mass transfer rate over the past few months, it is clear that NGC 6440 X-2 has not shown such outbursts regularly over the entire bulge scan epoch, where only 5 outbursts have been identified. Assuming (generously) that 2/3 of all outbursts have been missed (the October and November outbursts were missed by bulge scans, and it seems likely that outbursts in June/July and April/May were missed; Fig. \[fig:lcurve\]), and that the average outburst is like those seen so far, we estimate NGC 6440 X-2’s mass transfer rate over the entire bulge scan epoch (10 years) as $1.3\times10^{-12}$ [${M_{\odot}}$]{}/year. This latter rate is consistent with an ultracompact binary of orbital period 57 minutes experiencing conservative mass transfer driven by general relativistic angular momentum loss [@Deloye03], though a higher rate is not inconsistent with a relatively high-entropy (partly nondegenerate) donor.
The tight upper limit on NGC 6440 X-2’s quiescent emission is the third lowest for any neutron star LMXB, after the transients SAX J1808.4-3658 and 1H 1905+000 [@Heinke09a; @Jonker07; Fig. \[fig:yak\_rev\]]. Deep observations might substantially improve these limits (e.g. 100 ks could reduce the quiescent flux limit by a factor of 3). Long-term study of outbursts from this system will allow a better measure of the average mass accretion rate. It will be of great interest to see if the outbursts continue to occur every $\sim$31 days, turn off, or change their outburst frequency, as this system’s behavior is extremely unusual.
![ \[fig:yak\_rev\] Measurements of, or limits on, the quiescent thermal luminosity of various NS transients, compared to estimates of, or upper limits on, their time-averaged mass accretion rates. Data from compilations of @Heinke07a [@Heinke09a], with NGC 6440 X-2 added. Predictions of standard cooling and several enhanced cooling mechanisms are plotted, following @Yakovlev04. Accreting millisecond pulsars are indicated separately (in red), while the effect of increasing the distance by a factor of 1.5 for any system is indicated with an arrow labeled “D$\times$1.5”. ](f8.eps)
This is the first globular cluster to show two transiently outbursting X-ray sources. Many candidate quiescent LMXBs have been identified in globular clusters through their soft spectra, including eight in NGC 6440 [@Grindlay01a; @Rutledge02a; @Pooley02b; @Heinke03d], although few have been observed to undergo outbursts. Some of these quiescent LMXBs may be producing short, faint transient outbursts like NGC 6440 X-2’s, which are at or near the noise level for existing surveys such as the /PCA bulge scans and All-Sky Monitor. Even fainter X-ray transients have been studied in the Galactic Center with dedicated observations [@Muno05; @Wijnands06]. could efficiently survey one or a few of the globular clusters richest in quiescent LMXBs for such small-scale outbursts.
We are grateful to N. Gehrels and the team, H. Tananbaum and the team, M. Pretorius at ESO, M. Buxton at SMARTS, the team, N. Levenson, J. Radomski, R. Carrasco, and the Gemini-South Science Team, for rapidly scheduling observations of NGC 6440. We thank D. Pooley, S. Ransom, N. Degenaar, & A. Kong for discussions, and the referee for a useful, clear and rapid report. This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. We acknowledge the use of public data from the , , , [*HST*]{}, and ESO data archives.
[*Facilities:*]{} , , , , ,
[cccccccc]{} June 4, 01:04 & /XRT & 1.1 & 0.59$^a$ & 2.4$\pm0.5$ & 49$^b$ & $3.3\pm0.8\times10^{34}$ & 00031421001\
June 11, 17:32 & /XRT & 1.9 & 0.59$^a$ & 4.2$^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$ & 59$^b$ & $1.0^{+1.0}_{-0.5}\times10^{34}$ & 00031421002\
July 28, 20:17 & /ACIS-S & 49.1 & 0.69$\pm0.06$ & 1.79$\pm0.10$ & 0.98/59 & $1.55\pm0.06\times10^{36}$ & 10060\
July 30, 18:47 & /PCA & 1.9 & 0.59$^a$ & 2.1$^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ & 0.57/27 & $9.5^{+13}_{-4.5}\times10^{34}$ & 94044-04-01-00\
July 31, 04:55 & /XRT & 1.8 & 0.59$^a$ & 2.3$\pm0.4$ & 92$^b$ & $3.1\pm0.6\times10^{34}$ & 00031421003\
Aug. 4, 16:26 & /XRT & 1.0 & 0.59$^a$ & 2.9$^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$ & 37$^b$ & $7^{+8}_{-3}\times10^{33}$ & 00031421004\
Aug. 6, 01:50 & /XRT & 1.9 & 0.59$^a$ & 3.4$^{+1.2}_{-1.0}$ & 99$^b$ & $1.1^{+0.9}_{-0.5}\times10^{34}$ & 00031421005\
Aug. 10, 13:28 & /XRT & 0.5 & 0.59$^a$ & $^c$ & - & $7^{+8}_{-5}\times10^{33}$ & 00031421007\
Aug. 10, 08:10 & /ACIS-S & 4.9 & 0.59$^a$ & $^c$ & - & $6^{+9}_{-5}\times10^{31}$ & 11802\
Aug. 30, 1:31$^d$ & /PCA & 3.2 & 0.59$^a$ & 1.79$\pm0.02$ & 0.84/54 & $2.55\pm0.05\times10^{36}$ & 94044-04-02-00\
Sept. 1, 3:43$^d$ & /PCA & 14.1 & 0.59$^a$ & $1.5^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$ & 0.8/33 & $<4\times10^{34}$ & 94044-04-02-01\
Sept. 1, 4:33 & /XRT & 1.0 & 0.59$^a$ & $3.8^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ & 90$^b$ & $6\pm2\times10^{34}$ & 00031421009\
Sept. 2, 13:01 & /XRT & 0.4 & 0.59$^a$ & $^c$ & - & $1.2^{+1.1}_{-6}\times10^{34}$ & 00031421010\
Sept. 4, 06:49 & /XRT & 0.4 & 0.59$^a$ & $^c$ & - & $1.5^{+1.3}_{-0.7}\times10^{34}$ & 00031421012\
Oct. 1, 08:47 & /XRT & 0.7 & 0.59$^a$ & $1.79\pm0.19$ & 1.0/16 & $5.9\pm0.6\times10^{35}$ & 00031421014\
Oct. 1, 21:58 & /PCA & 1.5 & 0.59$^a$ & 1.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & 0.49/29 & $4.5^{+0.4}_{-0.4}\times10^{35}$ & 94044-04-03-00\
Oct. 2, 20:24 & /XRT & 1.0 & 0.59$^a$ & 1.9$\pm0.3$ & 0.35/6 & $1.0^{+0.2}_{-0.1}\times10^{35}$ & 00031421015\
Oct. 3, 08:12 & /PCA & 3.2 & 0.59$^a$ & - & 1.1/28 & $<3\times10^{34}$ & 94044-04-04-00\
Oct. 4, 10:46 & /XRT & 0.6 & 0.59$^a$ & $^c$ & - & $6^{+6}_{-4}\times10^{33}$ & 00031421017\
Oct. 5, 18:59 & /XRT & 0.6 & 0.59$^a$ & $^c$ & - & $7^{+7}_{-4}\times10^{33}$ & 00031421016\
Oct. 28, 22:29 & /PCA & 0.9 & 0.59$^a$ & 1.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & 0.34/39 & $8.6^{+0.9}_{-0.8}\times10^{35}$ & 94315-01-04-01\
Oct. 29, 00:19 & /XRT & 1.2 & 0.59$^a$ & 1.7$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ & 1.03/40 & $5.5^{+0.3}_{-0.3}\times10^{35}$ & 00031421018\
Oct. 29, 20:25 & /PCA & 0.9 & 0.59$^a$ & 2.2$^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ & 0.58/27 & $2.1^{+2.2}_{-0.8}\times10^{35}$ & 94315-01-04-02\
Oct. 30, 13:28 & /XRT & 0.9 & 0.59$^a$ & 2.3$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ & 1.15/8 & $8.6^{+1.4}_{-1.4}\times10^{34}$ & 00031421019\
Oct. 30, 19:58 & /PCA & 0.8 & 0.59$^a$ & $3.0^{+4.4}_{-2.3}$ & 0.52/15 & $5\pm4\times10^{34}$ & 94315-01-03-01\
Oct. 31, 13:33 & /XRT & 0.9 & - & $^c$ & - & $1.2^{+0.6}_{-0.4}\times10^{34}$ & 00031421020\
Oct. 31, 17:48 & /PCA & 1.1 & 0.59$^a$ & (2) & 0.58/23 & $<3.1\times10^{34}$ & 94315-01-03-02\
Nov. 1, 13:39 & /XRT & 0.9 & - & $^c$ & - & $6^{+4}_{-3}\times10^{33}$ & 00031421021\
Nov. 2, 13:45 & /XRT & 0.9 & - & $^c$ & - & $4^{+4}_{-2}\times10^{33}$ & 00031421022\
[^1]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao
[^2]: See the Proposer’s Observatory Guide, chapter 6.
[^3]: http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/craigm/galscan/main.html
[^4]: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/pca\_news.html
[^5]: http://asc.harvard.edu/toolkit/pimms.jsp
[^6]: http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'X. Paredes-Fortuny'
- 'V. Bosch-Ramon'
- 'M. Perucho'
- 'M. Ribó[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
date: 'Received - / Accepted -'
title: Simulations of an inhomogeneous stellar wind interacting with a pulsar wind in a binary system
---
Introduction
============
In binaries consisting of a massive star and a young non-accreting pulsar, the relativistic wind of the pulsar interacts with the non-relativistic wind of the stellar companion. This can result in efficient particle acceleration and in the production of non-thermal radiation, from radio to gamma rays. At present, PSR B1259$-$63 has been confirmed as a member of this class of objects, and there are several other high-mass binaries hosting a compact object whose nature is still unknown and may belong to this class as well [e.g., @Dubus2013; @Paredes2013].
The properties of the non-thermal radiation in high-mass binaries hosting a non-accreting pulsar are determined to a large extent by the dynamics of the two-wind interaction structure. To study different aspects of this structure and its evolution along the orbit, heavy and detailed numerical simulations have been performed. [@Romero2007] carried out non-relativistic, smoothed particle hydrodynamic (SPH) simulations in three dimensions (3D) to study the orbital evolution of a hypothetic two-wind interaction region in LS I $+$61 303. [@Bogovalov2008] studied numerically the collision of the pulsar and the stellar wind in PSR B1259$-$63, treating the flows as laminar fluids by relativistic hydrodynamical simulations in two dimensions (2D). For the same system, [@Okazaki2011] and [@Takata2012] performed 3D SPH non-relativistic simulations to study the tidal and wind interactions between the pulsar and the decretion disc of the Be star, and [@Bogovalov2012] studied the collision of a magnetized anisotropic pulsar wind and the stellar wind adopting the same geometry and using a similar treatment as adopted in [@Bogovalov2008]. [@LambertsAAA] performed non-relativistic hydrodynamical simulations in planar geometry of the two-wind interaction structure for several orbits on large scales. [@LambertsBBB] and [@Lamberts2013] performed 2D relativistic hydrodynamical (RHD) simulations in planar geometry of the interaction between the pulsar and the stellar wind on the scales of the binary system. Finally, [@Bosch-Ramon2012] performed 2D RHD simulations in planar geometry aimed at studying the interaction between the stellar and pulsar winds on scales at which the orbital motion is important.
Some relevant conclusions of the numerical work done up to now are the importance of instabilities, in particular the Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) and Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH)[^2] instabilities, in the spatial and temporal properties of the two-wind interaction structure on both small and large scales, the occurrence of shocked-flow re-acceleration, the impact of orbital motion through lateral, strong shocks, the effective mixing of the shocked winds downstream of the flow, the strong effects of the pulsar wind ram pressure on Be discs, and the relatively minor role of pulsar wind anisotropies and magnetic fields. However, all the simulations of binaries hosting a pulsar considered smooth winds, while the stellar wind is expected to be inhomogeneous, in particular for earlier spectral types [@Lucy1970]. The wind inhomogeneities (clumps hereafter) are expected to play an important role in the structure of the two-wind interaction region, and therefore in the non-thermal emission. The origin of these clumps can be explained by different mechanisms depending on their scale, either the stellar surface at the wind formation region, or a circumstellar disc in the Be system. For instance, the impact of a fragment of a Be star disc on the two-wind interaction region has been proposed to cause the GeV flare observed in the gamma-ray binary PSR B1259$-$63 [@Abdo2011; @Chernyakova2014]. In addition, some sort of wind clumping could explain short flares on scales of seconds to hours found in the X-ray light curves of LS 5039 and LS I +61 303 [e.g., @Bosch-Ramon2005; @Paredes2007; @Smith2009; @Li2011]. The clump-pulsar wind interaction problem has previously been studied analytically [see @Bosch-Ramon2013], but numerical calculations of the interaction between an inhomogeneous stellar wind and a relativistic pulsar wind have not been conducted yet.
In this work, we present 2D axisymmetric RHD simulations of the interaction between a wind clump and a relativistic pulsar wind. Orbital motion has not been accounted for because of the axisymmetric nature of the simulations; given the small spatial and temporal scales considered, this is a reasonable approximation. We simulated clumps with different sizes and densities to study the global variations induced in the two-wind interaction structure, as well as on the evolution of the clumps under the impact of the pulsar wind.
We note that this is the first time that relativistic simulations are carried out in a more realistic set-up, with axisymmetry along the two-star line, without suppressing the development of instabilities. The numerical results are compared with the analytical results found in [@Bosch-Ramon2013]. The paper is structured as follows: in Sect. \[frame\] we describe the physical framework: the two-wind interaction region, the origin of the clumps in the winds of massive stars, and the analytical equations; in Sect. \[num\], we describe the numerical simulations: the numerical set-up and the obtained results; finally, a discussion and the conclusions can be found in Sects. \[disc\] and \[conc\].
Physical framework {#frame}
==================
The collision between the stellar wind and the wind from the young pulsar creates a shock structure bow-shaped towards the wind with the lower momentum flux. The contact discontinuity is located where the ram pressure of the two winds balances. As discussed in [@Bosch-Ramon2013], the presence of clumps can significantly distort the overall interaction structure, although their dynamical impact is determined by their size and mass [see, e.g., @Pittard2007 for a similar non-relativistic scenario]. Winds formed by small and light clumps will behave as uniform winds, while massive clumps will tend to come less frequently and be more damaging for the global stability of the interaction region (see @Perucho2012 for the effect of an inhomogeneous wind on a high-mass microquasar jet). A sketch of the physical scenario is shown in Fig. \[sce\].
The instability of the line-driving mechanism in the inner wind is thought to be an important source of clumps in the wind structure of hot stars of spectral types O and B [@Lucy1970]. [@Runacres2002] suggested that the outer evolution of the inhomogeneous wind can be approximated as a pure gas dynamical problem, and the stellar wind clumps initiated close to the star can survive up to long distances ($d\sim 1000~{\rm R_\odot}$). [@Moffat2008] suggested that all hot stellar winds are likely to be inhomogeneous because of radiative instabilities, with a multi-scale distribution of masses and sizes. Therefore, considering the outer wind evolution as a gas dynamical problem, the clumps could expand with the wind flow and large clumps could reach the interaction region between the stellar and the pulsar wind. However, the relatively small initial sizes ($\sim 0.01\,R_*$), and limitations on the clump growth (which can be parameterized as $R_{\rm c}=R_{\rm{c}_0}\,(d/R_*)^{\alpha}$, with $\alpha \le 1$ and $R_{\rm{c}_0}$ being the initial clump radius) could prevent the formation of clumps as large as, $R_{\rm c}\sim R_*$, for instance, which is required for the strongest variations of the two-wind interaction structure [see @Bosch-Ramon2013 and references there in]. Typical massive star radii are $R_*\sim 10\,R_\odot$.
Large clumps different from those related to radiative instabilities may be found in the stellar wind. For instance, early-type stars known as Be stars present a decretion disc formed by material ejected from the stellar equator by rapid rotation [@Hanuschik1996]. The truncation of this disc, either caused by tidal forces or by direct pulsar wind ram pressure [see @Okazaki2011], could explain the presence of large clumps in the stellar wind formed by chunks of disc. This possibility has been considered for instance to explain the GeV flare detected from the gamma-ray binary PSR B1259$-$63 by [@Chernyakova2014] (see Sect. \[psr\]). Other types of large-scale structures in the stellar wind, of size of the order of the stellar radius have also been inferred from the observed discrete absorption components (DACs) in the UV [e.g., @Kaper1997]. The appearance of DACs can be interpreted as co-rotating dense structures produced at the stellar surface and extending several tens of stellar radii [e.g., @Lobel2008], and can be attributed to the dynamical effects of rotation, magnetic fields, or non-radial pulsations [@Cranmer1996]. The arrival of any of those structures at the two-wind interaction region probably modify the latter in space and time.
[@Bosch-Ramon2013], developed an analytical model for the two-wind interaction dynamics accounting for the lifetime of clumps under the pulsar-wind impact. It was concluded that for a clump radius $R_{\rm c} \ll \chi^{-1/2}\Delta R$, being $\Delta R$ the thickness of the two-wind interaction region and $\chi = \rho_{\rm c}/\rho_{\rm w}$ the density contrast between the clump density and the wind density, the clump is destroyed and deflected by the shocked wind medium before crossing the two-wind interaction region. Otherwise, for $R_{\rm c}$ approaching $\chi^{-1/2}\Delta R$ or larger, the clump will penetrate into the unshocked pulsar wind. When $R$ and $R^{\prime}$ are the initial and final distances between the pulsar and the contact discontinuity, following [@Bosch-Ramon2013], this approximate relation applies
$$R^{\prime} \sim R - \chi^{1/2}R_{\rm c}\,,
\label{equ}$$
which for $R_{\rm c}\sim R^{\prime}$ implies $$R_{\rm c}\sim R^{\prime} \sim \frac{R}{\left( 1+\chi^{1/2}\right)}\quad \text{(where $R^{\prime}>0$ )}\,.
\label{equ2}$$
The simulations presented here are intended to investigate in detail the dynamical consequences of the presence of clumps in the stellar wind. Below we compare analytical estimates with numerical results.
Numerical simulations {#num}
=====================
Numerical set-up
----------------
The simulations were performed using a finite-difference code based on a high-resolution shock-capturing scheme that solves the equations of relativistic hydrodynamics in two dimensions in a conservation form [@Marti1997]. The code is parallelized using open message passing (OMP) [@Perucho2005]. The simulations were run in a workstation with two Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2643 processors (3.30 GHz, $4\times2$ cores, with two threads for each core) and four modules of 4096 MB of memory (DDR3 at 1600 MHz).
We adopted an ideal relativistic gas without a magnetic field, one particle species, and a polytropic index of $\gamma =1.444$, intermediate between a non-relativistic (stellar wind) and a relativistic (pulsar wind) index. The physical size of the domain is $r \in \lbrack 0, 30~a\rbrack$ and $z \in \lbrack 0, 50~a \rbrack$, where $a = 8\times10^{10}$ cm. The adopted resolution is $150\times250$ cells. The pulsar is located at $(r,z) = (0,5~a)$, and the star at $(r,z) = (0,60~a)$, outside the simulated grid. This yields a two-star separation of $d = 4.4\times10^{12}~{\rm cm}$. The typical orbital separation distances in gamma-ray binaries are $\sim 10^{13}~{\rm cm}$ [see, e.g., @Dubus2013 and references therein].
The initial conditions of the simulation were computed in spherical coordinates assuming adiabatic gas radial propagation and solving the Bernoulli equation for the pulsar and stellar winds. The initial two-wind separation point is derived as the approximate location where the on-axis wind ram pressures become equal ($z = 22~a$).
The chosen physical parameters of the pulsar wind are the total luminosity $L_{\rm sd} = 10^{37}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}$, the Lorentz factor $\Gamma= 5$, and the specific internal energy $\epsilon_{\rm pw} = 9.0\times10^{19}~{\rm erg~g^{-1}}$. As a result of resolution limitations, the adopted Lorentz factor is smaller than expected in pulsar winds, $\Gamma\sim 10^4$–10$^6$ [see @Khangulyan2012; @Aharonian2012 and references therein], but high enough to capture important relativistic effects [see the discussion in @Bosch-Ramon2012]. For the stellar wind, the physical parameters are a mass-loss rate $\dot{M}=10^{-7}~{\rm M_\odot~yr^{-1}}$, a radial velocity $v_{\rm sw}= 3000~{\rm km~s^{-1}}$, and a specific internal energy $\epsilon_{\rm sw} = 1.8\times10^{15}~{\rm erg~g^{-1}}$. The derived pulsar wind and stellar wind densities are $\rho_{\rm pw} = 1.99\times10^{-19}~{\rm g~cm^{-3}}$ and $\rho_{\rm sw} = 2.68\times10^{-13}~{\rm g~cm^{-3}}$, respectively. All the previous quantities, except for $L_{\rm sd}$ and $\dot{M}$, are given at a distance $r = a$ with respect to the pulsar and star centres. The values of $L_{\rm sd}$, $\dot{M}$ and $v_{\rm sw}$ were chosen as representative values of gamma-ray binaries hosting a pulsar because $L_{\rm sd}$ is to be high enough to power the gamma-ray emission, and the stellar wind properties correspond to those of an OB star. All these parameters are summarized in Tables \[table\_sim\] and \[table\_wind\].
The previous physical values lead to a pulsar-to-stellar wind thrust ratio of $$\eta = \frac{F_{\rm pw} S_{\rm pw}}{F_{\rm sw} S_{\rm sw}} = \frac{\left( \rho_{\rm pw} \Gamma^2 v_{\rm pw}^2 h_{\rm pw}+p_{\rm pw} \right)S_{\rm pw}}{\dot{M}v_{\rm sw}+p_{\rm sw} S_{\rm sw}} \approx \frac{L_{\rm sd}}{\dot{M} v_{\rm sw} {c}} \sim 0.2{\rm,}
\label{eta}$$ where $F_{\rm pw}$ ($F_{\rm sw}$) is the momentum flux of the pulsar wind (stellar wind), $S_{\rm pw}$ ($S_{\rm sw}$) the spherical surface at a distance $r = a$ with respect to the pulsar (star), $h_{\rm pw}$ the specific enthalpy of the pulsar wind given by $h_{\rm pw}=1+\frac{\epsilon_{\rm pw}}{c^2}+\frac{p_{\rm pw}}{\rho_{\rm pw} {c^2}}$, and $p_{\rm pw/sw}$ the pressure of the pulsar/stellar wind given by $p_{\rm pw/sw} = \left( \gamma-1\right)\rho_{\rm pw/sw}\epsilon_{\rm pw/sw}$.
The pulsar wind is introduced by defining an injector with the mentioned properties and radius $3~a$ $(2.4\times10^{11}~{\rm cm};~ 15~{\rm cells)}$ as a boundary condition, and the stellar wind is injected according to its characterization at the upper boundary of the grid. The lower and right boundaries of the grid are set to outflow, while the left boundary of the grid is set to reflection.
The pulsar wind is injected with a Lorentz factor of 5, but because of adiabatic propagation, it reaches Lorentz factors of $\sim 6$ before termination.
Parameter Value
----------- --------------------------------------
$\gamma$ $1.444$
$\rho_0$ $22.5\times10^{-22}~{\rm g~cm^{-3}}$
$a$ $8\times10^{10}~\rm{cm}$
$l_r$ $30~a~(2.4\times10^{12}~\rm{cm})$
$l_z$ $50~a~(4.0\times10^{12}~\rm{cm})$
$n_r$ $150$
$n_z$ $250$
: Simulation parameters.[]{data-label="table_sim"}
Parameter Pulsar wind Stellar wind
------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
$\rho$ $88.45~\rho_{0} \ (1.99\times10^{-19}~{\rm g~cm^{-3}})$ $1.19\times10^8~\rho_{0}\ (2.68\times10^{-13}~{\rm g~cm^{-3}})$
$\epsilon$ $0.1~{c^2} \ (9\times10^{19}~{\rm erg~g^{-1}})$ $2.0\times10^{-6}~{c^2}\ (1.8\times10^{15}~{\rm erg~g^{-1}})$
$v$ $0.9798~{c}$ ($2.94\times 10^{10}$ cm s$^{-1}$) $0.01~{c}$ ($3\times 10^8$ cm s$^{-1}$)
$(r_0,z_0)$ $(0,5~a);\ (0,4\times10^{11}~{\rm cm})$ $(0,60~a);\ (0,4.8\times10^{12}~{\rm cm})$
The stellar wind clumps are introduced at $(r,z)=(0,33~a)$ after the steady state is reached. The clumps are characterized by their radius $R_{\rm c}$ and their density contrast $\chi$ with respect to the average stellar wind value at their location. We present here the results for four different cases: $\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} =1~a$, $2.5~a$, $5~a$ and $\chi = 30$ and $R_{\rm c} =1~a$, corresponding to different degrees of wind inhomogeneity, from modest $\chi=10$ and $R_{\rm c}=1~a$ to rather high $\chi=10$ (30) and $R_{\rm c}=5$ (1) $a$.
The axisymmetric nature of the simulations, in particular the reflection boundary conditions, the presence of a coordinate singularity, plus the concentration of fluxes, all at $r=0$, lead to the generation of perturbations that quickly grow, posing difficulties to achieve a steady state. This effect makes the simulation also quite sensitive to the initial conditions, and the initial two-wind contact discontinuity has to be carefully chosen so as not to enhance the axis perturbations further. In this context, the modest resolution of most of the simulations and the pulsar wind Lorentz factor adopted were chosen to stabilize the solution of the calculations through a larger numerical dissipation and moderate wind density contrast. Given the fast growth of any perturbation (numerical or physical) in the simulated problem (as explained below), higher resolutions will enhance (as also shown below) the instability of the simulated structures through the penetration of small fragments of stellar wind material into the pulsar wind region. On the other hand, higher Lorentz factors would have enhanced the wind density contrast and thereby the instability growth rate. Finally, the grid size was also limited to prevent the instabilities from fully disrupting the two-wind interaction structure within the simulated region. With our resolution, larger grid sizes would have given enough time to the instabilities to develop and grow towards the downstream edge of the grid. The resulting structures would be similar to those found in the higher resolution simulations also presented in this work, and would also lead to the collapse of the two-wind interaction region. Albeit small, the grid size does not significantly affect the hydrodynamics within as the flow is supersonic at the outflow boundaries. We remark that because the clump is the strongest dynamical factor, its impact can be studied neglecting the role of numerical perturbations on the axis after a (quasi-)steady state has been reached.
Results
-------
Figure \[steady\] shows the density map of the simulated flow in the (quasi-)steady state at $t = 58000$ s. The shock structure is bow-shaped towards the pulsar, with the contact discontinuity at $\sim 18~a$ from the pulsar. The thickness of the shocked two-wind region is $\sim 8~a$ on the simulation axis. After being shocked, winds are accelerated side-wards because of the strong pressure gradient in the downstream region, as pointed out in [@Bogovalov2008]. This is seen in the velocity maps presented in this section, for which the two-wind interaction structure has not yet been affected by the clump arrival. Because of this flow re-acceleration, the ratio of the momentum-flux to pressure shows that the flow becomes supersonic at the boundaries.
These axisymmetric simulations are quite sensitive to the initial conditions, and in particular, reaching steady state, is highly dependent on the initial set-up of the simulation. It is still an open question, to be answered with 3D simulations, to which extent this sensitivity to the initial set-up is caused by the geometry of the grid. Nevertheless, it is expected that instabilities quickly grow if perturbations are present, as shown by planar coordinate relativistic simulations [@Bosch-Ramon2012; @Lamberts2013]. In the present simulations, the boundary conditions at the axis induce perturbations there that grow under the RT instability. These perturbations are then amplified by the KH instability as the flow propagates along the contact discontinuity. For grid sizes larger than $30~a$ in the $r$ direction, the structures resulting from instability growth can reach deep into the pulsar wind, eventually disrupting the two-wind interaction region and filling the pulsar vicinity with shocked material. For small grids, on the other hand, these structures are advected out of the grid before it happens. The RT and KH instabilities grow faster for faster (and lighter) pulsar winds, which for a fixed $\eta$ implies a stronger wind density contrast and thus a more unstable contact discontinuity. A Lorentz factor of $\Gamma\sim$ 5–6 was adopted as a compromise: a rather relativistic flow with tenable instability-growth rates.
Despite numerical perturbations introducing a degree of deformation in the global structure of the two-wind collision region, as shown by the wave at $r\sim 20-30~a$ in the two-wind interaction region in Fig. \[steady\], the opening angle and width of the shocked wind zone are similar to those found in [@Bogovalov2008; @Bogovalov2012]. Those simulations were similar to ours given their axisymmetry, although the simulated flows were laminar.
Figures \[f10r1\], \[f10r2p5\], \[f10r5\], and \[f30r1\] show the density map evolution for the clumps characterized by $\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} =1~a$, $2.5~a$, $5~a$, and $\chi = 30$ and $R_{\rm c} =1~a$, respectively. The times of the map snapshots were chosen such that the images are illustrative of the structure evolution. The bigger clumps, characterized by $\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} =2.5~a$ and $R_{\rm c} =5~a$, and the smallest but densest one, with $\chi = 30$ and $R_{\rm c} =1~a$, strongly perturb the two-wind interaction region, pushing the contact discontinuity to less than a half its initial distance (see Fig. \[steady\]) to the pulsar (see Figs. \[f10r2p5\], \[f10r5\], and \[f30r1\], respectively).
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
We now focus on a clump with $\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} =2.5~a$, as it is illustrative of a strong impact by a clump of intermediate size. For this case, we also show Figs. \[f10r2p5\_zoom\], \[f10r2p5\_tracer\], \[f10r2p5\_pressure\], \[f10r2p5\_sonic\], and \[f10r2p5\_W\], which display the evolution of the clump in the density map, the tracer map (1 for the clump material and 0 otherwise), the pressure map, the map of the momentum flux over the pressure (greater than a few for a super-sonic flow), and the map of $\beta$. These figures show how the two-wind interaction region is pushed by the clump, until the contact discontinuity reaches a minimum distance to the pulsar at $R^{\prime}_{\rm num}\approx 8.5~a$ ($R^{\prime}_{\rm num}\approx 7.5~a$ for the termination shock). After that, the clump starts to be pushed backwards by the pulsar wind, is shocked, and decelerates, eventually disrupting, with its fragments driven away from the simulation axis by the shocked flow. All this is clearly seen in the density maps (Figs. \[f10r2p5\] and \[f10r2p5\_zoom\]), and in the tracer (Fig. \[f10r2p5\_tracer\]). In addition, Figs. \[f10r2p5\_pressure\], \[f10r2p5\_sonic\] and \[f10r2p5\_W\] provide information on the presence of shocks, apparent as sudden increases in pressure or drops in the ratio of momentum-flux to pressure, and relevant for particle acceleration; flow re-acceleration, important for non-radiative cooling, flow relativistic motion, and flow-to-sound-speed relation; and flow speed and direction downstream of the shocks, determining Doppler effects on the flow emission. Equivalent images to Figs. \[f10r2p5\_zoom\], \[f10r2p5\_tracer\], \[f10r2p5\_pressure\], \[f10r2p5\_sonic\], and \[f10r2p5\_W\] for the other three simulated clump cases are available in the on-line material. In all the simulations, a $t=0$ is assigned to the steady state plus a clump at the initial position.
\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}\
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}\
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
Concerning stability, under the perturbation induced by the clump with $\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} =5~a$, the system recovers steady state after the clump has been advected. In contrast, for the cases with $\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} =2.5~a$, and $\chi = 30$ and $R_{\rm c} =1~a$, the instabilities eventually lead to the collapse of the two-wind interaction region, filling the region close to the pulsar with shocked pulsar wind. The clump with $R_{\rm c} =1~a$ and $\chi = 10$ only slightly perturbs the two-wind interaction region and pushes the contact discontinuity to $\sim 2/3$ of its initial distance (see Fig. \[steady\]) to the pulsar (see Fig. \[f10r1\]). Afterwards, the system recovers the (quasi-)steady state. We recall that although the steady-state solution is only metastable in the context of our simulations, the main features of the clump phase should be reliable because the clump represents a dominant perturbation over any other, physical or numerical, before it is assimilated by the two-wind flow.
Other simulations, not shown here, were carried out for clumps with $R_{\rm c}=$ 0.5–5 and $\chi=$10–100. As seen before, the impact on the two-wind interacting region is larger the denser the clump or the larger is its radius, so different combinations of these parameters yield results in line with those shown.
To show the impact of increasing resolution, we present the results of two simulations with the same set-up but, a resolution 2 and 1.5 times (i.e. $300\times500$ and $225\times375$ cells, respectively) higher than the resolution adopted for most of the simulations in the paper. For the highest resolution case, we were unable to reach steady state (without clump) because the higher resolution allowed the rapid development of instabilities already within the grid, leading to the collapse of the two-wind interaction region. A temporal state of this simulation taken shortly before the collapse of the interaction region is shown in Fig. \[steady\_x2\]. For the intermediate-resolution case, we reached (quasi-)steady state, but compared with the lower resolution simulations, it presented a more unstable pattern in the two-wind interaction region away from the simulation axis and a more compressed two-wind interaction region close to the axis singularity. A sequence of images showing the evolution of a clump characterized by $\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} =2.5~a$ for the intermediate resolution simulation is shown in Fig.\[f10r2p5\_x1p5\]. The higher resolution allowed the development of denser small-scale structures that pushed the pulsar wind termination shock closer to the neutron star. However, the general behaviour of the higher and lower resolution clump simulations is similar, which suggests that the main features resulting from the lowest resolution simulations, albeit smoother, are reliable.
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
Discussion {#disc}
==========
The interaction of a relativistic pulsar wind with the non-relativistic wind of a massive star was simulated through relativistic axisymmetric hydrodynamic calculations. The two-wind interaction structure reaches a (quasi-)steady state, although the solution is metastable and quite sensitive to the initial set-up parameters, such as the grid size or the wind density contrast. Therefore, even though the collision between the two winds forms a structure similar to those previously found in axisymmetric relativistic simulations, it shows some irregularity (Fig. \[steady\]). In the dynamical problem solved here, the axisymmetric geometry may introduce numerical perturbations to the physical solution that grow affected by the RT instability close to the axis, and by the KH instability farther away. However, similar irregularities have been also found in relativistic 2D simulations in planar geometry that have been attributed to the development of KH instabilities [@Bosch-Ramon2012; @Lamberts2013], which implies that the irregularities found in this work are not only related to the axisymmetric geometry adopted.
The growth of instabilities strongly affects the shocked pulsar-wind region in its (quasi-)steady state. Given the very high sound speed, this region can change within time intervals significantly shorter than the dynamical time of the simulation, $\sim d/v_{\rm sw}$, dominated by the slow stellar wind. Nevertheless, we find that the interaction region globally follows the expected geometry both for the contact discontinuity and for the width of the two-wind collision region [@Bogovalov2008; @Bogovalov2012].
The arrival of clumps can have a very strong impact on the whole interaction structure, overcoming the effect of any possible numerical perturbation related to the geometry of the calculations. The clumps trigger violent RT and KH instabilities because the structure is prone to suffer them, and thus the interaction between the clump and the two-wind collision region is highly non-linear, leading not only to a [*secular*]{} modification of the global geometry, but also to quick changes of the shocked pulsar-wind region. This is apparent in all the map time sequences (in particular in the zoomed-in sequence: Fig. \[f10r2p5\_zoom\]), as the largest variations affect the shocked pulsar wind.
Below we discuss a few relevant points: the comparison between the analytical and the numerical approximation; the clump effect on the global structure and radiation, with a mention of the GeV flare of PSR B1259$-$63 as a possible instance of matter clump-perturbation of the two-wind interaction region, and work under development.
Numerical results vs analytical estimates
-----------------------------------------
An analytical estimate of the minimum distance between the two-wind interaction region and the pulsar, after the clump has penetrated the shocked pulsar wind, has been presented in Sect. \[frame\]. For comparison, the analytical and numerical values of the minimum distances from the contact discontinuity, and the termination shock, to the pulsar, are shown in Table \[table\_clumps\] for all the simulated clumps.
The final distance between the pulsar and the contact discontinuity, for a given density contrast and a clump radius, computed using Eq. (\[equ\]), agree well with the numerical results except for the clump with radius $R_{\rm c}=5~a$ (see Table \[table\_clumps\]). The reason is that such a large clump is already outside of the application range of Eq. (\[equ\]), which strictly applies only to clumps with $R_{\rm c}\ll R^{\prime}$. For $R_{\rm c} \rightarrow R^\prime$ or bigger, the clump behaves more as an homogeneous wind than as a discrete obstacle, but $\chi$ times denser than the average stellar wind. In this case, the minimum distance from the contact discontinuity to the pulsar can be computed from Eq. (\[eta\]) and assuming momentum flux equality as $R^{\prime}=\eta_{\chi}^{1/2}~{\rm d}/(1+\eta_{\chi}^{1/2})\simeq\eta_{\chi}^{1/2}~{\rm d}$, with $\eta_{\chi} = \chi^{-1} \eta$. For $\chi=10$ it gives $R^{\prime}_{\rm an}\sim 7.9~a$, which agrees well with the numerical result for the clump with $R_{\rm c}=5~a$ ($R^{\prime}_{\rm num}\approx 7.5~a$).
$\chi$ $R_{\rm c}$ (a) $R_{\rm num}^{\prime}$ (a) $R_{\rm an}^{\prime}$ (a) $R_{\rm num}^{\prime~({\rm TS})} (a)$
-------- ----------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------------
10 1 13 14.8 11
10 2.5 8.5 10 7.5
10 5 7.5 2.2 6
30 1 10 12.5 8
: Clump impact on the size of the two-wind interaction region.[]{data-label="table_clumps"}
The time required for the clump with $\chi=10$ and $R_{\rm c}=2.5~a$ to become shocked is $\sim 4000$ s, and for full clump disruption, meaning that when the clump material is advected away already integrated in the shocked flows, the time required is $\sim 10000$–15000 s (see Fig. \[f10r2p5\_zoom\]). These times are consistent with the analytical value of the clump lifetime, $\sim \chi^{1/2}R_{\rm c}/v_{\rm sw}\approx 2000$ s [@Bosch-Ramon2013], or 4000 s, if the clump diameter is adopted as the characteristic clump size.
Clump effects on the global structure and radiation
---------------------------------------------------
On the scales simulated in this work, stellar winds with a modest inhomogeneity degree ($\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} = 1~a$) present non-negligible variations of the interaction structure, and even smaller/lighter clumps can provide continuous perturbations for the development of instabilities in the contact discontinuity. In addition, medium-sized or denser clumps ($R_{\rm c} = 2.5$, $5~a$ and $\chi=10$; $R_{\rm c} = 1~a$ and $\chi=30$) can lead to strong variations in the size of the two-wind interaction structure. Both small and medium-sized/denser clumps can generate quick and global variations in the shocked pulsar wind. This affects the location of the pulsar wind termination shock (i) and also introduces seeds for small-scale relativistic and transonic turbulence that would grow downstream of this shock (ii).
\(i) The consequences of large variations in the termination shock location have previously been discussed in [@Bosch-Ramon2013]. In short, they can induce variations in the cooling, radiative as well as non-radiative, channels, and non-linear radiation processes, through synchrotron self-Compton or internal pair creation, for large reductions of the emitter size.
\(ii) The relativistic flow variations on small spatial and temporal scales downstream of the pulsar wind shock, already apparent despite the modest resolution in Fig. \[f10r2p5\_W\], would lead to a complex radiative pattern in time and direction. This complex radiative pattern is caused by Doppler boosting because of the complex orientation of the fluid lines and the relativistic speeds achieved through re-acceleration of the shocked pulsar wind [see @Khangulyan2014 for a study of the impact of Doppler boosting on radiation].
Finally, weak shocks are present in the shocked pulsar wind (e.g., Fig. \[f10r2p5\_sonic\]), which suggests that further particle acceleration, additional to that occurring in the pulsar wind termination shock, could take place already deep inside the binary system, well before the postshock flow has been affected by the orbital motion [see, e.g., @Bosch-Ramon2012 for a discussion of the larger-scale evolution of the shocked structure].
### The flare in PSR B1259$-$63 {#psr}
The flare in PSR B1259$-$63, observed by Fermi about 30 days after periastron passage [@Abdo2011], has a potential connection with the Be disc through the disruption and fragmentation of the latter. This may have led to the impact of a dense piece of disc on the two-wind interaction structure, largely reducing the size of the pulsar wind termination shock. This reduction could allow efficient Compton scattering by a population of GeV electrons on local X-ray photons, as proposed in [@Dubus2013b] [see also @Khangulyan2012 for a similar proposal involving infrared photons] as a result of the strong enhancement of the X-ray photon density. This idea is worth to be studied in more detail, although it remains unclear why such a modification of the GeV emitter has no clear effects at other wavelengths [@Chernyakova2014].
It is worth estimating what fraction of the mass of a Be stellar disc the simulated clumps would represent. The mass of a typical Be disc can be derived from the disc mass-loss rate, $\sim 10^{-12}$–10$^{-9}\,M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, times the disc extension, say $\sim 1$ AU (quantities similar to those adopted in @Okazaki2011 and @Takata2012), with a typical disc radial velocity of $\sim 1$ km s$^{-1}$ (@Okazaki2001). This yields a disc mass of $\sim 10^{22}$–10$^{25}$ g. In particular, for PSR B1259$-$63, [@Chernyakova2014] estimated a disc mass of $2\times 10^{25}$ g, with a disc radius of 0.42 AU, roughly similar to the values just mentioned. The masses of the simulated clumps are $\sim 8\times10^{18}$ g, $\sim 10^{20}$ g, $\sim 10^{21}$ g and $\sim 2\times10^{19}$ g for the clumps characterized by $\chi = 10$ and $R_{\rm c} =1~a$, $2.5~a$, $5~a$ and $\chi = 30$ and $R_{\rm c} =1~a$, respectively. For comparison, the mass of the clump with $R_{\rm c}=2.5\,a$ would be $\sim 0.001$–1% the disc mass.
Future work
-----------
To distinguish the importance of numerical artefacts in our results and study a more realistic case, a 3D version of the simulations presented here is under way to more accurately characterize the instabilities that affect the two-wind interaction region. In addition, we are planning to carry out calculations of the radiation outcome expected from the two-wind interaction region, and most importantly, from the clump interaction with this structure, making full use of the dynamical information provided by these simulations.
Conclusions {#conc}
===========
We presented, for the first time, 2D axisymmetric RHD simulations of the interaction between an inhomogeneous stellar wind and a relativistic pulsar wind, focusing on the region inside the binary system. We simulated clumps with different sizes and densities to study different degrees of the stellar wind inhomogeneity. The presence of the clumps results in significant variations of the interaction region, which are expected to strongly affect the non-thermal radiation as well. Therefore, we confirm the sensitive nature of two-wind interaction structure under the presence of the stellar wind inhomogeneities. The shocked flow presents a complex spatial and temporal pattern, with fast changes in the shocked pulsar wind. This can lead to strong short time-scale flux variability in the non-thermal radiation of gamma-ray binaries, which might be observed for instance in gamma rays with the future Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA; @Acharya2013 [@Paredes2013]).
We thank the anonymous referee for his/her constructive and useful comments. We acknowledge support by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) under grants AYA2010-21782-C03-01, AYA2010-21322-C03-01, AYA2010-21097-C03-01, AYA2013-47447-C3-1-P, FPA2010-22056-C06-02 and FPA2013-48381-C6-6-P. We also acknowledge support by the “Generalitat Valenciana” grant “PROMETEO-2009-103”. This research has been supported by the Marie Curie Career Integration Grant 321520. X.P.-F. also acknowledges financial support from Universitat de Barcelona and Generalitat de Catalunya under grants APIF and FI, respectively. V.B-R. also acknowledges financial support from MINECO and European Social Funds through a Ramón y Cajal fellowship.
Physical quantity maps for different clump parameters
=====================================================
The density zoom, tracer, pressure, ratio of momentum-flux to pressure, and velocity maps are presented in Figs. \[f10r1\_zoom\]–\[f30r1\_W\] for different clump parameters: $\chi=10$ and $R_{\rm c}=1~a$; $\chi=10$ and $R_{\rm c}=5~a$; and $\chi=30$ and $R_{\rm c}=1~a$.
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}\
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}\
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}\
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}\
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}\
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}\
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}\
{width="6.4cm"} {width="6.4cm"}
[^1]: Serra Húnter Fellow.
[^2]: RT: instability developed in the contact surface between two fluids of different densities, with the lightest fluid exerting a force on the densest one. KH: instability developed in the contact surface between two fluids of different parallel velocities (see @Chandrasekhar1961).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We aim at reproducing the chemical evolution of the bulge of M31 by means of a detailed chemical evolution model, including radial gas flows coming from the disk. We study the impact of the initial mass function, the star formation rate and the time scale for bulge formation on the metallicity distribution function of stars. We compute several models of chemical evolution using the metallicity distribution of dwarf stars as an observational constraint for the bulge of M31. Then, by means of the model which best reproduces the metallicity distribution function, we predict the \[X/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] relations for several chemical elements (O, Mg, Si, Ca, C, N). Our best model for the bulge of M31 is obtained by means of a robust statistical method and assumes a Salpeter initial mass function, a Schmidt-Kennicutt law for star formation with an exponent k=1.5, an efficiency of star formation of $\sim 15\pm 0.27\, Gyr^{-1}$, and an infall timescale of $\sim 0.10\pm 0.03$Gyr. Our results suggest that the bulge of M31 formed very quickly by means of an intense star formation rate and an initial mass function flatter than in the solar vicinity but similar to that inferred for the Milky Way bulge. The \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratios in the stars of the bulge of M31 should be high for most of the \[Fe/H\] range, as is observed in the Milky Way bulge. These predictions await future data to be proven.'
author:
- |
M. M. Marcon-Uchida $^1$ [^1], F. Matteucci $^{2,3,4}$ [^2], G. A. Lanfranchi $^1$, E. Spitoni $^2$, V. Grieco$^{2,4}$\
$^1$Núcleo de Astrofísica Teórica, Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul, R. Galvão Bueno 868, Liberdade, 01506-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil\
$^2$ Dipartimento di Fisica, Sezione di Astronomia, Universitá degli Studi di Trieste, Via G. B. Tiepolo 11, 34131 Trieste, Italy\
$^3$ INAF Trieste, Via G. B. Tiepolo 11, 34131 Trieste, Italy\
$^4$ INFN Trieste, Via A. Valerio, 2, 34134 Trieste, Italy\
date: 'Accepted . ; in original form xxxx'
title: 'Chemical evolution of the bulge of M31: predictions about abundance ratios'
---
-.6in
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: abundances – galaxies: bulges – galaxies: evolution –
Introduction
============
The study of the chemical evolution of nearby galaxies is a very important tool to improve our knowledge about the process of star formation and galaxy evolution. The proximity of Local Group galaxies allows us to study the chemical properties of their stellar populations. The Andromeda galaxy (M31) is the largest and most massive galaxy of the Local Group of galaxies. Despite its vicinity we have a small amount of information to constrain the chemical evolution models, which is due to its high inclination angle $i=77^o$ (Walterbros & Kennicutt 1987) which allows us only a near edge-on view of the system. In spite of that, individual stars were studied in the bulge of this galaxy and the stellar metallicty distribution could be inferred allowing one to investigate its formation.
Bulges are spheroidal stellar systems located in the center of spiral galaxies which usually can be distinguished from the spiral disk by their different dynamics, chemistry and photometric features. The so-called classical bulges present similar properties to elliptical galaxies and are mainly composed by an old stellar population, since this type of bulge is supposed to have formed very quickly at the beginning of the galaxy evolution. Elmegreen (1999) suggested that in a classical bulge the potential well is too deep to have allowed a self-regulation mechanism or gas outflows as it occurs in spiral disks and dwarf galaxies. Therefore, classical bulges should have passed through a very intense phase of star formation, during a short timescale.
The bulge of M31 is a clear example of classical bulge (Kormendy & Kennicutt 2004) and is one of the few bulges for which we could detect individual stars and objects (Sarajedini & Jablonka 2005, hereafter SJ05, Worthey et al. 2005) that can constrain the chemical evolution models. More recent studies considering Lick indices of M31 bulge stars (Saglia et al. 2010), concluded that with the exception of the region in the inner arcsecs, the stars are uniformly old ($\ge$ 12 Gyr) and with an overabundance of $\alpha$-elements \[$\alpha$/Fe\]$\sim$ +0.2 dex and solar metallicity.
It is interesting to compare the properties of the Galactic bulge and the bulge of M31; Matteucci & Brocato (1990), hereafter MB90, first suggested that to reproduce the evolution of the Milky Way bulge one should assume a fast gas collapse (timescales shorter than 1 Gyr), a very efficient star formation rate (SFR) and an initial mass function (IMF) flatter than the Salpeter (1955) one. MB90 also predicted that the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratios in the Galactic bulge should be supersolar over a large fraction of the metallicity range, as a consequence of assuming a fast and intense bulge evolution, and this prediction was later on confirmed by observations (McWilliam & Rich, 1994). More recently, detailed spectroscopic studies of the Galactioc bulge have confirmed these results (e.g. Johnson et al. 2011,2012.2013,2014; Bensby et al. 2013). In fact, a fast and intense evolution quickly produces a high Fe abundance as a consequence of the pollution from the large number of core-collapse supernovae (SNe). Then, when the bulk of Fe is produced by Type Ia SNe, which explode with a time delay, the \[Fe/H\] in the interstellar medium (ISM) is already high. This is the reason for the large plateau predicted for the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratios.
Ballero et al. 2007a (hereafter BMOR2007) computed a chemical evolution model for the bulge of the Milky Way, confirming that a short and intense period of star formation is needed to fit the observational constraints avaiable for the Galactic bulge at that time. This kind of model is typical of a star burst system with a very strong SFR concentrated in the early evolutionary stages in analogy with elliptical galaxies. Following the same prescriptions, Ballero et al. (2007b, BKM2007) tested the universal IMF (Kroupa 2001) in the bulge of our Galaxy and M31. The authors confirmed the result obtained by MB90 concluding that unlike disks for which one can use a standard IMF (like the Salpeter one) in order to compute their chemical evolution, to reproduce the metallicity distribution of both bulges an index of the IMF $x \sim 1$, flatter than the Salpeter (1955) index, is necessary. Finally, Cescutti & Matteucci (2011) confirmed the results of BMOR2007 but found that even a Salpeter (1955) IMF can reproduce the more recent metallicity distribution function (MDF) of the Galactic bulge together with the \[X/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] relations.
During the last few years the shape and the chemical evolution of the Milky Way bulge have been extensively discussed, unveiling a more complex scenario than simply the classical one. With the advent of large telescopes and large surveys new details about the kinematics, ages and chemical composition of individual stars in the Galactic central region have been available in the literature (Zoccali et al. 2008; Babusiaux et al. 2010; Hill et al. 2001; Gonzalez et al. 2011; Saito et al. 2011; Ness et al. 2013). In particular, Hill et al. (2011) studied the chemical abundances in the center of the Galaxy and found two different stellar populations inside the bulge, while Babusiaux et al. (2010) also found differences in the kinematics of these two populations, the metal poor being compatible with an old spheroid and the metal rich being more compatible with a population formed by a secular evolution process (pseudo-bulge).
In this paper, we compute the chemical evolution of the bulge of M31 using a quite detailed adn updated version of the model built for the Milky Way bulge and adopted also for the M31 bulge by BKM2007. This model includes gas infall and outflow, as in BKM2007, but it contains for the first time also radial gas flows from the disk. We aim at reproducing the MDF and then at providing predictions for the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratios expected in the stars of M31 bulge. The model we adopt is predicting the evolution of several chemical species such as H, D, He, Li ,C, N,O, Ne, Mg, S, Si, Ca, Fe plus others. Here we will focus only on the evolution of H, C, N, O, Mg, Si, Ca and Fe. The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we present the observed MDF for the bulge of M31, in section 3 we briefly describe the adopted chemical evolution model, in section 4 we present the model predictions and finally in section 5 we summarize our conclusions.
The Metallicity Distribution in the bulge of M31
================================================
The MDF of stars is one of the most important observational constraints for chemical evolution models. It can provide us with fundamental information about the star formation and chemical enrichment histories.
SJ05 used Color Magnitude Diagrams (CMD) of stars in the bulge of M31 observed by the HST to derive the MDF for this system. Figure 1 shows the observed distribution for 7771 stars as a function of \[M/H\], where M indicates a generic metallicity, namely the global metal content Z, which is dominated by oxygen.
In SJ05 the authors also estimated the effect of transforming their data as a function of \[Fe/H\], by adopting a relation between the \[$\alpha$/Fe\]= \[M/H\] ratio (where M is dominated by O) and the \[Fe/H\] ratio, as suggested by Ferraro et al. (2000). Unfortunately, this calibration relation assumes a fixed value for the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratio (+0.3 dex), and therefore it is an oversemplification since the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratio evolves with \[Fe/H\]. SJ05 concluded that the data as a function of \[M/H\] should then be scaled down by 0.2 dex. However, we think it is better to compare the theoretical distribution as a function of the \[M/H\] ratio with the data of SJ05. The quantity \[M/H\] is given by models of stellar evolution and includes $\alpha$-elements, where oxygen is the dominant element. On the other hand, BKM2007 compared the results of chemical evolution models with the SJ05 data as a function of \[Fe/H\], after applying the above transformation. They concluded that a good fit was obtained by assuming a fast bulge formation and a flat IMF, in agreement with the conclusions reached for the Milky Way bulge. In particular, they concluded that the IMF should be flatter than the universal IMF (UIMF) suggested by Kroupa (2001). Here we would like to test if the same conclusions hold when a fairer comparison of model predictions with data is performed. In the SJ05 paper, the authors presented also the predictions of the closed-box model for chemical evolution adopting instantaneous recycling approximation and concluded that they obtained a good fit of the MDF of M31 except for the fact that they predicted too many low metallicity stars, in analogy with the G-dwarf problem in the solar vicinity. It is worth noting that instantaneous recycling approximation (I.R.A.) can indeed be applied to oxygen which is produced by core-collapse SNe on short timescales but the SJ05 model was a closed-box one and this is the reason they found a sort of G-dwarf problem.
In our model we assume that the bulge of M31 forms by infall of gas, which avoids overproduction of low metallicity stars.
Model Prescriptions
===================
To reproduce the chemical evolution of the M31 bulge we used an updated version of the model proposed in BKM2007. The new feature of this model is the presence of radial gas flows from the disk of M31. The prescriptions can be summarized as follows:
The bulge is assumed to be formed by infall of primordial gas described by an exponential law, where $\tau$ is the timescale for the gas accretion. $$\label{infall}
\frac{d\Sigma_I(R,t)}{dt}=A(R) e^{-\frac{t}{\tau}},$$ and $A(R)$ is a parameter obtained by reproducing the present time total surface mass density of M31’s bulge (Geehan et al. 2006), and $\tau$ is the time scale for gas accretion. The gas present in the bulge is supposed to be well mixed and homogeneous at any time.
We assumed that the star formation rate (SFR) is described by a simple power law (Schmidt 1959; Kennicutt, 1989) regulated by an efficiency $\nu$: $$\label{sfr}
\Psi(R,t) \propto \nu\Sigma_g^k(R,t)$$ where $\Sigma_g(r,t)$ is the gas surface mass density and $k$ is the slope of the Schmidt law for which we used two different values $k=1.0$ and $k=1.5$. As already demonstrated by other authors (BKMOR2007, MB90,) a high value for the efficiency in the SFR is needed to reproduce the chemical evolution of the Galactic bulge. In this work we start by adopting a value of $\nu \sim 20 Gyr^{-1}$, as suggested by results for the MW bulge (e.g. MB90, BMOR2007; Cescutti and Matteucci, 2011). We do not invoke a threshold in the star formation process, as was originally proposed for self-regulated disks, since there is no evidence that it should exist also in bulges (Elmegreen 1999). However we checked the model using a threshold of $4 M_\odot/pc^{-2}$ and no changes were observed in the results.
We included galactic wind in the model, which induces the gas to be removed from the star formation region but not necessarily to flow out of the Galactic potential well. The wind is treated as in BKM2007 and it develops when the thermal energy of gas overcomes the potential energy of gas. We find that the wind in M31 develops only after the bulk of stars has already formed (roughly at 1 Gyr from the beginning of the evolution). Therefore, the wind has a negligible effect on the chemical abundances but it regulates the star formation process, in the sense that very few stars are formed after 1 Gyr.
The novelty of this model is the inclusion of radial gas flows coming from the disk and we follow the prescriptions adopted in Spitoni et al. (2013), who developed a model for the disk of M31 with radial gas flows and galactic fountains, and where we direct the reader for details. In particular, we adopted the following law for the radial gas flows in M31: $$v_R=0.05R +0.45,$$ where R represents the galactocentric distance. This law provides the best fit to the properties of the M31 disk. Here we assumed that the radial gas flows are only entering into the bulge from the disk.
The I.R.A. is relaxed, since stellar lifetimes are taken into account following the prescriptions of Kodama (1997). The stellar yields used in this work are those of Woosley & Weaver (1995) corrected for metallicity dependent oxygen yields as suggested by François et al. (2004). The rate for Type Ia SN is computed according to the work of Matteucci & Recchi (2001) following the single degenerate scenario for the progenitors of these supernovae.
In order to make the model as simple as possible we invoked a single slope IMF: $$\label{imf}
\phi(M) \propto M^{-(1+x)}$$ Many works have been dedicated to the study of the Initial Mass Function (IMF) and its slope and universality are still subject of discussion. In our models we are going to test the classical Salpeter IMF ($x=1.35$) and the MB90 IMF ($x=1.1$). This last IMF was favoured by BKM2007.
The assumed solar abundances adopted for normalizing the chemical abundances are those derived by Asplund et al. (2009).
The intrinsic parameters for M31 adopted in this work are bulge mass $M_{BM31}=3.3\times10^{10}M_\odot$ and bulge radius $R_{BM31}=4.0$ kpc (Geehan et al. 2006).
Results
=======
In this section we present the predictions for the chemical evolution of the classical bulge of M31. As a first step we computed the model testing different scenarios for the M31 bulge evolution, by varying the main free parameters, especially the IMF and the infall timescale $\tau$. BKM2007 also tested some models for the bulge of M31 reproducing the metallicity distribution of dwarf stars by SJ05. They concluded that the changes in the efficiency of the SFR and in $\tau$, the timescale of gas accretion, do not affect the position of the peak in the distribution but rather its width. The position of the peak is instead influenced mostly by the assumed IMF. To reproduce the distribution observed by SJ05 we tested two different values for the slope of the IMF, two values for the exponent in the surface gas density in the Schmidt-Kennicutt law ($k=1.0$ and $k=1.5$) and two different timescales for the collapsing gas in the infall law ($\tau=0.1$ Gyr as proposed by BMOR2007 for the Milky Way galaxy and $\tau=0.05$ Gyr, to simulate a faster evolution).
Metallicity Distribution
------------------------
Figure 1 shows the predicted metallicity distribution function (MDF) as a function of \[M/H\] compared to observational data. After testing the various predicted MDFS, we found that the models with $k=1$ tend to produce more metal rich stars underestimating the number of metal poor objects On the other hand, models with higher values of $k$ were tested and provided better results, in particular $k=1.5$, which agrees more with the Kennicutt (1998) suggested star formation rate. In order to test the validity of the selected free parameters ($\nu, \tau$) we have then made use of a robust statistical method known as [*c*ross-entropy]{} (Rubinstein 1999) to optimize the determination of the “best-fit” parameters to reproduce the observed MDF in the bulge of M31. The cross-entropy has already been applied succesfully to solving astrophysical problems presented by Caproni et. al. (2009) and references therein, demonstrating the great potential of this method.
Based on the best results that we obtained by using the Salpeter IMF (x=1.35) and exponent in the SFR equal to $k = 1.5$, we fixed these parameters and used the cross entropy method to find the best combination of the star formation efficiency ($\nu$) and time scale in the infall law ($\tau$) to reproduce the MDF of SJ05. Figure 1 shows the best fit found by means of the statistical method, with the following values for the parameters, which are given with their theoretical error: $\nu = 15.00 \pm 0.27 Gyrs^{-1}$ and $\tau = 0.10 \pm 0.03 Gyrs$.
Abundance Ratios
----------------
Chemical abundance ratios are a key parameter to understand the chemical evolution of stellar systems. In particular, the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] $vs$ \[Fe/H\] diagram clearly shows the effects of the time-delay between the chemical enrichment from SNe Type II and SNe Type Ia. These ratios can, therefore, be used to constrain chemical evolution models and to provide hints concerning the evolution of the considered system.
To date, there are no available alpha-element abundances derived from observational data for the bulge of M31. We present here the predictions for \[O/Fe\], \[Mg/Fe\], \[Si/Fe\], \[Ca/Fe\], \[S/Fe\], \[C/Fe\] and \[N/Fe\] $vs$ \[Fe/H\] for the best model derived above, which best fits the metallicity distribution observed in the bulge of M31.
![Predicted \[$\alpha$/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] from our best model. In particular, in the top panel we show O (continuous blue line) and Mg (dashed red line), whereas in the bottom panel we show Si (dashed) and Ca (continuous).](OMG_2.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Predicted \[$\alpha$/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] from our best model. In particular, in the top panel we show O (continuous blue line) and Mg (dashed red line), whereas in the bottom panel we show Si (dashed) and Ca (continuous).](CASI_2.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![Predicted \[N/Fe\] and \[C/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] from our best model. Nitrogen is the dashed red line, while C is the continuous blue one.](CN.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The abundance ratios for the $\alpha$-elements O, Mg, Si, Ca and S, as predicted by our model, present a similar trend, all of them with a long plateau characterized by oversolar abundance ratios. This behaviour is quite similar to what has been predicted for a classical Milky Way bulge (see for example Cescutti & Matteucci, 2011 and Grieco et al. 2012) (see Section 4.3). The long plateau present in all the plots of the $alpha$-elements is due to the fact that the many Type II SNe (high star formation rate) produce a high \[Fe/H\] abundance in the gas before the first Type Ia SNe have time to start polluting the ISM. As one can see, the overabundances of O and Mg are larger than those of Si and Ca, relative to Fe. The reason for that resides in the fact that Ca and Si are produced in a non-negligible way also by Type Ia SNe, whereas O and Mg are produced exclusively by core-collapse SNe. The \[C/Fe\] and \[N/Fe\] abundance ratios present an opposite trends, because the \[C/Fe\] relation slightly increases with declining \[Fe/H\], whereas the \[N/Fe\] tends to decrease. The slight increase of C is due to the fact that C is produced in massive stars and also in low and intermediate mass stars. So, it shows a slight overabundance relative to Fe, similarly to what happens in the solar vicinity (see for example Romano et al. 2010). For N the situation is more complex because of the still existing uncertanties in its formation. The production of N in stars, in fact, is still under discussion as it can result from both primary and secondary nucleosynthesis. In the first case nitrogen is created from H-burning by means of carbon which has been produced by the star, whereas in the secondary production N comes from the burning of C and O already present in the gas out of which the star formed. The secondary nucleosynthesis should be common to all stars while the primary production should occur in intermediate mass stars which go through dredge-up episodes during the asymptotic giant branch, as well as in massive rotating stars (see Meynet & Maeder, 2002; Chiappini & al. 2006). If primary N from massive stars of all metallicity is taken into account, as originally suggested by Matteucci (1986), the \[N/Fe\] ratio would be almost constant all over the \[Fe/H\] range. In the Figure 3, \[N/Fe\] increases with \[Fe/H\] since here we have assumed that N is produced as a secondary element in massive stars. It is interesting to note that to explain N in the stars in the halo of the Milky Way, primary N from massive stars would be required (Chiappini et al. 2006). Thus, probably the same situation holds for the stars of M31’s halo.
Comparison with the bulge of Milky Way
--------------------------------------
Grieco et al. (2012) presented a chemical evolution model for the Milky Way bulge, taking into account the results of bulge surveys, modelling two different stellar populations: a metal-poor (MP) and a metal-rich (MR) one in the nuclear region of the Galaxy. They concluded that these populations were formed in different episodes: the first one, from which the MP population was produced, was described by typical classical bulge chemical evolution, whereas the second one, which produced the MR population, was assumed to form stars with a delayed time and out of pre-enriched gas with a longer timescale for the infalling gas.
The chemical evolution model for the MP of the Milky Way bulge presented by Grieco et al. (2012) is indeed very similiar to our classical bulge model for M31 predicting a very high efficiency star formation in a short time scale ($\nu_{MW} = \sim 25 Gyr^{-1}$ and $\tau_{MW}= 0.1$ Gyr). By comparing the two MDFs in Figure 4, one can notice that the MW bulge model shows a peak at a slightly higher metallicity and less metal poor stars than the bulge of M31, but they look substantially very similar, as should be expected from the assumptions made. Note that in Fig. 4 the two distributions are both computed as functions of \[M/H\], whereas often the MDF of the MW bulge as a function of \[Fe/H\] is compared to that of M31 as a function of \[M/H\]. The similarity between the two MDFs is not surprising since we assumed that both the MW bulge old population and the population of the bulge of M31 suffered strong bursts of star formation and evolved on quite short timescales. The small difference is then probably due to the different exponent for the gas density adopted in the SFR: $k=1$ for the MW bulge and $k=1.5$ for the M31 bulge.
Finally, in Fig. 5 we show a comparison between the predicted \[Mg/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] for the bulge of M31 (best model) and for the Milky Way bulge from Grieco et al. (2012). We show Mg because is a typical $\alpha$-element measured in the Galactic bulge stars and the trends for the others $\alpha$’s are following the same behaviour of Mg. In particular, the MW bulge model predicts a very similar trend to that of M31 bulge. However, the \[Mg/Fe\] ratio declines slightly before and faster for the bulge of the Milky Way than for the bulge of M31; this is due to the more intense star formation in the MW bulge which consumes the gas faster and decreases before the star formation in the M31 bulge, with the consequence of having higher \[Mg/Fe\] ratios because the high Mg production related to the SFR, as compared to the Fe production from Type Ia SNe which continues in spite of the low SFR.
![Predicted MDFs for the MP population in the bulge of the Milky Way (Grieco et al. 2012) (dotted red line) and our best model for the bulge of M31 (continuous blue line). Both distributions are functions of \[M/H\] and have been both convolved with a gaussian with an error of 0.25 dex.](GAUSS_MW_M31.eps)
![Predicted \[Mg/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\] from our best model compared with the predictions for the MW bulge from Grieco et al. (2012).](Mg_MW_M31.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
In this work we reproduced the observed MDF of M31 by using an updated version of the chemical evolution model for a classical bulge developed by BMOR2007 and BMK2007. The main differences between the model of BKM2007 for the bulge of M31 and the present one, is our inclusion of radial gas flows entering the bulge from the disk and the adopted IMF. We have also predicted for the first time the chemical abundance ratios of $\alpha$-elements by means of the model that best fits the MDF of M31. These are real new predictions because there are not yet high resolution data relative to abundances in the stars in M31 bulge.
Our conclusions can be summarized as follows:
- We have run several models testing the influence of some parameters such as the IMF, the time scale for the infalling gas ($\tau$) and the exponent in the SFR ($k$). We conclude that for the bulge of M31 (which is at least 1.5 times more massive than the bulge of our Galaxy) a higher exponent for the gas surface mass density in the star formation law ($k=1.5$) is required to reproduce the observed metallicity distribution. Models with $k=1.0$ produced more metal rich stars and underestimated the number of metal poor dwarfs in the bulge of M31.
- Previous papers (MB90 and BMOR2007) had concluded that to reproduce the chemical evolution of the bulge of the Milky Way one has to use an IMF flatter than Salpeter one ($x \sim 1.1$), but Cescutti & Matteucci (2011) suggested that also a Salpeter (x=1.35) IMF can reproduce the MW bulge MDF, as traced by the most recent data. In the present work we have shown that using a classical bulge model with the Salpeter IMF we can reproduce the MDF of the bulge of M31, at variance with previous results (BKM2007). Moreover, we have used a robust statistical method (cross-entropy) to optimize the ’best-fit’ for two free parameters of the model (the SFR efficiency and the infall timescale), taking the Salpeter IMF and the $k=1.5$ as fixed parameters.
- By making use of the cross-entropy method to find the best fit for $\nu$ (efficiency of star formation) and $\tau$, the two main parameters of the model, we found our Best Model that suggests a quite high efficiency of star formation ($\nu =15.00 \pm 0.34 Gyr^{-1}$), and a short timescale for the gas infall ($\tau =0.1 \pm 0.03 Gyr$), slightly lower than that suggested for the MW bulge (0.3-0.5Gyr, Cescutti & Matteucci, 2011; Grieco et al. 2012). This model reproduces almost perfectly the observed MDF of SJ05. We point out that our theoretical MDF and the SJ05 one are both functions of the global metal content \[M/H\]. We have also tested a model without radial gas flows and the differences in the derived parameters are small. The small effect is due to the fact that the radial gas flows coming from the disk carry a modest amount of gas into the bulge, also because M31 bulge does not have a bar that could efficiently channel the gas via self-itersecting orbits.
- The MDF distribution of the metal poor population in the bulge of the Milky Way (Grieco et al. 2012) is somewhat slightly more metal rich than the M31 bulge population but both systems have experienced a similar evolution, except than in the Milky Way bulge there seems to be another stellar population formed as a consequence of secular evolution. The main differences among the predicted MDFs resides in the exponent assumed for the SFR which is $k=1.5$ for the M31 bulge and $k=1$ for the MW bulge, as well as the lack of radial gas flows in the MW bulge. It is worth recalling here that the main parameters influencing the MDF are the IMF, the efficiency of SF and the time-scale for gas infall. In particular, the IMF affects mainly the position of the peak in the MDF, while the efficiency of star formation plays a role in the shape of the MDF (the height of the peak and its extension in terms of \[M/H\]). The timescale of infall is not so important as the other two parameters but it influences the height of the peak (see BMOR2007).
- Concerning the $\alpha$-elements versus Fe, we have obtained a long plateau and oversolar abundances for the \[$\alpha$/Fe\] $vs$ \[Fe/H\] diagram for O, Mg, Si, S and Ca, similar to those observed for the Milky Way bulge (see Cescutti & Matteucci, 2011 and references therein). There are also stars with lower \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratios but they are a negligible fraction. Observational measurements of the abundances in the bulge of M31 are necessary to better constrain the chemical evolution models. Saglia et al. (2010) studied the bulge of M31 by means of Lick indices and simple stellar population models, and concluded that most of its stars are uniformely old ($\ge 12 Gyr$), of solar metallicity and showing moderate overabundances of $\alpha$-elements. We compared also the \[Mg/Fe\] vs.\[Fe/H\] predicted by Grieco et al. (2012) for the MP population of the Galactic bulge with the same relation predicted for M31. Even in this case, the two relations are very similar, thus confirming that the bulge of M31 and the MP population of the Milky Way bulge formed very quickly by means of strong starburts, as indicated by the overabundances of $\alpha$-elements for a large range of \[Fe/H\] in both bulges. We hope that our results can be relevant also to a study of elliptical galaxies, given the similarity between classical bulges and elliptical galaxies of comparable mass (see Renzini, 2006 and references therein). Future observations with very large telescopes will possibly be able to verify the validity of our predictions.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
M.M.Marcon-Uchida acknowledges important discussions with Luca Vincoletto. M.M.Marcon-Uchida acknowledges financial support from the Brazilian agency FAPESP (process: 2010/17142-4). F.M., V.G. and E.S. acknowledge financial support from PRIN MIUR-2010-2011, “The Chemical and Dynamical Evolution of the Milky Way and Local Group Galaxies”, prot. N.2010LY5N2T. We thanks I.J. Danziger for reading the manuscript. We also thank the referee, R. M. Rich for important suggestions that improved the paper.
[99]{} Babusiaux, C., G[ó]{}mez, A., Hill, V., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, 77
Ballero, S. K., Matteucci, F., Origlia, L., & Rich, R. M., 2007a, A&A, 467, 123 (BMOR2007)
Ballero, S. K., Kroupa, P., & Matteucci, F., 2007b, A&A, 467, 117 (BKM2007)
Bensby, T., Yee, J. C., Feltzing, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, AA147
Caproni, A., Monteiro, H., & Abraham, Z., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 1415
Cescutti, G., & Matteucci, F., 2011, A&A, 525, 126
Chiappini, C., Hirschi, R., Meynet, G., et al., 2006, A&A, 449, L27
Elmegreen, B. G., 1999, ApJ, 517, 103
Fran[ç]{}ois, P., Matteucci, F., Cayrel, R., et al., 2004, A&A, 421, 613
Ferraro, F. R., Montegriffo, P., Origlia, L., & Fusi Pecci, F., 2000, AJ, 119, 1282
Geehan, J. J., Fardal, M. A., Babul, A., & Guhathakurta, P., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 996
Gonzalez, O. A., Rejkuba, M., Zoccali, M., et al., 2011, A&A, 530, 54
Grieco, V., Matteucci, F., Pipino, A., & Cescutti, G. 2012, A&A, 548, A60
Hill, V., Lecureur, A., G[ó]{}mez, A., et al., 2011, A&A, 534, 80
Johnson, C. I., Rich, R. M., Fulbright, J. P., Valenti, E., & McWilliam, A., 2011, ApJ, 732, 108
Johnson, C. I., Rich, R. M., Kobayashi, C., & Fulbright, J. P., 2012, ApJ, 749, 175
Johnson, C. I., McWilliam, A., & Rich, R. M., 2013, ApJL, 775, L27
Johnson, C. I., Rich, R. M., Kobayashi, C., Kunder, A., & Koch, A., 2014, arXiv:1407.2282
Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., 1989, ApJ, 344, 685
Kodama, T. 1997, Ph.D. Thesis,
Kormendy, J., & Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., 2004, ARAA, 42, 603
Kroupa, P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231
Matteucci, F., & Brocato, E., 1990, ApJ, 365, 539 (MB90)
Matteucci, F., & Recchi, S., 2001, ApJ, 558,351
Matteucci, F., 1986, PASP, 98, 973
Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 561
McWilliam, A., & Rich, R. M., 1994, ApJS, 91, 749
Ness, M., Freeman, K., Athanassoula, E., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 836
Renzini, A., 2006 ARA&A, 44, 141
Romano, D., Karakas, A. I., Tosi, M., & Matteucci, F., 2010, A&A, 522, 32
Rubinstein, H. Y. 1999, Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, 2, 127
Saglia, R. P., Fabricius, M., Bender, R., et al., 2010, A&A, 509, 61
Saito, R. K., Zoccali, M., McWilliam, A., et al., 2011, AJ, 142, 76
Salpeter, E. E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Spitoni, E., Matteucci, F., & Marcon-Uchida, M. M., 2013, A&A, 551, 123 Sarajedini, A., & Jablonka, P., 2005, AJ, 130, 1627 (SJ05)
Schmidt, M., 1959, ApJ, 129, 243
Walterbos, R. A. M., & Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., 1987, A&AS, 69, 311
Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A., 1995, ApJS, 101, 181
Worthey, G., Espa[ñ]{}a, A., MacArthur, L. A., & Courteau, S. 2005, ApJ, 631, 820
Zoccali, M., Hill, V., Lecureur, A., et al., 2008, A&A, 486, 177
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'B. Nisini'
- 'M. Benedettini'
- 'C. Codella'
- 'T. Giannini'
- 'R. Liseau'
- 'D. Neufeld'
- 'M. Tafalla'
- 'E. F. van Dishoeck'
- 'R. Bachiller'
- 'A. Baudry'
- 'A. O. Benz'
- 'E. Bergin'
- 'P. Bjerkeli'
- 'G. Blake'
- 'S. Bontemps'
- 'J. Braine'
- 'S. Bruderer'
- 'P. Caselli'
- 'J. Cernicharo'
- 'F. Daniel'
- 'P. Encrenaz'
- 'A.M. di Giorgio'
- 'C. Dominik'
- 'S. Doty'
- 'M. Fich'
- 'A. Fuente'
- 'J.R. Goicoechea'
- 'Th. de Graauw'
- 'F. Helmich'
- 'G. Herczeg'
- 'F. Herpin'
- 'M. Hogerheijde'
- 'T. Jacq'
- 'D. Johnstone'
- 'J. J[ø]{}rgensen'
- 'M. Kaufman'
- 'L. Kristensen'
- 'B. Larsson'
- 'D. Lis'
- 'M. Marseille'
- 'C. McCoey'
- 'G. Melnick'
- 'M. Olberg'
- 'B. Parise'
- 'J. Pearson'
- 'R. Plume'
- 'C. Risacher'
- 'J. Santiago'
- 'P. Saraceno'
- 'R. Shipman'
- 'T.A. van Kempen'
- 'R. Visser'
- 'S. Viti'
- 'S. Wampfler'
- 'F. Wyrowski'
- 'F. van der Tak'
- 'U.A. Y[i]{}ld[i]{}z'
- 'B. Delforge'
- 'J. Desbat'
- 'W.A. Hatch'
- 'I. Péron'
- 'R. Schieder'
- 'J.A. Stern'
- 'D. Teyssier'
- 'N. Whyborn'
subtitle: '*Herschel*-PACS map of L1157[^1]'
title: 'Water cooling of shocks in protostellar outflows: '
---
[The far-IR/sub-mm spectral mapping facility provided by the *Herschel*-PACS and HIFI instruments has made it possible to obtain, for the first time, images of [H$_2$O]{} emission with a spatial resolution comparable to ground based mm/sub-mm observations.]{} [In the framework of the Water in Star-forming regions with *Herschel* (WISH) key program, maps in water lines of several outflows from young stars are being obtained, to study the water production in shocks and its role in the outflow cooling. This paper reports the first results of this program, presenting a PACS map of the o-[H$_2$O]{} 179 [$\mu$m]{} transition obtained toward the young outflow L1157.]{} [The 179 [$\mu$m]{} map is compared with those of other important shock tracers, and with previous single-pointing ISO, SWAS, and Odin water observations of the same source that allow us to constrain the [H$_2$O]{} abundance and total cooling. ]{} [Strong [H$_2$O]{} peaks are localized on both shocked emission knots and the central source position. The [H$_2$O]{} 179 [$\mu$m]{} emission is spatially correlated with emission from [H$_2$]{} rotational lines, excited in shocks leading to a significant enhancement of the water abundance. Water emission peaks along the outflow also correlate with peaks of other shock-produced molecular species, such as SiO and NH$_3$. A strong [H$_2$O]{}peak is also observed at the location of the proto-star, where none of the other molecules have significant emission. The absolute 179 [$\mu$m]{} intensity and its intensity ratio to the [H$_2$O]{} 557 GHz line previously observed with Odin/SWAS indicate that the water emission originates in warm compact clumps, spatially unresolved by PACS, having a [H$_2$O]{} abundance of the order of 10$^{-4}$. This testifies that the clumps have been heated for a time long enough to allow the conversion of almost all the available gas-phase oxygen into water. The total [H$_2$O]{} cooling is $\sim$10$^{-1}$ L$_\odot$, about 40% of the cooling due to [H$_2$]{} and 23% of the total energy released in shocks along the L1157 outflow. ]{}
Introduction
============
Among the main coolants in molecular shocks, water is the tracer most sensitive to physical variations and the temporal evolution of protostellar outflows, thus representing a very powerful probe of their shock conditions and thermal history (e.g., Bergin et al. 1998). Water emission and excitation in shocks were studied extensively for the first time with the *Infrared Space Observatory* (ISO), the first space facility with spectroscopic capabilities in the mid- and far-IR. ISO surveyed the water emission in a large sample of outflows from young stellar objects (YSOs), providing a global statistical picture of the importance of water in the outflow cooling and of variations in its abundance with shock properties and ages (see e.g., Nisini 2003, van Dishoeck 2004). Following ISO, the SWAS and Odin facilities made it possible to observe the ortho-[H$_2$O]{}fundamental line at 557 GHz, providing important constraints on the water abundance and kinematics in the cold outflow gas components (e.g., Franklin et al. 2008, Bjerkeli et al. 2009). All these facilities, however, had poor spatial resolution (i.e. greater than 80$\arcsec$), which did not allow one to locate the origin of the water emission nor study variations in abundances and excitation within individual flows.
In this framework, a sample of YSO outflows will be surveyed in different water lines by the PACS and HIFI instruments onboard the *Herschel* satellite, as part of the key program WISH (Water In Star-forming-regions with *Herschel*[^2]). This paper presents the first results obtained from this survey, consisting of a PACS map of the H$_{2}$O 2$_{12}$-1$_{01}$ 179 [$\mu$m]{} line covering the outflow of the protostar L1157-mm, obtained during the *Herschel* Science Demonstration Phase. The 179 [$\mu$m]{} line is the transition connecting the lower two back-bone levels of ortho-[H$_2$O]{}. It is therefore one of the brightest water lines expected in collisionally excited conditions, thus representing an ideal tracer of the water distribution in shocked regions. L1157 is a well known outflow driven by a low mass class 0 object (L1157-mm, $ L_{bol} \sim
8.3$ L$_\odot$, D=440 pc, Froebrich 2005). It is considered to be the prototype of chemically active flows, given the large number of different species detected in its shocked regions (e.g., Bachiller & Perez-Gutierrez 1997). This paper is presenting the first of several observations planned for this source by the WISH team.
Observations
============
Observations were performed on 26 October 2009 with the PACS instrument (Poglitsch et al. 2010) onboard the *Herschel* Space Observatory (Pilbratt et al. 2010) in line spectroscopic mode, with the grating centred on the [H$_2$O]{} 2$_{12}$-1$_{01}$ line at 179.527 [$\mu$m]{}. The L1157 outflow region (of about $6\arcmin \times 2\arcmin$) was covered by 3 individual PACS raster maps, arranged along the outflow axis. Each map consists of 3$\times$3 PACS frames acquired in steps of 40$\arcsec$. The instrument is a $5 \times 5$ pixel array providing a spatial sampling of 9.4$\arcsec$/pixel, while the spectral resolution at 179 [$\mu$m]{} is $R\sim$1500 (i.e., $\sim$210 kms$^{-1}$). The data were reduced with HIPE 2.0. Additional IDL routines were developed to construct a final integrated and continuum-subtracted line map. Flux calibrations used calibration files obtained by ground tests that remain very uncertain at the time of paper writing, especially for extended sources. To evaluate the flux uncertainty, we compared with the three measurements performed by the ISO satellite along the outflow (Giannini et al. 2001). To do that, we performed aperture photometry of the line emission in the PACS map within the 80$\arcsec$ ISO circular beam. The ratio of PACS to ISO fluxes ranges between 1.1 and 1.8 at the three positions: we adopt this as the uncertainty in our quantitative analysis. The typical rms noise across the map is of the order of 210$^{-6}$ ergs$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$sr$^{-1}$.
Results and comparison with other tracers
=========================================
Figure 1 presents the PACS map of the 179 [$\mu$m]{} line emission. In the same figure, the [H$_2$O]{} map is overlaid with contours of the emission from the [H$_2$]{} 0–0 S(1) (Neufeld et al. 2009), CO 2-1 and SiO 3-2 (Bachiller et al. 2001) transitions. The water map exhibits several emission peaks corresponding to the positions of previously-known shocked knots, labelled as B0-B1-B2 for the south east blue-shifted lobe, and R0-R-R2 for the north west red-shifted lobe, following the nomenclature of Bachiller et al. (2001). These emission knots represent the actual working surfaces of a precessing and pulsed jet and are thus associated with the present location of the active shock regions. With respect to CO, [H$_2$O]{} emission appears more localized, having a less prominent diffuse component. About 60% of the total 179 [$\mu$m]{} flux is found within 30$\arcsec$ apertures centered on the knots. This could be partly related to the line excitation: the 179 [$\mu$m]{} line excitation temperature is $\sim$80 K above the o-H$_2$O ground state (compared to the $17$ K for CO 2-1), and the critical density of its upper level is above 10$^8$ [cm$^{-3}$]{} for $T \la$ 500 K. It may however also be a consequence of the specific conditions needed to ensure a significant production of water. The [H$_2$O]{} abundance is indeed significantly higher only in shocks strong enough to release the water ice located on grain mantles by sputtering and grain-grain collisions or to activate the gas-phase reactions that convert the gas-phase oxygen into water. Both these processes become efficient at shock velocities $v_s \ga$ 15 [kms$^{-1}$]{} (Caselli et al. 1997, Jim[é]{}nez-Serra et al. 2008, Kaufman & Neufeld 1996). In this respect, we note that the [H$_2$O]{} emission peaks correspond rather closely to both the position and the relative intensity of the [H$_2$]{} rotational emission (with the [H$_2$O]{} 179 [$\mu$m]{}/[H$_2$]{} 17 [$\mu$m]{} ratio in the range $\sim$(2–3)$\times 10^{-2}$ for all the [H$_2$]{} peaks). Peaks of low-$J$ [H$_2$]{} pure rotational lines are associated with warm gas (with $T \sim$ 300-500 K) excited in low velocity non-dissociative shocks that are tracers of regions in which a high [H$_2$O]{} abundance is expected. Other molecules are known to have strongly enhanced abundances in shocks. One of the most well studied of these molecules is SiO, for which Fig. 1 shows that, like water, its emission is very localized around the shocked knots. A similar behavior is found for other molecules, such as NH$_{3}$ and CH$_{3}$OH (Bachiller et al. 2001, Tafalla & Bachiller 1995).
The strongest water peak is located at the position of the B1 knot, which is known to be the most chemically active of the L1157 spots (e.g. Bachiller & Perez Guitierrez 1997, Benedettini et al. 2007, Codella et al. 2010). This knot at near-IR wavelengths appears as a bow shock with intense [H$_2$]{} 2.12[$\mu$m]{} emission (Davis & Eislöffel 1995) and has a significant [H$_2$]{} column density enhancement (Nisini et al. 2010). Although the spatial resolution of the present observations prevents us from completely resolving the bow shock structure, the observed morphology at the B1/B0 positions suggests that water emission is mainly localized at the bow apex and eastern wing. A similar morphology has been observed for molecules such as SiO, NH$_3$, and CS (Benedettini et al. 2007, Tafalla & Bachiller 1997), while other shock produced molecules, such as CH$ _{3} $OH, noticeably have emission localized on the bow western wing (e.g. Codella et al. 2009). This behavior probably relates to an asymmetry in the excitation conditions along the bow structure, most likely induced by the jet precession or the propagation of shocks in an inhomogeneous medium.
Strong, spatially unresolved, water emission is also detected on-source. This localized emission can originate in different components, including shocks impacting on a dense medium at the jet base, the infalling protostellar envelope, or emission from a UV-heated outflow cavity, as discussed in van Kempen et al. (2010) for the HH46-IRS case. The precise origin of this emission will be investigated by dedicated *Herschel* observations, but we note here the interesting evidence that no other molecule exhibits significant emission at the central position. In particular, the non-detection of strong emission from molecules such as CH$_3$OH indicates that grain ice mantle evaporation in the protostellar envelope is unlikely to be the origin of the on-source [H$_2$O]{} emission, since the two molecules should desorb at similar temperatures. The non-detection of the [H$_2$]{} 0–0 S(1) line at the central position is also remarkable. This may be caused by the heavy extinction close to the central source. Assuming an intrinsic H$_2$O179[$\mu$m]{}/[H$_2$]{}17[$\mu$m]{} ratio in the range of that observed along the outflow, we estimate that $A_v$ on-source should be $\ga$ 150 mag to be able to explain the [H$_2$]{} line non-detection. Alternatively, C-type shocks with very high pre-shock densities ($\ge$10$^6$[cm$^{-3}$]{}) and velocities between 20 and 40 [kms$^{-1}$]{} are expected to have a large [H$_2$O]{}/[H$_2$]{} cooling ratio (Kaufman & Neufeld 1996).
Water abundance and total cooling
=================================
To constrain the range of water column densities that could produce the observed 179 [$\mu$m]{} emission, we consider the SWAS and Odin observations of the [H$_2$O]{} 1$_{10}$-1$_{01}$ 557 GHz (538[$\mu$m]{}) line observed in this outflow (Franklin et al. 2008, Bjerkeli et al. 2009). Given the large size of the apertures of these two instruments relative to the PACS spatial resolution, we evaluate here only properties averaged over large outflow regions. In particular, we consider the Odin observations acquired towards the blue (B) and red (R) outflow lobes at offsets (+29$ \arcsec $,-52$ \arcsec $) and (-21$ \arcsec $,+121$ \arcsec $) (Bjerkeli et al. 2009). The 179[$\mu$m]{}/557GHz intensity ratios are obtained by diluting the PACS observations to the 126$\arcsec$ Odin resolution. The same procedure was adopted for the SWAS observation that encompasses almost the entire L1157 PACS mapped region with its 3.5$^{\prime} \times$ 5.0$^{\prime}$ elliptical aperture.
![LVG theoretical predictions of the 179 [$\mu$m]{} line brightness versus the 179[$\mu$m]{}/557GHz line ratio, compared with observed values. See text for the details. ](14603fig2.eps){width="9cm"}
Figure 2 presents large velocity gradient (LVG) predictions, assuming a slab geometry, of the 179 [$\mu$m]{} line brightness versus the 179[$\mu$m]{}/557GHz line ratio, compared to the observations combined above. The absolute brightnesses are those averaged within an area enclosing 90% of the total PACS emission inside each considered Odin/SWAS aperture. These emitting areas are 5.9$\times 10^{-8}$, 8.0$\times 10^{-8}$, and 2.7$\times 10^{-7}$ sr for the R, B, and the SWAS apertures, respectively. The line intensity derived in this way was considered to be a lower limit to the true 179 [$\mu$m]{} brightness if the PACS emission originates in a clumpy medium, of which the clump size is smaller than the *Herschel* diffraction limit at 179 [$\mu$m]{}.
In the figure, observations are indicated as boxes that take into consideration the uncertainty of a factor of about 1.5 in the 179 [$\mu$m]{} flux, estimated by comparing with the ISO observations (Sect. 2). Theoretical curves were derived as a function of the o-[H$_2$O]{} column density, using the RADEX code (Van der Tak et al. 2007) assuming temperature and density conditions measured from the [H$_2$]{} *Spitzer* observations or ground-based millimeter observations (Nisini et al. 2010, Nisini et al. 2007, Mikami et al. 1992). The temperature is between 300 and 500 K and the density is in the range 1–5$\times10^{5}$[cm$^{-3}$]{}, the blue lobe being on average colder and denser than the red lobe. Part of the 557 GHz emission can arise from a gas colder than these assumed values, given the lower excitation temperature of this line with respect to the 179 [$\mu$m]{} line. To evaluate the effect of different temperature components along the line of sight on the ratio of the two considered transitions, Fig.2 also plots the theoretical predictions assuming a temperature stratification where the column density in each layer at a given $T$ varies as $T^{-b}$ (Neufeld & Yuan 2008). A minimum and maximum temperature of 100 K and 4000 K, respectively are assumed, and $b$ values between 2 and 4, i.e., the range of values that consistently fit the [H$_2$]{} rotational lines (Neufeld et al. 2009). These curves give the same range of predicted values as the single $T$ curves, indicating that contributions from high-temperature gas do not significantly affect the considered transitions.
Several general conclusions can be drawn from the inspection of Fig. 2. Firstly, the data are consistent with model predictions only if we assume that the real emitting areas are smaller than those estimated from the PACS map. In particular, agreement with the theoretical curves is found for covering factors ($f_c$) $\sim$ 0.1-0.2, which suggests that the emission is concentrated on some unresolved emission knots that together do not fill an area larger than a few tens of arcsec. This is not unexpected, since interferometric mm observations illustrate the extreme clumpiness of the shocked gas, individual knots being of sizes of a few arcsec each (e.g., Benedettini et al. 2007, Lefloch et al. 2010). We note that the typical length scale for planar C-type shocks at the considered densities is of the order of 10$^{16}$ cm, i.e., about 1/10 of the PACS spatial resolution at D=440 pc. The observed 179[$\mu$m]{}/557GHz ratios, ranging between 10 and 20, are consistent with $N$([H$_2$O]{}) $\sim$ 2–9$\times 10^{16}$ [cm$^{-2}$]{} (assuming a $\Delta$v = 15 kms$ ^{-1}$ from the 557 GHz line width). The [H$_2$]{} column densities, averaged within the PACS emitting areas, were measured from the [H$_2$]{} mid-IR rotational lines and results in $\sim$ 5$\times 10^{19}$[cm$^{-2}$]{} in both regions covered by the B and R observations. The water abundance in the unresolved clumps is therefore estimated to be $\sim N$([H$_2$O]{})/$N$([H$_2$]{})$\times f_c \sim 0.6-3\,10^{-4}$ (with a [H$_2$O]{} o/p ratio of 3). Table 1 reports in more detail the range of values derived in each considered aperture. The total mass of the shocked gas involved in the 179 [$\mu$m]{} emission is of the order of 510$^{-3}$ M$_\odot$, which is only a small fraction ($\sim$ 1/100) of the total mass of the outflow estimated from CO observations (e.g. Bachiller et al. 2001). Lefloch et al. (2010) show that [H$_2$O]{} components with different velocities are discernible in the 557 GHz data acquired by HIFI in a 40beam centred on the L1157-B1 knot. They separately analyse the different velocity components, confirming that small filling factors are required to explain their observations and finding that the component of higher velocity is the one exhibiting the water abundance of the order of $10^{-4}$. Lower [H$_2$O]{} abundance values, between 10$^{-6}$ and 10$^{-5}$, were estimated using only the SWAS and Odin 557 GHz emission, assuming that the 557 GHz emission originates in the same cool gas traced by the low-$J$ CO emission, thus a gas with a larger covering factor and lower temperature than considered here (Neufeld et al. 2000, Franklin et al. 2008, Bjerkeli et al. 2009). Combining ISO-179 [$\mu$m]{} emission and SWAS observations, Benedettini et al. (2002) derived a water abundance for the warm shocked gas of $\sim$ 510$^{-5}$, thus in the lower range of values estimated in the present analysis. However, the ISO observations did not cover the entire L1157 outflow 179 [$\mu$m]{} emission, and the inferred ISO179[$\mu$m]{}/SWAS557GHz ratio was underestimated by about a factor of 2.
--- ------- ------- --------------- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------------
$R^a$ $T^b$ $n$(H$_2)^b$ $N$(oH$_2$O) X(H$_2$O)$^b$ $A^c$
K [cm$^{-3}$]{} 10$^{16}$[cm$^{-2}$]{} 10$^{-4}$ sr
B 14-20 300 310$^5$ 3-9 0.6-3 $\sim$ 5.210$^{-9}$
R 10-14 500 110$^5$ 2-4 0.8-2 $\sim$ 9.410$^{-9}$
--- ------- ------- --------------- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------------
: Estimated water abundances
$^a$ 179[$\mu$m]{}/557GHz ratio within the Odin aperture.\
$^b$ See text for references and assumptions on $T, n$ and $N$([H$_2$]{}).\
$^c$ Effective emission area that reconciles the observed and predicted 179 [$\mu$m]{} line intensity within the Odin aperture.
Given the considered conditions, the 179 [$\mu$m]{} line contributes to about 30-40% of the water emission in the outflow: the total estimated [H$_2$O]{} luminosity is $\sim$ 8-9$\times 10^{-2}$L$_\odot$, which is about 40% of the total [H$_2$]{} shock luminosity (0.2 L$_\odot$, Nisini et al. 2010) and about 23% of the total shock cooling in the L1157 outflow, if we also consider the contributions given by CO and \[\] derived from ISO observations by Giannini et al. (2001). The high water abundance estimated in the present analysis is consistent with predictions of non-dissociative shock models, in which water is mainly produced by endothermic reactions, activated at $T \ga$ 300 K, where all the available gas-phase oxygen is converted into [H$_2$O]{}, or by the sputtering of icy grain mantles behind the shock. According to Bergin et al. (1998), the time needed to complete this process is of the order of 10$^3$ yr, for $T$ = 400 K. This is comparable to the shock timescales estimated from [H$_2$]{} observations of individual emission knots of the L1157 outflow (Nisini et al. 2010), thus supporting the idea that the water in this outflow has had time to reach its maximum allowed abundance.
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a PACS spectral map of the [H$_2$O]{} 179 [$\mu$m]{} transition obtained toward the L1157 protostellar outflow. Strong water emission peaks have been found at the location of previously-known shocked spots and correlate well with [H$_2$]{} mid-IR rotational lines, as well as other important shock tracers, such as SiO and NH$_3$. The absolute 179 [$\mu$m]{} intensity and the intensity ratios with respect to the previously-observed 557 GHz line, indicate that the water emission originates in warm compact clumps, spatially unresolved by PACS, that have a [H$_2$O]{} abundance of the order of 10$^{-4}$. The total [H$_2$O]{} cooling has been estimated to be of the order of 8-910$^{-2}$L$_\odot$, representing about 40% of the cooling due to [H$_2$]{} and 23% of the total energy released in shocks along the L1157 outflow.
Additional *Herschel* PACS/HIFI observations of the L1157 outflow are planned by the WISH program. These will enable us to investigate variations in the water abundance within the outflow and correlate these with kinematical information.
This program is made possible thanks to the HIFI guaranteed time and the PACS instrument builders.
Bachiller, R., & Perez Gutierrez, M. 1997, , 487, L93 Bachiller, R., P[é]{}rez Guti[é]{}rrez, M., Kumar, M. S. N., & Tafalla, M. 2001, , 372, 899 Benedettini, M., Viti, S., Giannini, T., Nisini, B., Goldsmith, P. F., & Saraceno, P. 2002, , 395, 657 Benedettini, M., Viti, S., Codella, C., Bachiller, R., Gueth, F., Beltr[á]{}n, M. T., Dutrey, A., & Guilloteau, S. 2007, , 381, 1127
Bergin, E. A., Neufeld, D. A., & Melnick, G. J. 1998, , 499, 777 Bjerkeli, P., et al. 2009, , 507, 1455 Caselli, P., Hartquist, T. W., & Havnes, O. 1997, , 322, 296
Codella, C., et al. 2009, , 507, L25
Codella et al. 2010, this volume Davis, C..J. & Eislöffel, J. 1995, A&A, 300, 851 Franklin, J., Snell, R. L., Kaufman, M. J., Melnick, G. J., Neufeld, D. A., Hollenbach, D. J., & Bergin, E. A. 2008, , 674, 1015
Froebrich, D. 2005, , 156, 169 Giannini, T., Nisini, B., & Lorenzetti, D. 2001, , 555, 40 Jim[é]{}nez-Serra, I., Caselli, P., Mart[í]{}n-Pintado, J., & Hartquist, T. W. 2008, , 482, 549 Kaufman, M. J., & Neufeld, D. A. 1996, , 456, 611 Lefloch et al. 2010, this volume Mikami, H., Umemoto, T., Yamamoto, S., & Saito, S. 1992, , 392, L87 Neufeld, D. A., et al. 2000, , 539, L107 Neufeld, D. A., & Yuan, Y. 2008, , 678, 974 Neufeld, D. A., Nisini B., Giannini T., et al. 2009, , 706, 170, N09 Nisini, B. 2003, , 287, 207 Nisini, B., Codella, C., Giannini, T., Santiago Garcia, J., Richer, J. S., Bachiller, R., & Tafalla, M. 2007, , 462, 163 Nisini, B., Giannini, T., Neufeld, D., et al., 2010, , submitted Pilbratt et al. 2010, this volume Poglitsch et al. 2010, this volume
Tafalla, M., & Bachiller, R. 1995, , 443, L37
van der Tak, F. F. S., Black, J. H., Sch[ö]{}ier, F. L., Jansen, D. J., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2007, , 468, 627
van Dishoeck, E. F. 2004, , 42, 119
van Kempen et al. 2010, this volume
[^1]: *Herschel* is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important partecipation from NASA
[^2]: http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/WISH/.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a new fundamental property of waveguides induced by the forces of the guided light, namely, the ability to self align or be in instability. A nanoscale waveguide broken by an offset and a gap may tend to self align to form a continuous waveguide. Conversely, depending on the geometry and light polarization, the two parts of the waveguide may be deflected away from each other, thus being in an unstable state. These effects are unique as they rely on the presence of both the guided mode and the scattered light. Strong self alignment forces may be facilitated by near field interaction with polarization surface charges.'
author:
- Amit Mizrahi
- Kazuhiro Ikeda
- Fabio Bonomelli
- Vitaliy Lomakin
- Yeshaiahu Fainman
title: Self alignment and instability of waveguides induced by optical forces
---
Introduction
============
Laser light has significant mechanical effects on microscopic objects, as was initially pointed out about four decades ago [@Ashkin:1970(Acceleration_and_trapping)]. In addition to the vast work on trapping and manipulation of small particles [@grier2003rom], much effort has been directed at cavity based optomechanical devices, where optical forces may be considerably enhanced [@notomi2006owa; @kippenberg2008cob; @tomes:113601]. A less explored option, however, is optical forces on waveguides, which become observable at the microscopic scale [@Painter:Jul2007(Actuation); @she2008opf].
Research of optical forces on waveguides is motivated by the growing capabilities of nanofabrication that enable new possibilities of nanoscale light manipulation [@Lipson:2004(Exper_Guiding_in_void); @levy2005idm; @Tan:2008(chip-scale)]. The theory of guided light is thus being extended to include the laws of the mechanical effects of light on the guiding structure itself [@Povinelli:2004(Slow-light); @Povinelli:2005(Evanescent_bonding); @Mizrahi:2005(Mirror_Manipulation); @Mizrahi:2006(Accelerator_forces); @Mizrahi:2007(Two_slab_spring); @Mizrahi:Aug2008(rotating_modes)]. These new physical mechanisms relate the properties of the guided modes to the forces created by them. For instance, light guided between two waveguides or mirrors creates a repulsive force for an antisymmetric transverse field and an attractive force for a symmetric transverse field [@Povinelli:2005(Evanescent_bonding); @Mizrahi:2005(Mirror_Manipulation)]. Moreover, a superposition of a symmetric and antisymmetric modes may hold the waveguide in a stable equilibrium [@Mizrahi:2005(Mirror_Manipulation); @Mizrahi:2007(Two_slab_spring); @rakich2007tca]. Such phenomena can be experimentally observed in nanomechanical devices fabricated on a chip, as was recently demonstrated with a suspended silicon waveguide [@Li:2008(nature_harnessing)].
In this study, we introduce a new fundamental property of waveguides, namely the ability of a waveguide to self align by light forces when it is perturbed by a small offset misalignment. We show that the size of the waveguide and the type of eigenmode determine whether the two misaligned parts will tend to self align or deflect away from each other. This phenomenon is unique as it relies on both the *guided* waveguide eigenmode and the *scattered* radiation from the perturbation. A strong self alignment force is created due to polarization surface charges that dominate the optical force with a near field interaction. We further investigate the exerted forces when a gap is introduced between the two parts of the waveguide.
The geometry under consideration is shown in Fig. \[fig:wav\_coup\_config\]. A single mode slab waveguide of half-width $d$ and permittivity $\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}$ is broken by an offset in the $x$ axis, $\Delta$, and a gap in the $z$ axis $g$. An eigenmode is incident from the left (input waveguide) carrying power $P_\mathrm{in}$, most of which is transmitted to the output waveguide ($P_\mathrm{out}$), while the remainder is either scattered ($P_\mathrm{sca}$) or reflected back into the input waveguide. No variations of the geometry are assumed along the $y$ axis, and therefore all quantities given are per unit length.
A waveguide perturbed by an offset
==================================
First, we examine the case of no gap, $g=0$, and a small offset $\Delta$. For the calculation of the fields we take an approach of mode matching approximation, similar to that described by Marcuse [@Marcuse:1970(radiation_losses); @Marcuse:1972Book(Light_Transmission)]. We begin by considering a transverse electric (TE) incident mode, for which the nonzero field components are $E_y$, $H_x$, and $H_z$. The even guided mode incident from the left is given inside the dielectric slab by $E_\mathrm{i}=A_\mathrm{TE}\cos(k_xx)\exp(-j\beta_\mathrm{g} z)$, where $A_\mathrm{TE}=\sqrt{2\omega\mu_0P_\mathrm{in}/\beta_\mathrm{g}(d+\gamma^{-1})}$, $k_x$ is the transverse wavenumber in the dielectric, $\beta_\mathrm{g}$ is the longitudinal wavenumber, $\gamma$ is the transverse decay constant outside the slab, and the time dependence is of the form $e^{j\omega t}$. The transverse electric field in each region may be represented as a sum of the guided modes and the continuous spectrum of the radiation modes, corresponding to the scattered light. Explicitly, assuming the interface plane is at $z=0$, then for $z<0$ (input waveguide) this field is given by $$\label{eq:TE_Left}
E_1=E_\mathrm{i} + a_\mathrm{r}E_\mathrm{r} +
\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, q_{\mathrm{e}1}(\rho)E_{\mathrm{e}1}+
\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, q_{\mathrm{o}1}(\rho)E_{\mathrm{o}1} \,,$$ whereas for $z>0$ (output waveguide) it reads $$\label{eq:TE_Right}
E_2=a_\mathrm{t}E_\mathrm{t} +
\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, q_{\mathrm{e}2}(\rho)E_{\mathrm{e}2}+
\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, q_{\mathrm{o}2}(\rho)E_{\mathrm{o}2} \,.$$ In the above two equations, $a_\mathrm{r}$ and $a_\mathrm{t}$ are the reflection and transmission coefficients of the guided mode, respectively; $E_\mathrm{r}$ and $E_\mathrm{t}$ are the reflected and transmitted guided modes, respectively; $q_{\mathrm{e}1,2}$ and $q_{\mathrm{o}1,2}$ are the amplitudes of the even and odd radiation modes, respectively; $\rho$ is the transverse wavenumber of the radiation modes outside the slabs; $E_{\mathrm{e}1,2}$ and $E_{\mathrm{o}1,2}$ are the even and odd radiation modes, respectively. The amplitudes of the guided and the radiation modes may be approximated analytically by expressions containing the overlap integral between the respective mode and the incident guided mode.
Generally, force densities on dielectrics may be viewed as resulting from two processes [@Mizrahi:2005(Mirror_Manipulation); @Schwinger:1998Book(Classical_Electrodynamics); @Manusripur:2004(Radiation_pressure)]: (1) the interaction of effective polarization *volume* current densities with the magnetic field, and (2) the interaction of polarization *surface* charge densities with the electric field. In the TE case, no component of the electric field is perpendicular to the boundaries of the dielectrics, and therefore no polarization surface charge densities are formed. Thus the time-averaged volume force density in the $x$ direction is given by $\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}\left(j\omega P_y\times\mu_0{H_z}^*\right)$, where $P_y=\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}-1)E_y$ is the polarization density. By integration over the volume, we obtain the total transverse force on the output waveguide in terms of integration over only the top and bottom surfaces $$\label{eq:Force_TE}
F_{x2}=\frac{1}{4}\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}-1)
\int_0^\infty\!\!\mathrm{d}z\left(
\left.|E_2|^2\right|_{x=d+\Delta}-
\left.|E_2|^2\right|_{x=-d+\Delta}\right) \,.$$ When there is no offset ($\Delta=0$), the field is symmetric around $x=0$ and the guided mode is not disturbed by a discontinuity, and thus no force acts on each of the waveguide parts. Once an offset is introduced, symmetry is broken, and scattering occurs from the discontinuity. The question then arises whether the two parts of the waveguide will tend to deflect away from each other, or self-align to form back a continuous waveguide while maximizing the output power.
For the evaluation of the force on the output waveguide, the field expression of Eq. is substituted into Eq. . At this point, we are interested in small offsets, so that only terms up to the first order of $\Delta$ are kept. Noting that cross-products of the even radiation modes with the odd radiation modes are of order larger than $\Delta$, and using the symmetry properties of the modes, the expression for the force reads $$\label{eq:Fx2_TE}
F_{x2}\simeq\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}-1)\mathrm{Re}
\int_0^\infty\!\!\mathrm{d}z\,
{E_\mathrm{t}}^*\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, {q_{\mathrm{o}2}(\rho)}{E_{\mathrm{o}2}} \,,$$ where the integration is performed at $x=d+\Delta$. Hence, it is evident that the odd radiation modes created by the scattering are responsible for the transverse force on the waveguide. A direct measure of the waveguide’s tendency to move either way is the derivative of the force with respect to $\Delta$, $\mathrm{d}F_{x2}/\mathrm{d}\Delta(\Delta=0)$ denoted by ${F_{x2}}'$. Bearing in mind that $F_{x2}(\Delta=0)=0$, the force may be approximated by ${F_{x2}}'\Delta$. The only term in the above equation that depends on $\Delta$ is $q_{\mathrm{o}2}$, and an analytic expression for $\mathrm{d}q_{\mathrm{o}2}/\mathrm{d}\Delta$ may be obtained. The integration over $z$ is then performed analytically, and the closed form expression for the derivative reads $$\label{eq:dF_TE}
{F_{x2}}'=
\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}-1)^2k_0^2
A_\mathrm{TE}^2\cos^2(k_xd)/\pi
\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, \frac{1}{1+\frac{\sigma^2}{\rho^2}\cot^2(\sigma d)}
\frac{1}{\gamma^2+\rho^2} \mathrm{Re}
\frac{j(\beta_\mathrm{r}+\beta_\mathrm{g})}{\beta_\mathrm{r}(\beta_\mathrm{r}-\beta_\mathrm{g})}\,,$$ where $k_0=\omega/c$. While the spectrum of radiation modes contains both propagating modes having real $\beta_\mathrm{r}$ and evanescent modes having imaginary $\beta_\mathrm{r}$, the above expression shows that it is only the evanescent radiation modes that contribute to the generation of this force, i.e., the integrand is nonzero only for $\rho>k_0$.
Both the force $F_{x2}$ \[Eq. \] and the quantity ${F_{x2}}'\Delta$ \[Eq. \] are plotted in Fig. \[fig:small\_offset\_Fx\](a) as a function of $d$, for an offset of 2% of $d$. The range of $d$ shown is 20 nm to 110 nm, where the slab is single mode in each polarization. The wavelength is taken to be $\lambda=1.55$ $\mu$m and the permittivity is $3.48^2$, corresponding to silicon at that wavelength. The forces are normalized by $F_0\equiv P_\mathrm{in}/c$, which is the momentum per unit time carried by a plane wave. These results are compared with a Finite Element Method (FEM) simulation, and as seen the three curves are virtually identical. In addition to the integration of the force on the polarization densities, we have also integrated over the Maxwell stress tensor [@Schwinger:1998Book(Classical_Electrodynamics)] to obtain the force, and found excellent agreement between the two methods, which are mathematically equivalent for exact solutions of Maxwell’s equations.
The plot of Fig. \[fig:small\_offset\_Fx\](a) reveals two regimes; the first is a self-alignment regime up to a slab half-width of about 57 nm, for which ${F_{x2}}'<0$ corresponding to a restoring force. The second is an instability regime in which a small offset results in a deflection force. Both regimes exhibit an optimal slab width for which the force is strongest. Although we show here only the transverse force on the output waveguide, when the offset is small, the scattered power is negligible and by virtue of momentum conservation, the force on the input waveguide is of the same magnitude and opposite in sign to that on the output waveguide. In fact, we have shown analytically that $F_{x1}'$=-$F_{x2}'$. To better illustrate the different regimes, we depict in Fig. \[fig:F\_DEL\](a) the transverse force $F_{x2}$ as function of $\Delta$ for $d=39$ nm where a negative restoring force is seen, $d=57$ nm where the force derivative at $\Delta=0$ vanishes at the transition between the two regimes, and for $d=110$ nm where instability in the form of a deflecting force is observed.
When the incident mode is transverse magnetic (TM), the situation is considerably more involved. The field components for the TM mode are $E_x$, $E_z$, and $H_y$, and the incident magnetic field is given by $H_\mathrm{i}=A_\mathrm{TM}\cos(k_xx)\exp(-j\beta_\mathrm{g}z)$, where $$A_\mathrm{TM}=\sqrt{2\omega\varepsilon_0\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}P_\mathrm{in}/\beta_\mathrm{g}[d+\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}\gamma^{-1}(k_x^2+\gamma^2)/(k_x^2+\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}^2\gamma^2)]}.$$ The fields in each region are described by Eqs. and with $E$ replaced by $H$. The force mechanism in the TM case differs substantially than that of the TE case, as for the TM the electric field has normal components to discontinuities in the dielectric, and therefore polarization surface charge densities are formed. These surface charge densities interact with $E_x$ to give rise to surface force densities. Considering again the output waveguide, the first contribution is from the polarization surface charge densities created by $E_z$ at the $z=0$ interface. The force density of this term is given by $\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}[-\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}-1)E_z{E_x}^*]$, where $E_z$ is the field just inside the slab at $z=0$. Calculation of this force on the output waveguide while keeping only terms up to the first order of $\Delta$ yields $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:FxL_TM}
F_{x2,\mathrm{L}}\simeq
\frac{A_\mathrm{TM}}{2}\frac{\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}-1)}{(\omega\varepsilon_0\varepsilon_\mathrm{r})^2}
\mathrm{Re}\,j\!
\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, q_{\mathrm{o}2}(\rho)\times\\
\left\{\frac{(k_x\beta_\mathrm{r}+\sigma\beta_\mathrm{g})\sin[(k_x-\sigma)d]}{(k_x-\sigma)}+
\frac{(k_x\beta_\mathrm{r}-\sigma\beta_\mathrm{g})\sin[(k_x+\sigma)d]}{(k_x+\sigma)}\right\} \,,\end{gathered}$$ where an analytic expression for $q_{\mathrm{o}2}$ may be obtained. A second contribution is from the polarization surface charge densities formed on the top ($x=d+\Delta$) and bottom ($x=-d+\Delta$) parts of the waveguide, given by the plus and minus of $\frac{1}{4}\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}^2-1)|E_x|^2$, respectively. In both cases $E_x$ is the field just inside the slab. Summing up the two contributions and integrating over $z$ results in the expression $$\label{eq:FxUD TM}
F_{x2,\mathrm{UD}}\simeq
A_\mathrm{TM}\beta_\mathrm{g} \frac{\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}^2-1)}{(\omega\varepsilon_0\varepsilon_\mathrm{r})^2} \cos(k_xd)\,
\mathrm{Re}
\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, q_{\mathrm{o}2}(\rho)\times
\beta_\mathrm{r}\sin(\sigma d)/\left[j(\beta_\mathrm{r}-\beta_\mathrm{g})\right] \,.$$ The third contribution comes from the volume force density given by $\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}[-\varepsilon_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}-1)j\omega E_z\mu_0{H_y}^*]$, and integration over $x$ and $z$ gives $$\label{eq:FxV TM}
F_{x2,\mathrm{V}}\simeq
-A_\mathrm{TM}\frac{\mu_0(\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}-1)}{\varepsilon_\mathrm{r}} \cos(k_xd)\,
\mathrm{Re}
\int_0^\infty\!\! \mathrm{d}\rho \, q_{\mathrm{o}2}(\rho)\times
\sin(\sigma d)/\left[j(\beta_\mathrm{r}-\beta_\mathrm{g})\right] \,.$$ The total force is the sum of all three contributions, and its derivative $F_{x2}'$ is obtained by analytically differentiating $q_{o2}$. Similarly to the TE mode, only the evanescent part of the odd radiation mode spectrum participates in the generation of the force, and the relation $F_{x1}'=-F_{x2}'$ holds as well.
The quantities ${F_{x2}}^\prime\Delta$, $F_{x2}$, as well as the force calculated by FEM, are shown in Fig. \[fig:small\_offset\_Fx\](b) as a function of $d$ for an offset $\Delta$ of 2%. Contrary to the TE case, here instability occurs for small values of $d$, and above about 70 nm there is self-alignment. The restoring force increases monotonically, so that at the maximum value in the shown range of $d$, it is about two orders of magnitude stronger than the peak value of the TE restoring force. This dramatic difference is due to the presence of electric field components that are perpendicular to the dielectric boundaries. Specifically, at the left boundary of the output waveguide ($z=0$ plane), $E_z$ induces a polarization surface charge density, while $E_x$ gives it a transverse kick. The result, $F_{x2,\mathrm{L}}$ given by Eq. , is plotted in Fig. \[fig:small\_offset\_Fx\](b). This force is negative for the entire range of $d$ and is seen to comprise almost all of the total force in the self alignment regime. Qualitatively, it may be associated with a dipole induced by the guided mode which has $E_z\propto\sin(k_xd)$, and the strength of the dipole per power increases with $d$ as the mode confinement increases. At the $z=0$ interface, the dipole is roughly inverted, and consequently the two parts attract each other, in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. Moreover, this force grows rapidly as a function of $\Delta$ and is therefore responsible for the derivative approximation being less accurate than for the TE case. This is seen in Fig. \[fig:F\_DEL\](b) where $F_{x2}$ is plotted for four different values of $d$: $d=55$ nm where instability is observed, $d=55$ nm about where the derivative vanishes at $\Delta=0$, $d=85$ nm which exhibits self alignment, and $d=110$ nm, where there is strong self alignment which is further discussed below.
A waveguide broken by an offset and a gap
=========================================
So far we have established the fundamental tendency of a waveguide to self-align or be in instability by considering zero gap and a perturbation in a continuous waveguide in the form of an offset. We next extend the discussion by introducing a longitudinal gap $g\neq0$. Figure \[fig:cont\_g\_DEL\](a) and Fig. \[fig:cont\_g\_DEL\](b) show contours of $F_{x2}$ in the $g$–$\Delta$ plane obtained by FEM simulations, for TE and TM incident modes, respectively. The slab half-width is assumed to be $d=110$ nm, where according to Fig. \[fig:small\_offset\_Fx\], the TE mode places the system in instability, whereas the TM mode causes self alignment. In both cases the $g=0$ behavior extends to larger values of $g$, but the decay of the TE repulsive force with the offset and gap is much slower than that of the attractive TM force, as seen by the scales of $g$ and $\Delta$ of the two frames of Fig. \[fig:small\_offset\_Fx\]. The maximal TE force is about $0.4F_0$ and it is obtained for about $\Delta\simeq130$ nm and $g\simeq50$ nm. A waveguide cantilever at $g=0$ is, in fact, in a bistable state where a small offset may result in a deflection force that would eventually be balanced by the mechanical force. The attractive TM force is obtained for $g=0$ and $\Delta\simeq45$ nm, and it is about $0.7F_0$. We further found that a strong longitudinal force is pulling the two waveguides towards each other at a force of about $2F_0$ for $g\simeq20$ nm. For large enough values of $g$ the TM force becomes repulsive, corresponding to radiation pressure.
The self alignment and the instability may be tested experimentally by fabricating on a chip two waveguide cantilevers with an offset and a gap. For instance, for $P_\mathrm{in}=30$ mW, $F_0=100$ pN, and at $g=20$ nm we obtain $F_{x2}\simeq0.1F_0$ according to Fig. \[fig:small\_offset\_Fx\](b), which is about 10pN. This is of the order of magnitude of force that was shown to actuate a silicon cantilever [@Li:2008(nature_harnessing)]. The deflection of the waveguide in such a system may be viewed by the nonlinear input/output behavior, as the output power increases when the cantilevers tend to self align. Moreover, the mechanical effect is doubled by the fact that a similar force opposite in sign is exerted on both cantilevers. The two cantilevers may also be vibrated at their mechanical resonance by modulating the incident power, resulting in a system that may be suitable for applications such as sensing.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we demonstrated a novel effect of light forces in the form of self alignment or instability of a waveguide broken by an offset and a gap. The waveguide size and mode polarization determine which of the two regimes the waveguide is in. Closed form expressions for the transverse forces were given for the case of a small offset and no gap. The forces described here are unique as they are due to the presence of both the guided mode and the scattered light from the discontinuity. Strong self alignment for a TM mode is caused by near field interaction of the polarization surface charges created by the longitudinal electric field. We are currently looking into the possibilities of an experimental realization that will demonstrate the effects discussed here.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the National Science Foundation, the NSF CIAN ERC, the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the U.S. Army Research Office, and the Technion Viterbi Fellowship.
[22]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, , , , ** (, , ).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '$JHK_{S}$ photometry is presented from a 3.5 year survey of the central regions of the irregular galaxy NGC6822. The morphology of the colour-magnitude and colour-colour diagrams is discussed with particular reference to M, S and C-type AGB stars and to M-supergiants. Mean $JHK_{S}$ magnitudes and periods are given for 11 O-rich and 50 presumed C-rich Miras. Data are also listed for 27 large amplitude AGB stars without periods and for 69 small amplitude AGB variables. The slope of the bolometric period-luminosity relation for the C-rich Miras is in good agreement with that in the LMC. Distance moduli derived from the C- and O-rich Miras are in agreement with other estimates. The period distribution of C-rich Miras in NGC6822 is similar to that in the Magellanic Clouds, but differs from that in the dwarf spheroidals in the Local Group. In the latter there is a significant proportion of large amplitude, short period variables indicating a population producing old carbon-rich AGB stars.'
author:
- |
Patricia A. Whitelock$^{2,1}$, John W. Menzies$^{2}$, Michael W. Feast$^{1,2}$, Francois Nsengiyumva$^{2,1}$, and Noriyuki Matsunaga$^3$\
$^1$ Astronomy, Cosmology and Gravity Centre, Astronomy Department, University of Cape Town, 7701 Rondebosch, South Africa.\
$^2$ South African Astronomical Observatory, P.O.Box 9, 7935 Observatory, South Africa.\
$^3$ Kiso Observatory, Institute of Astronomy, The University of Tokyo, 10762-30, Mitake, Kiso, Nagano 397-0101, Japan.\
title: The Local Group Galaxy NGC 6822 and its Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars
---
stars: variables: AGB; stars: carbon; galaxies: distances and redshifts; galaxies: individual: NGC 6822; (galaxies:) Local Group; infrared: stars
Introduction
============
NGC6822 is an isolated barred dwarf irregular galaxy within the Local Group. It is comparable in size to the SMC but has a slightly higher metallicity (Muschielok et al. 1999; Venn et al. 2001). It contains numerous supergiants and H[ii]{} regions with obvious signs of star formation and is sometimes referred to as a polar ring galaxy (Demers et al. 2006). Recent HST colour-magnitude studies suggest that over 50 percent of its stars formed in the last 5Gyr (Cannon et al. 2012).
We present here new multi-epoch $JHK_{S}$ photometry of the central regions of NGC6822 which we compare with earlier work and use to identify and characterize large amplitude, Mira, asymptotic giant branch (AGB) variables. Earlier papers used the same photometry to identify the first symbiotic star in NGC6822 (Kniazev et al. 2009) and to study the Cepheid variables (Feast et al. 2012). A preliminary analysis of the AGB variables was produced by Nsengiyumva (2010).
Earlier studies of red giants and AGB stars in NGC6822 have been made by Cioni & Habing (2005), Kang (2006), Groenewegen et al. (2009), Kacharov, Rejkuba & Cioni (2012) and by Sibbons et al. (2012), while Battinelli & Demers (2011) specifically identified AGB variables.
This work forms part of a broad study of AGB variables in Local Group Galaxies which so far has covered Leo I (Menzies et al. 2002; 2010), Phoenix (Menzies et al. 2008), Fornax (Whitelock et al. 2009) and Sculptor (Menzies et al. 2011). These new observations provide an opportunity to compare these dwarf spheroidals with a dwarf irregular surveyed in the same way.
Observations
============
Our survey of NGC6822 is confined to the optical bar which is aligned nearly N-S. We used the Japanese-South African IRSF telescope equipped with the SIRIUS camera, which permits simultaneous imaging in the $J, H$ and $K_S$ bands (see Nagayama et al. (2003) for details). We defined 3 overlapping fields, with field 1 centred at $\alpha$(2000.0) = $19^h44^m56^s$ and $\delta$(2000.0) =$-14^o48'06''$. Fields 2 and 3 are centred 6.7 arcmin N and S, respectively, of field 1. The three fields, each approximately 7.8 arcmin square, were observed in $JHK_S$ at 19, 18 and 16 epochs, respectively, over a period of 3.5 years.
----------- ----------- ------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------- -------- ------------- ------- --------- --------- ---- ---- ----
RA Dec N $J$ $\delta J$ $H$ $\delta H$ $K_S$ $\delta K$ $J-H$ $H-K_S$ $J-K_S$ NJ NH NK
296.28656 –14.80424 10001 12.613 0.009 12.050 0.006 11.939 0.026 0.563 0.111 0.674 18 14 18
296.17661 –14.78323 10002 12.704 0.014 12.303 0.016 12.217 0.030 0.401 0.086 0.487 18 18 18
296.18298 –14.83667 10008 13.354 0.018 12.903 0.008 12.819 0.033 0.451 0.084 0.535 18 16 18
296.20160 –14.83465 10009 13.602 0.009 13.112 0.004 13.020 0.021 0.490 0.092 0.582 18 12 18
296.21399 –14.82684 10010 13.161 0.009 12.751 0.009 12.673 0.012 0.410 0.078 0.488 17 17 18
----------- ----------- ------- -------- ------------ -------- ------------- -------- ------------- ------- --------- --------- ---- ---- ----
\[tab\_main\]
Further details, including those of the photometric calibration, are given by Feast et al. (2012). The basic data for stars with standard errors less than 0.1 mag in each band are provided on-line, and the first few lines of the catalogue are illustrated in Table \[tab\_main\] (The Mira variables, discussed in section 5, are not in this table). Numbers of observations, NJ, NH etc. larger than 19 are found for some stars in the areas of overlap between fields.
NGC6822 is at low galactic latitude, $b=-18^{\circ}.4$, so it experiences some interstellar extinction as well as confusion with Galactic sources. For the interstellar extinction we adopt $A_V=0.77$ mag (amounting to $A_J=0.20$, $A_H=0.12$, $A_K=0.07$ mag) from Clementini et al. (2003) using the information from Schlegel, Finkbeiner & Davis (1998). We note, however, that the extinction across NGC6822 is somewhat variable and that significantly higher values are possible for sources associated with star forming regions. Our discussion of the AGB, and of the large amplitude variables in particular, will not be very sensitive to either the reddening, or its variability.
Colour-Magnitude Diagram
========================
The colour-magnitude and two-colour diagrams for stars from Table \[tab\_main\] plus the variables discussed in section 5, are illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_cm1\] and Fig. \[fig\_cc1\].
According to the detailed analysis by Sibbons et al. (2012) the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) is at $K_0=17.42\pm0.11$ mag (2MASS system). So here we are dealing entirely with AGB stars, together with a sprinkling of red supergiants at the highest luminosity. Following Sibbons et al. we identify stars with $(J-H)_0<0.75$ mag as most likely to be foreground dwarfs and they are shown as gray, unless they have spectral types. Most, but not all, of the stars populating the left of the colour magnitude diagram and the bottom of the two-colour diagram are foreground dwarfs.
The morphology of these diagrams is more clearly understood when stars of known spectral type are identified and it is therefore discussed in the next section.
{width="17.6cm"}
{width="17.6cm"}
Spectral Types
==============
Various groups have attempted to separate the AGB stars into M- and C-type on the basis of their $J-K$ colour (Cioni & Habing (2005), Kang et al. (2006), Sibbons et al. (2012)). Kacharov et al. (2012) obtained spectra, including 148 stars in common with us, two of which are Mira variables. They concluded that 79 percent of the carbon stars had $(J-K)_0>1.28$ mag (on the 2MASS system).
Letarte et al. (2002) obtained narrow band photometry over a very large field in order to find the extent of the NGC6822 C-star population. Over 5000 stars were found in common with our sample including about 1000 with the colours of M stars ($R-I>1.1$ and $CN-TiO<0$) and 430 with the colours of C stars ($R-I>1.1$ and $CN-TiO>0.3$) and this allows a reasonably good division between M- and C-type stars among our variables (section 5). However, the central field is crowded and a few misidentifications are possible and might explain some outlying points among the C- and M- stars.
Levesque & Massey (2012) discuss red supergiants (RSGs) in NGC6822 and use the $V-R$ and $B-V$ colours to separate RSGs from giants. Table \[tab\_super\] shows the photometry of the M-type supergiants from Levesque & Massey’s table 2, which are also illustrated in Figs. \[fig\_cm1\] and \[fig\_cc1\]. N10032 is a small amplitude variable (as the uncertainty on the mean magnitudes listed in Table \[tab\_super\] show). It is not obviously periodic and the full peak-to-peak amplitude is $\Delta K_S \sim 0.3$ mag. Note also that N10015 falls amongst the dwarfs in both figures, although its status as a supergiant is well established. As others have noted (Cioni & Habing 2005, see also Nikolaev & Weinberg 2000) there is no clear distinction in the colour-magnitude diagram between the giants and supergiants (or even between the supergiants and foreground dwarfs).
The broad morphology of Fig. \[fig\_cm1\] is now clear. The vertical strip between $(J-K)_0\sim 0.3$ and 0.6 mag is mostly foreground stars, but will include warm supergiant members of NGC6822, e.g., the Cepheids (section 5). The vertical strip around $(J-K_S)_0\sim 0.9$ mag is mostly foreground M-dwarfs. The almost vertical strip at around $(J-K)_0\sim 1.1$ mag starts just above the TRGB as M stars on the AGB; at higher luminosity, $K_{S0}<15.8$ mag, it becomes luminous AGB stars. These stars are discussed further in the context of the variable stars (section 5), but are presumably younger than the bulk of the AGB population that evolve to the right of the diagram as C stars. It is here we would expect to find hot bottom burning stars (e.g. Sackman & Boothroyd 1992) and super-AGB stars (e.g. Siess 2008), prior to the onset of heavy mass-loss. At even higher luminosities, and between the AGB column and the M-dwarf column, fall the M supergiants. The carbon stars concentrate in a diagonal band to the right of the AGB M-type stars. The AGB variables without spectral types[^1] extend the C-star sequence to the extreme right of the diagram. It is likely that a small number of the points below the carbon stars ($K_S>16$ mag) in Fig. \[fig\_cm1\] are actually unresolved galaxies (see e.g. Whitelock et al. 2009).
--------------------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------------ ------- ------------- ------- ------------- --------- ---- ---- ---- ------
LGGS RA Dec N $J$ $\delta J$ $H$ $\delta H$ $K_S$ $\delta K$ $J-K_S$ NJ NH NK Sp
J194445.76-145221.2 296.19067 -14.87276 30016 13.91 0.01 13.09 0.03 12.78 0.02 1.13 12 14 11 M1
J194447.81-145052.5 296.19919 -14.84817 40115 14.41 0.03 13.57 0.03 13.26 0.02 1.15 24 26 22 M1
J194450.44-144410.0 296.21021 -14.73628 40177 15.14 0.01 14.33 0.03 14.06 0.02 1.08 22 24 22 M2
J194453.46-144540.1 296.22278 -14.76476 10089 15.10 0.03 14.29 0.02 14.02 0.02 1.08 18 17 17 M4.5
J194454.46-144806.2 296.22696 -14.80191 10032 14.48 0.05 13.66 0.03 13.34 0.05 1.14 14 14 16 M1
J194454.54-145127.1 296.22726 -14.85778 40278 13.43 0.03 12.60 0.04 12.33 0.05 1.10 33 33 33 M0
J194455.70-145155.4 296.23212 -14.86564 40315 13.39 0.06 12.61 0.05 12.33 0.05 1.06 27 26 28 M0
J194457.31-144920.2 296.23883 -14.82247 10011 13.60 0.04 12.75 0.04 12.46 0.05 1.14 18 18 18 M1
J194459.86-144515.4 296.24945 -14.75443 10015 13.64 0.00 12.95 0.01 12.70 0.02 0.94 13 17 18 M1
J194503.58-144337.6 296.26492 -14.72723 20101 15.96 0.02 15.11 0.02 14.81 0.02 1.15 16 17 16 M0
--------------------- ----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------------ ------- ------------- ------- ------------- --------- ---- ---- ---- ------
\[tab\_super\]
----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------------ ------- ------------- ------- ------------- --------- ---- ---- ----
RA Dec N $J$ $\delta J$ $H$ $\delta H$ $K_S$ $\delta K$ $J-K_S$ NJ NH NK
296.17892 –14.82286 10870 17.52 0.04 16.53 0.04 16.19 0.05 1.34 15 17 17
296.21545 –14.83469 10784 17.45 0.03 16.53 0.04 16.20 0.06 1.26 17 18 17
296.27341 –14.80861 11004 17.60 0.03 16.62 0.03 16.27 0.05 1.33 15 16 15
296.28308 –14.80497 11029 17.46 0.03 16.55 0.02 16.22 0.05 1.24 16 16 17
296.25427 –14.81764 12050 18.17 0.07 17.25 0.10 16.70 0.05 1.47 14 17 17
296.19156 –14.89296 30528 17.76 0.06 16.85 0.04 16.51 0.10 1.26 12 12 14
296.25522 –14.82579 10326 16.82 0.03 15.86 0.03 15.52 0.02 1.30 16 16 16
----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------------ ------- ------------- ------- ------------- --------- ---- ---- ----
\[tab\_s\]
S stars
-------
Six of the nine S stars identified by Kacharov et al. (2012) fall in the area we surveyed and they are listed in Table \[tab\_s\]. All of these have the $K_S$ magnitudes, and all but one have the colours, anticipated for an evolutionary state between that of the lower luminosity M stars and the C stars (see Fig. \[fig\_cm1\] and \[fig\_cc1\]). The exception, N12050, has a slightly redder $J-K_S$ and therefore falls amongst the C stars (as noted by Kacharov et al.). The S star identified by Aaronson et al. (1984) is our N10326 which is about a magnitude brighter than the Kacharov et al. S stars. If it is an intrinsic S star (i.e. its s-process elements are the consequence of its own evolution and dredge-up and are not from a close companion) then it must be more massive than the others, perhaps comparable to the hot bottom burning Li-rich S stars in the LMC and SMC (Smith et al. 1995; Whitelock et al. 2003). In that case it may be from the same population as the luminous large-amplitude O-rich variables discussed below.
{width="17.6cm"}
{width="17.6cm"}
Variables
=========
We examined the light curves of all stars with $K_S<17$ mag for which we had at least 10 observations and which showed a standard deviation in $J$, $H$ or $K_S$ of $>0.2$ mag, going to lower standard deviations for brighter magnitudes. By this approach we found the brightest of the Cepheids, all of the stars listed in Tables \[tab\_o\](a) and (b) plus a considerable fraction of those which we list in the later tables and which are discussed below. Given that our primary objective was to find large amplitude AGB variables we then examined stars with $J-K_S>2.2$ mag, finding them all to be variable at some level.
It should be noted that one consequence of the use of a reference frame in the $H$ band to provide positions at which “fixed-position" DoPHOT photometry was performed (Feast et al. 2012) is that extremely red stars or stars with a very large amplitude of variation might have been missed. If the star was not measurable on the reference $H$ frame, then it would not have been found in any other band either. This means that there may be red variables that we have not measured. The limiting magnitudes at $J, H$ and $K_S$ in our catalogue are approximately 20.3, 18.3 and 18.0 mag, respectively. This means that we would have missed red variables with $H-K_S=2.0$ mag that were fainter than about $K_S=16.3$ mag or $J=18.4$ mag at the time the reference frame was obtained, even though these latter values are significantly above the relevant limiting magnitudes.
The various variables are identified in Figs. \[fig\_cm2\] and \[fig\_cc2\]. The Cepheids were discussed by Feast et al. (2012) and the others are considered below.
Periods were determined by Fourier analysis and Table \[tab\_o\] lists the Fourier mean $JHK_S$ magnitudes for the large amplitude (see below) variables with measurable periods (Miras), together with the peak-to-peak amplitudes. The table is split into (a) O-rich, M-type, stars and (b) C-stars, on the basis of $J-K_S$ colour (see section 4). Table \[tab\_o\] is the only one to list Fourier mean magnitudes. The other tables contain simple mean values of all the observations. Note that the stars in Table \[tab\_o\] are in the online catalogue, because their mean magnitudes are evaluated differently.
Our previous practice has been to define large amplitude, Mira, variables to be those with $\Delta K_S>0.4$ mag (e.g. Whitelock et al. 2006). While the distinction between Miras and SR variables is clear for O-rich stars (Miras were originally defined from observations of Galactic stars, most of which are O-rich), it is not so clear for the C-rich stars (Whitelock 1996) and it is apparent that this cut-off results in far fewer short period ($P<300$ days) Miras than we might expect in NGC6822, and presumably in similar galaxies. However, if we are interested in these variables as distance indicators the distinction is important, because low-amplitude variables can fall on any one of several period-luminosity (PL) relations (Wood 2000, Ita et al. 2004) whereas the Miras with periods less than 450days fall only on one relation. Nevertheless, we relax the criterion very slightly here to include stars with $0.36<\Delta K_S<0.4$ mag, while noting that we have done so in Table \[tab\_c\](b). The $K_S$ light curves of the Mira variables are illustrated in the appendix.
With regard to establishing the O- or C-rich nature of the Miras, we follow Letarte at al. (2002) and relaxing their criteria (as they suggest) very slightly to examine stars with $R-I>1.0$ (rather than 1.1) we find the following: 6 Miras have M-type narrow-band colours; they are labeled ‘M’ in the last column of Table \[tab\_o\](a), and all have $(J-K_S)_0<1.33$ mag. Similarly, 11 stars have C-type narrow-band colours; these are labeled ‘C’ in the last column of Table \[tab\_c\](b), and all have $(J-K_S)_0>1.33$ mag.
Two of the Miras have spectral types in Kacharov et al. (2012), as indicated in Table \[tab\_c\](b). N12790 (P=182 days) has spectral type C6.5 and is the bluest ($(J-K_S)_0=1.31$ mag) of the stars that we consider to be C stars in our PL relation analysis (see section 7 below).
Table \[tab\_var1\] contains large amplitude (mostly $\Delta K_S>0.4$ mag) but not obviously periodic variables; it includes some Miras for which we could not estimate periods and probably some unrecognized Miras (see below). Table \[tab\_var2\] contains small amplitude ($\Delta K_S<0.4$ mag) variables, most of which are not unambiguously periodic; these are probably semi-regular (SR) or irregular variables. This group includes a few which have SR-variations superimposed on an apparently secular trend, which can make the overall change more than 0.4 mag. These are candidates for variables with two periods.
The distinction between Tables \[tab\_var1\] and \[tab\_var2\] is to some extent subjective and there is undoubtably overlap between the two groups. Nevertheless, they do show distinctly different colours (see Figs. \[fig\_cm2\] and \[fig\_cc2\]), with most of the large amplitude variables having larger values of $(J-K_S)$ than those with small amplitudes, suggesting that they have higher mass-loss rates.
Given the cadence of our observations and the fact that at least some mass-losing C-rich Miras undergo periods of very erratic variation (e.g. R For as illustrated in Whitelock et al. (1997) and several LMC C-rich Miras discussed by Whitelock et al. (2003)) we anticipate that a significant fraction of the stars in Table \[tab\_var1\] will be Miras of this type (see also N21029 in Fig. A2 in the appendix).
There are a few of the low amplitude variables among the supergiants. Note also that many of the AGB stars and supergiants not identified as variables will in fact be low amplitude variables, generally with $\Delta K_S < 0.2$ mag.
----------- ----------- -------- ----- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- -----
RA Dec N $P$ $\bar{J}$ $\bar{H}$ $\bar{K_S}$ $\Delta J$ $\Delta H$ $\Delta K_S$ Sp
(days)
296.18398 –14.78018 12557 158 18.23 17.51 17.12 0.84 0.83 0.80 M
296.25229 –14.78475 11226 257 17.49 16.54 16.08 0.54 0.58 0.53 M:
296.20415 –14.63486 20331 314 16.58 15.91 15.46 0.88 1.10 0.86 M
296.22364 –14.77473 10184 370 16.44 15.58 15.13 0.81 0.95 0.89 M
296.21816 –14.88035 30133 401 16.30 15.53 15.09 0.85 1.02 0.94
296.21322 –14.68097 20134 402 16.35 15.55 15.07 0.89 1.00 0.92
296.20428 –14.74271 40139 545 15.25 14.32 13.92 0.62 0.72 0.66
296.25088 –14.76786 10198 602 15.50 14.68 14.19 0.75 0.93 0.80
296.18801 –14.87231 30292 637 15.88 15.19 14.68 0.96 1.00 0.97 M
296.26702 –14.76311 10091 638 15.46 14.67 14.18 0.95 1.12 1.00 (1)
296.21293 –14.73224 20004 854 13.72 12.97 12.57 0.47 0.45 0.40 M
----------- ----------- -------- ----- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- -----
\(1) N10091 was identified as a late-M star with $ \rm H\alpha$ emission by Filippenko & Chornock (2003). \[tab\_o\]
------- ----------- ----------- ----- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- ---------
N RA Dec $P$ $\bar{J}$ $\bar{H}$ $\bar{K_S}$ $\Delta J$ $\Delta H$ $\Delta K_S$ Sp
(days)
12790 296.20389 -14.75535 182 18.03 17.11 16.59 1.09 0.82 0.51 C6.5(1)
10817 296.23639 -14.83054 214 17.70 16.76 16.04 0.75 0.61 0.45
20540 296.18011 -14.71067 223 17.88 16.89 16.39 0.94 0.71 0.48 C
40590 296.28567 -14.73952 223 18.01 17.04 16.39 0.80 0.63 0.39 C \*
12751 296.21027 -14.75973 231 17.89 16.91 16.29 1.07 0.72 0.50
11032 296.18048 -14.80431 239 18.20 16.91 15.94 1.20 0.92 0.65
10748 296.17438 -14.83893 243 18.58 17.16 16.11 1.06 0.77 0.48
20578 296.29065 -14.69641 246 17.80 16.82 16.14 0.77 0.79 0.43 C
20542 296.17703 -14.71031 255 17.84 16.76 16.02 0.73 0.66 0.50 C
30430 296.21802 -14.92573 269 17.67 16.56 15.86 0.87 0.63 0.38 C \*
12208 296.23352 -14.80653 278 17.87 16.61 15.62 1.34 1.07 0.76
21419 296.27563 -14.74923 278 19.93 18.27 16.57 1.50 1.42 1.05
13364 296.19489 -14.82267 286 18.10 16.85 15.86 1.30 1.09 0.75
12400 296.17468 -14.79389 301 18.00 16.75 15.88 1.11 0.84 0.60 C
30583 296.30014 -14.87872 302 18.37 17.07 15.88 1.2 1.1 0.5 C (4)
20239 296.22632 -14.72554 304 18.04 16.71 15.66 0.86 0.67 0.48
20558 296.19647 -14.70265 304 18.21 16.60 15.31 0.41 0.40 0.44 (2)
20840 296.30347 -14.74166 306 18.7 17.18 15.98 1.14 0.88 (3)
12466 296.17462 -14.78854 311 18.42 17.09 16.03 1.52 1.17 0.96
40114 296.19916 -14.86160 312 20.21 18.61 16.99 1.9 1.35 1.09
11059 296.21259 -14.80142 319 18.38 16.90 15.79 1.20 1.01 0.75
20375 296.18277 -14.74815 328 18.03 16.62 15.59 0.75 0.72 0.50 C
11296 296.21729 -14.77647 340 18.37 16.99 15.78 1.03 0.90 0.5
30928 296.22229 -14.90997 342 18.95 17.42 16.28 0.57 0.62 0.48
20657 296.22934 -14.65254 343 17.98 16.59 15.56 0.64 0.48 0.43 C8.2(1)
13106 296.24048 -14.84939 354 19.10 17.38 15.96 1.51 1.34 0.98
20588 296.29919 -14.69143 376 17.56 16.22 15.16 0.97 0.80 0.57 C
11305 296.17957 -14.77527 378 18.02 16.56 15.45 0.82 0.63 0.50
30920 296.24246 -14.91158 384 18.95 17.21 15.86 1.75 1.46 0.98
40363 296.23649 -14.85697 398 19.18 17.73 16.32 1.00 0.91 0.85 C
11140 296.22876 -14.79337 405 18.75 17.25 15.93 0.91 0.95 0.83
20439 296.24640 -14.73473 430 19.15 17.32 15.77 1.05 0.94 0.85
10753 296.24295 -14.83836 432 18.40 17.06 15.88 0.66 0.75 0.76
40520 296.26687 -14.74039 432 18.41 16.86 15.51 1.25 0.91 0.74
31168 296.23883 -14.87026 434 19.49 17.50 15.82 2.05 1.40 1.01
21671 296.26569 -14.72024 436 19.78 17.78 16.16 1.59 1.22 0.95
11174 296.21774 -14.78943 440 19.12 17.42 15.90 1.31 1.24 0.89
20569 296.29114 -14.69770 454 19.24 17.62 16.03 1.45 1.40 2.15
12445 296.21661 -14.79057 454 20.26 18.34 16.43 2.42 1.78 1.25
21141 296.29965 -14.69757 456 18.16 16.62 15.42 1.82 1.66 1.23
21234 296.28125 -14.67393 466 20.16 18.21 16.25 1.54 1.41 1.25
12147 296.28897 -14.81087 475 19.93 17.89 16.24 1.61 1.59 1.26
11299 296.25732 -14.77645 494 19.06 17.30 15.73 2.16 2.07 1.67
13293 296.25696 -14.83051 495 20.30 18.37 16.42 1.25 1.13 0.95
21029 296.19858 -14.71837 501 19.11 17.07 15.55 1.5 1.1 0.8 (5)
40102 296.19682 -14.75119 526 19.69 17.43 15.69 2.12 1.31 1.05
12177 296.28424 -14.80892 590 20.50 18.10 16.10 1.52 1.25 1.09
10807 296.21631 -14.83196 747 20.37 18.00 15.89 1.92 2.13 1.59
40623 296.29793 -14.74687 897 20.40 18.08 16.11 1.76 1.77 1.45
30268 296.25891 -14.88796 998 16.73 15.44 14.45 1.35 1.47 1.21
------- ----------- ----------- ----- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------- ---------
\* Low $K_S$ amplitude ($<0.4$ mag) for a Mira.\
(1) Spectral type from Kacharov et al. (2012).\
(2) N20558 was not used in the PL analysis as its image appears blended.\
(3) N20840 has only 4 good observations at $J$, therefore its mean is uncertain and its amplitude unknown.\
(4) N30583 has seven observations only; P taken from Battinelli and Demers (2011).\
(5) N21029 has a long-term trend (see Fig. A2), mean given here for bright cycle. \[tab\_c\]
----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------------ ------- ------------- ------- ------------- --------- ---- ---- ---- ------
RA Dec N $J$ $\delta J$ $H$ $\delta H$ $K_S$ $\delta K$ $J-K_S$ NJ NH NK note
296.29922 -14.83650 10293 17.87 0.88 16.35 0.72 14.98 0.07 2.88 16 17 8
296.19168 -14.82965 10310 18.32 0.31 16.80 0.19 15.67 0.10 2.65 17 15 13
296.28415 -14.81194 10371 17.33 0.16 15.94 0.12 15.04 0.07 2.29 15 14 12
296.23456 -14.77330 10501 18.00 0.37 16.56 0.32 15.48 0.27 2.52 18 18 18
296.20154 -14.81282 10968 19.18 0.60 17.30 0.30 15.91 0.20 3.27 18 18 18
296.18323 -14.76308 11391 18.39 0.32 16.94 0.18 15.82 0.14 2.57 15 16 16
296.27222 -14.76143 11401 18.09 0.24 16.73 0.17 15.62 0.07 2.46 17 18 13
296.22778 -14.76111 11403 18.35 0.34 17.01 0.15 16.18 0.09 2.17 17 14 14
296.27774 -14.82287 11991 18.46 0.18 17.17 0.22 16.13 0.20 2.33 18 18 18
296.24905 -14.81619 12070 17.49 0.09 16.92 0.21 15.98 0.27 1.51 17 18 18 1
296.25348 -14.76936 12660 18.38 0.35 16.83 0.30 15.54 0.27 2.84 18 18 18
296.24728 -14.76419 12711 18.94 1.05 17.79 0.92 16.80 0.63 2.14 18 18 17
296.24246 -14.82114 13390 19.99 0.74 18.40 0.44 16.77 0.21 3.23 15 15 14
296.17993 -14.75767 14105 19.23 0.39 17.44 0.33 15.98 0.26 3.25 17 16 16
296.27051 -14.73481 20438 19.39 0.38 17.70 0.27 16.08 0.21 3.32 14 15 15
296.18378 -14.68249 20608 19.57 1.40 17.64 0.95 16.06 0.67 3.51 15 17 17
296.26770 -14.68061 20614 19.60 1.62 17.60 0.76 16.30 0.53 3.30 16 17 17
296.17764 -14.64240 21316 18.63 0.79 17.47 0.64 16.42 0.45 2.20 15 17 17
296.26511 -14.96155 30767 18.07 0.40 17.09 0.30 16.45 0.20 1.62 14 15 14
296.21112 -14.91074 30924 19.46 0.36 17.55 0.20 16.25 0.13 3.21 13 14 12
296.30179 -14.90356 30961 19.75 0.26 17.75 0.18 15.96 0.44 3.78 6 6 6
296.18011 -14.75091 40030 17.02 0.16 16.27 0.20 15.81 0.12 1.21 23 30 29
296.22681 -14.75065 40275 17.13 0.34 15.92 0.29 15.11 0.28 2.01 34 34 34
296.23346 -14.74996 40327 17.71 0.18 16.93 0.23 16.52 0.18 1.19 31 35 33
296.24622 -14.86655 40419 17.98 0.08 16.67 0.06 15.79 0.08 2.19 20 18 20 2
296.26105 -14.73764 40493 18.29 0.15 16.78 0.16 15.38 0.19 2.91 22 21 28
296.27310 -14.75146 40538 17.31 0.16 16.57 0.17 15.96 0.20 1.35 29 30 31
----------- ----------- ------- ------- ------------ ------- ------------- ------- ------------- --------- ---- ---- ---- ------
\[tab\_var1\] (1) N12070 is probably a Mira, with $\Delta K_S < 0.6$ mag, and possible periods of around 545 or 215 days, but its image is confused at shorter wavelengths.\
(2) N40419 is a Mira with a period of 193 days, but its photometry is contaminated by nearby sources.
[cccccccccccccc]{}
\
RA & Dec & N & $J$& $\delta J$& $H$ & $\delta H$& $K_S$ & $\delta K$ &$J-K_S$ & NJ & NH & NK&\
&&\
RA & Dec & N & $J$& $\delta J$& $H$ & $\delta H$& $K_S$ & $\delta K$ &$J-K_S$ & NJ & NH & NK&\
&&\
\
296.22696& -14.80191& 10032& 14.48& 0.05& 13.66& 0.03& 13.34& 0.05& 1.14& 14& 14& 16\
296.24005& -14.80796& 10074& 14.74& 0.09& 13.94& 0.10& 13.66& 0.10& 1.08& 18& 18& 18\
296.21835& -14.80118& 10077& 15.94& 0.11& 14.97& 0.12& 14.55& 0.11& 1.40& 18& 18& 18\
296.26028& -14.81812& 10152& 16.32& 0.17& 15.26& 0.14& 14.71& 0.11& 1.61& 18& 18& 18\
296.22321& -14.76671& 10200& 16.47& 0.08& 15.32& 0.06& 14.61& 0.06& 1.86& 17& 16& 17\
296.19437& -14.82407& 10330& 17.33& 0.14& 16.16& 0.13& 15.52& 0.11& 1.82& 18& 18& 18\
296.17441& -14.81870& 10343& 17.35& 0.11& 16.12& 0.13& 15.44& 0.11& 1.92& 15& 18& 18\
296.23013& -14.81558& 10356& 17.00& 0.16& 15.84& 0.16& 15.20& 0.14& 1.80& 18& 18& 18\
296.23392& -14.80649& 10400& 16.97& 0.11& 15.74& 0.09& 15.00& 0.07& 1.97& 15& 16& 18\
296.24081& -14.80368& 10408& 16.93& 0.13& 15.77& 0.09& 15.11& 0.07& 1.82& 17& 17& 17\
296.19797& -14.80259& 10411& 16.92& 0.18& 15.82& 0.14& 15.23& 0.10& 1.69& 18& 18& 18\
296.29706& -14.80268& 10412& 17.34& 0.17& 16.08& 0.14& 15.18& 0.13& 2.17& 17& 16& 18\
296.22131& -14.79940& 10425& 17.30& 0.18& 16.11& 0.13& 15.40& 0.10& 1.90& 18& 18& 18\
296.28729& -14.79597& 10433& 17.46& 0.18& 16.30& 0.14& 15.55& 0.08& 1.91& 18& 18& 16\
296.20374& -14.79388& 10439& 17.33& 0.16& 16.08& 0.11& 15.37& 0.08& 1.96& 18& 17& 17\
296.28287& -14.78797& 10460& 17.32& 0.26& 16.24& 0.20& 15.66& 0.15& 1.66& 18& 18& 18\
296.22369& -14.83960& 10743& 17.57& 0.29& 16.43& 0.24& 15.67& 0.19& 1.90& 18& 18& 18\
296.27734& -14.83831& 10755& 17.42& 0.20& 16.23& 0.16& 15.52& 0.13& 1.91& 18& 18& 18\
296.27213& -14.83158& 10809& 18.07& 0.14& 16.90& 0.19& 16.13& 0.19& 1.93& 17& 18& 18\
296.24747& -14.82692& 10839& 18.15& 0.09& 16.63& 0.09& 15.41& 0.07& 2.74& 14& 15& 15\
296.29504& -14.82570& 10850& 17.89& 0.38& 16.68& 0.30& 15.90& 0.18& 1.99& 18& 18& 18\
296.19476& -14.82463& 10859& 17.67& 0.21& 16.57& 0.17& 15.91& 0.14& 1.75& 18& 17& 18\
296.24554& -14.82244& 10876& 17.71& 0.26& 16.41& 0.20& 15.50& 0.12& 2.21& 18& 18& 18\
296.20242& -14.81780& 10917& 17.35& 0.08& 16.07& 0.09& 15.24& 0.07& 2.11& 14& 16& 16\
296.28149& -14.81671& 10935& 17.58& 0.10& 16.60& 0.11& 16.16& 0.17& 1.42& 14& 15& 18\
296.27066& -14.80596& 11021& 17.54& 0.24& 16.41& 0.19& 15.72& 0.12& 1.82& 18& 18& 17\
296.24573& -14.79360& 11139& 17.98& 0.31& 16.72& 0.11& 15.67& 0.12& 2.31& 17& 14& 17\
296.24271& -14.78809& 11187& 17.90& 0.08& 16.50& 0.06& 15.68& 0.07& 2.22& 16& 17& 18\
296.27832& -14.78018& 11271& 17.42& 0.24& 16.25& 0.21& 15.55& 0.15& 1.87& 18& 18& 18\
296.17908& -14.77972& 11273& 17.63& 0.21& 16.43& 0.14& 15.71& 0.07& 1.92& 18& 16& 14\
296.18372& -14.77252& 11335& 17.51& 0.19& 16.28& 0.18& 15.41& 0.12& 2.10& 18& 18& 18\
296.20221& -14.76910& 11364& 17.59& 0.06& 16.26& 0.03& 15.38& 0.03& 2.21& 15& 13& 17\
296.22644& -14.76749& 11372& 17.53& 0.31& 16.46& 0.22& 15.70& 0.13& 1.83& 18& 18& 18\
296.19781& -14.76344& 11389& 17.58& 0.23& 16.45& 0.18& 15.64& 0.14& 1.93& 18& 18& 17\
296.28235& -14.76346& 11392& 18.41& 0.19& 17.01& 0.08& 15.96& 0.07& 2.46& 17& 16& 18\
296.24139& -14.84622& 11764& 18.82& 0.23& 17.52& 0.12& 16.51& 0.10& 2.31& 15& 15& 16\
296.29608& -14.84267& 11794& 17.73& 0.24& 16.83& 0.16& 16.36& 0.11& 1.37& 17& 18& 16\
296.24057& -14.79573& 12373& 18.57& 0.32& 17.52& 0.24& 16.80& 0.09& 1.77& 16& 17& 13\
296.18201& -14.78503& 12496& 18.17& 0.28& 16.81& 0.25& 15.74& 0.22& 2.44& 17& 18& 18\
296.25473& -14.75607& 12784& 18.51& 0.22& 17.03& 0.17& 15.89& 0.11& 2.62& 18& 18& 17\
296.20816& -14.72616& 20022& 14.09& 0.09& 13.21& 0.08& 12.83& 0.08& 1.26& 16& 16& 17\
296.26938& -14.66636& 20311& 17.19& 0.12& 16.20& 0.16& 15.49& 0.07& 1.69& 14& 17& 14\
296.23389& -14.72910& 20463& 17.86& 0.16& 16.87& 0.09& 16.51& 0.14& 1.36& 11& 13& 13\
296.29358& -14.72387& 20496& 17.36& 0.20& 16.28& 0.17& 15.65& 0.13& 1.71& 16& 17& 17\
296.17297& -14.71139& 20539& 17.96& 0.22& 16.59& 0.19& 15.50& 0.10& 2.46& 13& 17& 15\
296.26337& -14.70901& 20547& 17.34& 0.09& 16.23& 0.09& 15.66& 0.08& 1.68& 15& 16& 17\
296.24963& -14.71943& 21021& 18.72& 0.09& 17.38& 0.05& 16.42& 0.06& 2.30& 14& 15& 16\
296.28815& -14.67794& 21217& 17.67& 0.16& 16.75& 0.13& 16.20& 0.13& 1.47& 15& 16& 16\
296.25790& -14.90380& 30244& 17.38& 0.14& 16.17& 0.12& 15.44& 0.10& 1.95& 14& 15& 14\
296.20166& -14.88640& 30271& 16.68& 0.11& 15.57& 0.10& 14.93& 0.08& 1.75& 13& 14& 14\
296.28564& -14.87809& 30285& 16.97& 0.16& 15.88& 0.13& 15.18& 0.04& 1.79& 14& 15& 10\
296.20511& -14.87565& 30590& 17.68& 0.28& 16.48& 0.05& 16.01& 0.12& 1.67& 14& 10& 14\
296.19254& -14.86788& 30611& 18.29& 0.26& 16.99& 0.20& 16.08& 0.13& 2.21& 14& 15& 14\
296.29318& -14.90858& 30934& 18.03& 0.09& 16.89& 0.05& 15.53& 0.04& 2.49& 14& 13& 11\
296.17282& -14.75015& 40002& 17.59& 0.11& 16.53& 0.06& 15.91& 0.04& 1.68& 26& 26& 24\
296.17505& -14.85986& 40007& 17.97& 0.11& 16.70& 0.12& 15.75& 0.04& 2.22& 24& 30& 22\
296.17966& -14.73710& 40026& 17.49& 0.19& 16.36& 0.15& 15.59& 0.10& 1.90& 16& 31& 27\
296.20724& -14.74512& 40155& 17.08& 0.09& 16.00& 0.06& 15.40& 0.05& 1.68& 34& 35& 29\
296.22379& -14.73659& 40257& 16.01& 0.02& 15.20& 0.05& 14.95& 0.03& 1.06& 18& 21& 17\
296.22452& -14.86319& 40261& 17.48& 0.17& 16.42& 0.12& 15.89& 0.10& 1.60& 30& 30& 29\
296.24301& -14.74652& 40397& 14.10& 0.07& 13.30& 0.06& 12.99& 0.07& 1.11& 34& 36& 36\
296.24622& -14.86655& 40419& 17.98& 0.08& 16.67& 0.06& 15.79& 0.08& 2.19& 20& 18& 20\
296.24634& -14.86488& 40421& 17.41& 0.06& 16.40& 0.05& 15.82& 0.04& 1.59& 25& 24& 21\
296.25229& -14.74336& 40445& 17.70& 0.18& 16.57& 0.18& 15.80& 0.08& 1.90& 31& 35& 29\
296.25253& -14.86060& 40446& 18.61& 0.41& 17.57& 0.43& 16.75& 0.31& 1.86& 33& 33& 29\
296.25864& -14.73680& 40476& 17.71& 0.08& 16.44& 0.05& 15.53& 0.03& 2.18& 29& 25& 23\
296.25992& -14.74793& 40486& 18.59& 0.17& 17.73& 0.29& 16.70& 0.13& 1.88& 26& 33& 25\
296.26254& -14.84794& 40501& 17.26& 0.14& 16.14& 0.09& 15.51& 0.11& 1.76& 29& 25& 28\
296.27545& -14.85393& 40547& 17.45& 0.17& 16.30& 0.10& 15.66& 0.10& 1.79& 26& 25& 32\
Comparison with Battinelli and Demers (2011)
--------------------------------------------
Battinelli & Demers (2011) discuss long period variables discovered in their 32 arcmin square survey of NGC6822 using 1.5-m and 1.6-m telescopes, over a period of somewhat over three years. There is considerable overlap with our work although their survey extends further to the east (they also have unpublished data extending to the west). Twenty of their variables fall within the area we surveyed.
Table \[tab\_bd\] lists 16 of those 20 variables that we also regard as large amplitude variables and for which we derived periods. It includes the long period Cepheid, our N10170. The other 4 are briefly described below:\
BD v13, for which they find a period of 466 days, corresponds to our N20438 (Table \[tab\_var1\]) and its $K$ light curve is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_long1\]. Although it shows large amplitude variations its behaviour was not sufficiently regular for us to identify it as periodic, and it is therefore included in Table \[tab\_var1\]. However, knowing the period and examining the light curve it is possible to see that it underwent two maxima during the time we observed it, the first at $K_S\sim 15.8$ mag and the second at $K_S\sim 15.3$ mag.\
BD v14 is N40538 and is also a variable (Table \[tab\_var2\]), but without a clearly defined period.\
BD v9 is N20287 which is not obviously significantly variable.\
BD v21 was very faint on the $H$ frame that we used as a reference, and was therefore not extracted in our survey, although it is clearly seen on the $K$ frames. Battinelli & Demers determined P=613 days and $\Delta K_S=0.7$ mag for this star.
All of the other variables from Battinelli & Demers’s table 3 are outside the positional range of our survey. Fig. \[fig\_bp\] compares their periods and mean $K_S$ magnitudes with ours for the stars in common. We note that while the periods are in reasonable agreement there does appear to be a systematic difference in the mean $K_S$ magnitude. The mean difference is 0.25 mag, or 0.21 mag leaving out BD v19=N21141 where the mean magnitudes differed by 0.8 mag. It is disturbing to find such a large difference in the magnitudes of potential distance indicators and the matter is worth further investigation. There are no non-variable stars in Battinelli & Demers to compare with ours, but we have made the comparison with the UKIRT photometry of Sibbons et al. (2012). The difference between their $K_S$ magnitudes and ours, both uncorrected for interstellar reddening, is only 0.05 mag at $K_S=16$ mag and about 0.1 mag at $K_S=17$ mag. At the fainter magnitudes crowding can be a problem for matching objects between the two catalogues, quite apart from possible photometric difficulties. Neither study has taken account of any possible colour equation, both being essentially on the natural system. Though colour effects are probably not significant if $J-K_S<1.0$ mag, they may need to be considered for the reddest stars considered here, but it is extremely difficult to do the calibration work required to quantify the effect.
Given that our entire field falls within the area discussed by Battinelli & Demers it is a little surprising that they do not find more of the Mira variables that we identify. Six more of them are to be found in their table 4 which lists SR and irregular variables and Table \[tab\_bd2\] cross references our identification numbers with theirs (note that their BD v116 has the identical coordinates to their BD v12). They do not appear to have found the other 39.
Among their SR variables BD v109 is not measurable on our image where it is extended, while BD v117 is another very red object, visible at $K_S$ but not at shorter wavelengths. The other variables they list are outside of our survey area.\
------- -------- ------- ---- -------- -------
N P $K_S$ BD P $K_S$
(days) (mag) (days) (mag)
40102 526 15.69 1 576 15.80
40114 312 16.99 2 339 17.25
20331 314 15.46 3 326 15.67
20134 402 15.07 4 403 15.14
10807 747 15.89 5 777 16.25
12445 454 16.43 6 437 16.32
31168 434 15.82 7 447 16.20
10198 602 14.19 8 673 14.25
10170 123 14.92 10 124 14.80
30268 998 14.45 11 992 14.85
40520 432 15.51 12 436 15.75
12177 590 16.10 15 633 16.25
40590 221 16.39 16 223 16.80
40623 897 16.11 17 1100 16.60
21141 456 15.42 19 448 16.25
30583 305: 15.55 20 302 15.85
------- -------- ------- ---- -------- -------
: Variables in common with Battinelli & Demers (2011) table 3
\[tab\_bd\]
BD N remark
----- ------- -------------------------------
100 30981
101 11173
102 11296 Mira Table \[tab\_c\]
103 11414
104 20468
105 20239 Mira Table \[tab\_c\]
106 11372
107 10501 LPV trend Table \[tab\_var1\]
108 30920 Mira Table \[tab\_c\]
111 20892
112 12660 LPV trend Table \[tab\_var1\]
113 11299 Mira Table \[tab\_c\]
114 11362
115 40482
116 40520 =ID12 Mira Table \[tab\_c\]
118 20569 Mira Table \[tab\_c\]
119 20588 Mira Table \[tab\_c\]
: Variables in common with Battinelli & Demers (2011) table 4
\[tab\_bd2\]
![A comparison of the periods and mean $K$ magnitudes derived here and by Battinelli & Demers (2011).[]{data-label="fig_bp"}](fig_bp.ps){width="8.5cm"}
![The light-curves for some of the large amplitude variables without obvious periodicity.[]{data-label="fig_long1"}](fig_long1.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![The light-curves for some of the large amplitude variables without obvious periodicity.[]{data-label="fig_long1"}](fig_long2.ps "fig:"){width="6cm"}
M-type Miras
------------
The most luminous of the stars in Table \[tab\_o\](a), N20004, is a known variable, NGC6822V12. Kayser (1967) describes this as a semi-regular and writes ‘Most of the time it varies regularly with a period of 640 days, but every three to six cycles it does something else for 180 days’. Note that 640 days is significantly different from the 854 days that we found. Massey (1998) gives its spectral type as M2.5-3I: and $JHK$ photometry was published by Elias & Frogel (1985). Its amplitude is lower, and luminosity higher, than those of the other variables considered here and it is possibly the descendent of a more massive star and different from the other O-rich variables, but that is not entirely clear. Its luminosity is comparable to the supergiants discussed by Levesque & Massey (2012).
N10198 was identified as a variable, v198, by Baldacci et al. (2005). N10184 and N11226 were identified as variables, v1838 and v1534, respectively, by Antonello et al. (2002). N40139 appears in the GCVS as v16.
The bolometric magnitudes of the presumed O-rich stars were calculated by fitting a blackbody to the $JHK$ fluxes, following the procedure used by Robertson & Feast (1981) and by Feast et al. (1989). In practice, for these stars with very thin shells, bolometric magnitudes derived in this way differ insignificantly ($<0.03$ mag) from those calculated using the bolometric corrections defined for the C stars (section 7). The results are listed in Table \[tab\_obol\] and illustrated in a PL relation (Fig. \[fig\_PL\]).
The two short period stars are presumably similar to the short period O-rich Miras found in globular clusters (Feast et al. 2002; Whitelock et al. 2008), and their luminosities are comparable to those of the short period C-rich Miras. The brighter, longer period, stars appear to represent a somewhat younger population. They are probably similar to long-period O-rich Miras that are found in the LMC, many of which have s-process enhancements (Lundgren 1988; Smith et al. 1995). They are considered further in the next section.
v
------- -------- ----------- -------------
N P $m_{bol}$ $(J-K_S)_0$
(days)
12557 158 20.13 1.05
11226 257 19.27 1.37
20331 314 18.51 1.06
10184 370 18.27 1.25
30133 401 18.19 1.15
20134 402 18.21 1.23
40139 545 17.05 1.28
10198 602 17.36 1.27
30292 637 17.80 1.15
10091 638 17.34 1.24
20004 854 15.62 1.10
------- -------- ----------- -------------
: Bolometric magnitudes of the assumed O-rich Miras.
\[tab\_obol\]
------- -------- ----------- -------------
N P $m_{bol}$ $(J-K_S)_0$
(days)
12790 182 19.82 1.34
10817 214 19.41 1.56
20540 223 19.63 1.39
40590 223 19.74 1.52
12751 231 19.62 1.50
11032 239 19.34 2.16
10748 243 19.48 2.36
20578 246 19.50 1.56
20542 255 19.42 1.72
11226 257 19.27 1.31
30430 269 19.25 1.71
12208 278 19.02 2.15
21419 278 19.29 3.26
13364 286 19.26 2.14
12400 301 19.30 2.02
30583 302 19.19 2.39
20558 304 18.47 2.80
20239 304 19.04 2.27
20840 306 19.24 2.62
12466 311 19.40 2.29
20331 314 18.51 1.02
40114 316 19.76 3.16
11059 319 19.11 2.49
20375 328 18.96 2.34
11296 340 19.06 2.49
30928 342 19.58 2.57
20657 343 18.93 2.32
13106 354 18.98 3.04
10184 370 18.27 1.20
20588 376 18.53 2.30
11305 378 18.78 2.47
30920 384 18.94 2.99
40363 398 19.41 2.77
30133 401 18.18 1.11
20134 402 18.22 1.18
11140 405 19.10 2.72
20439 430 18.61 3.28
40520 432 18.64 2.80
10753 432 19.19 2.42
31168 434 18.44 3.57
21671 436 18.85 3.52
11174 440 18.82 3.12
12445 454 18.76 3.73
20569 454 18.89 3.11
21141 456 18.68 2.64
21234 466 18.50 3.81
12147 475 18.88 3.59
11299 494 18.57 3.23
13293 495 18.69 3.78
21029 501 18.34 3.46
40102 526 18.11 3.90
40139 545 17.03 1.23
12177 590 18.08 4.30
10198 602 17.36 1.21
30292 637 17.81 1.10
10091 638 17.34 1.19
10807 747 17.71 4.38
20004 854 15.60 1.06
40623 897 18.07 4.39
30268 998 17.84 2.18
------- -------- ----------- -------------
: Bolometric magnitudes of the assumed C-rich Miras.
\[tab\_cbol\]
C-type Miras
------------
These are discussed below in section 7.
Completeness of large amplitude variable survey
===============================================
We measured pulsation periods for 61 Mira variables in our survey area, compared to the 20 measured by Battinelli & Demers (2011) in the same area (only 16 of these are in common). So there is no question that we significantly improved on their count. However, we note that our survey will still be incomplete for the following reasons:\
(1) We may have missed a very small number of very red, dust enshrouded, large amplitude variables entirely (see section 5.1) and indeed we did miss one of those found by Battinelli & Demers. Nevertheless it is interesting to see that we have one assumed C-rich Mira, with a period of 998 days (N30268 for which there is no measured spectral type).
It has been suggested that at periods longer than about 1000 days the stars are sufficiently massive for hot bottom burning to occur and that will result in O-, rather than C-rich Miras (Feast 2009). The longest period C-rich Miras in the LMC are also just under 1000 days (Whitelock et al. 2003). It would obviously be very interesting to know if we have any OH/IR stars in NGC6822 with periods over 1000 days.\
(2) Some Miras behave erratically and very long-term monitoring is necessary to characterize them. That is one of the reasons for differences with Battinelli & Demers. Most such stars will appear in Tables \[tab\_var1\] or \[tab\_var2\].\
(3) Confusion, especially in the crowded inner regions, limits our ability to measure the Miras, particularly at $J$.
All of these factors are relevant, but the only one that is likely to seriously affect the total count is item (2).
Period-Luminosity Relations
===========================
There are a variety of ways in which bolometric magnitudes can be measured or estimated, depending on the information available and, to some extent, on the desired objective. Given that one is almost always limited by temporal and/or spectral coverage any chosen approach is a compromise. Kerschbaum, Lebzelter & Makul (2010) discuss different approaches and show that they can lead to very different results: over 0.5 mag spread at a particular colour. We also note that Kamath et al. (2010) and Groenewegen et al. (2007) derive bolometric magnitudes for several variable stars in the SMC cluster NGC419 using the same Spitzer data and slightly different $JHKL$ values. Their bolometric magnitudes differ by amounts that range from –0.1 to 0.4 mag for the same star.
These uncertainties present difficulties when attempting to compare bolometric luminosities with theoretical predictions. For instance, in a plot of bolometric magnitude against period (their fig. 7), Kamath et al. place a group of NGC419 carbon-rich semi-regular variables on their computed fundamental sequence and a group of brighter shorter period variables on their first overtone sequence. This is contrary to the usually accepted model of the overall evolution that increasing luminosity and period implies decreasing mode. Such a normal evolutionary sequence is supported by the $K-\log P$ plot for these same NGC419 variables. This places them all together in a single group on the first overtone sequence in a “Wood" PL diagram (for instance the LMC/SMC plots of Ita et al. 2004).
For the purpose of this paper we follow the same procedure for determining bolometric magnitudes as in our previous papers as this will give us consistent values that are good, at least, for estimating distances via the PL relation.
Bolometric magnitudes for the presumed C stars were calculated in the same way as in our earlier papers (e.g. Whitelock et al. 2009), by applying a colour-dependent bolometric correction to the reddening-corrected $K$ magnitudes on the SAAO system. The magnitudes given in Table \[tab\_o\], which are on the 2MASS system, are converted to the SAAO system following Carpenter (2001 and web page update[^2]). The resulting bolometric magnitudes are listed in Table \[tab\_cbol\].
Note that the bolometric magnitudes derived for stars with faint $J$ magnitudes are rather uncertain due to photometric errors and the increased possibility of confusion.
; closed symbols represent those from Table \[tab\_c\](b). The solid line is the best fit to the closed circles while the dashed line is the best fitting one with the same slope as the LMC PL relation.[]{data-label="fig_PL"}](fig_pl.ps){width="8.5cm"}
Figure \[fig\_PL\] shows a PL relation. A least squares fit to the 50 presumed C-rich Miras gives the following result: $$m_{bol}=19.16(\pm0.04)-2.91(\pm0.22)[\log P -2.5],$$ with a scatter of 0.23 mag. This expression is shown as a solid line in Fig. \[fig\_PL\].
Alternatively, if we assume that the slope of the PL relation is the same as that found in the LMC, $-3.31\pm0.24$ (Whitelock et al. 2009), then we derive a zero point of $19.18\pm0.03$, with a scatter of 0.24 mag for the same 50 stars. This line is also shown in Fig. \[fig\_PL\].
If we restrict the stars in NGC6822 to cover the same range of periods as used to derive the LMC PL relation, i.e. $220 < P < 500 $, then the zero-point is $19.20\pm 0.04$, with a scatter of 0.23 mag for 41 stars.
Leaving out the stars with the faintest $J$ magnitudes, $J>20.0$ mag, which have the most uncertain bolometric magnitudes, we find a zero point of $19.16\pm 0.04$, with a scatter of 0.22 mag for 40 stars.
Leaving out only star N40114, which is unusually red ($J-K\sim 3.28$) for a P=313 day Mira and rather faint with respect to the PL relation, gives a zero point of $19.17\pm 0.03$, with a scatter of 0.22 mag for 49 stars
Thus these results are consistent with the PL relation in NGC6822 having the same slope as it does for the LMC. If we assume that the distance of the LMC is $(m-M)_0=18.50$ mag, the PL relation derived from LMC Miras is $$M_{bol}=-4.38-3.31[\log P -2.5],$$ and using the zero point of $19.18\pm
0.03$, the distance modulus for NGC6822 is $(m-M)_0=23.56 (\pm0.03)$ mag. The uncertainty does not include the uncertainty on the LMC distance. This can be compared with values of 23.40 mag and 23.49 derived from Cepheids and RR Lyraes, respectively (Feast et al. 2012; Clementini et al. 2003).
![PL($K$) for the large amplitude variables in NGC6822; symbols as in Fig. \[fig\_PL\]. The solid line is the PL($K$) derived for the Galactic O-rich Miras assuming $(m-M)_{LMC}=18.5$ mag. The absolute $K$ magnitudes shown here assumes $(m-M)_{N6822}=
23.38$ mag, as was determined from the 4 faintest O-rich Miras.[]{data-label="fig_PLK"}](fig_plk.ps){width="8.5cm"}
In the PL($K$) diagram (Fig. \[fig\_PLK\]) many of the C-rich Miras fall below the anticipated PL relation, because circumstellar extinction is sufficiently strong to affect their $K$ magnitudes, in some cases by more than one magnitude. This is illustrated by Nsengiyumva (2010 his fig. 3.9) in a plot of the difference between $K$ observed and predicted from the PL relation, as a function of $J-K$ colour.
The O-rich Miras fall in approximately the same region as do the C-rich ones at shorter periods, but above $\log P>2.7$ they are consistently brighter than the PL relation. These are the same stars that fall to the upper left of the C stars in the colour-magnitude diagram (Fig. \[fig\_cm2\]). The same is found for Miras in the LMC as discussed by Whitelock et al. (2003), who suggested that the high luminosity of these O-rich stars was a consequence of hot bottom burning, which is expected for intermediate mass AGB stars. Feast (2009) has suggested that their position in the PL relation is consistent with their being overtone pulsators, which may eventually evolve into long period OH/IR stars.
In view of the fact that these O-rich Miras do not have significant circumstellar reddening we can use the PL($K$) relation derived by Whitelock et al. (2008) to derive a distance. For this we use only the four stars with $P<400$ days, as longer period O-rich Miras are usually brighter than the PL($K$) would predict. We use the relation derived for Galactic stars by Whitelock et al. (2008): $$M_K=3.51[logP-2.38]-7.37,$$ which assumes the same LMC distance as above. Transforming the 4 $K$ magnitudes onto the SAAO system as before gives a distance modulus for NGC6822 of $23.38\pm0.16$ mag.
Given the uncertainties, including the fact that the LMC distance may vary with the sample of LMC stars studied (e.g. Feast et al. 2012), the various estimates of the NGC6822 distance modulus are not in conflict.
Comparison with the Dwarf Spheroidals
=====================================
It is instructive to compare what we find here with the period distribution of Miras in other Local Group galaxies and in particular with those in the dwarf spheroidals that were surveyed in the same way. Figure \[fig\_hist\] shows a histogram of the periods for the presumed C-rich Mira variables and compares them with those found in the dwarf spheroidals. The following dwarf spheroidals are involved (Mira periods, in days, given in parenthesis after the names): Sculptor (189, 554, Menzies et al. 2011), Fornax(215, 258, 267, 280, 350, 400, 470, Whitelock et al. 2009), Phoenix (425 Menzies et al. 2008), Leo I (158, 180, 191, 252, 283, 336, 523, Menzies et al. 2010) and Leo II (183 unpublished). We include the Phoenix dwarf galaxy with this group, but note that it is generally classed as intermediate between dwarf irregular and dwarf spheroidal (e.g. Battaglia et al. 2012).
Figure \[fig\_hist\] also shows the period distribution of probable C-rich Miras in the LMC taken from Soszyński et al. (2009), which is based on the OGLE III catalogue. Care is required in comparing frequency distributions of AGB variables derived from surveys with different sensitivities and in different wavelength regions (OGLE III is a $V$ and $I$ survey), because the different selection effects will affect the colour- and period-range of the variables found. In particular longer wavelength surveys tend to find larger numbers of redder and longer period variables.
The distribution of large amplitude carbon variables with period found for NGC6822 is similar to that shown by carbon AGB variables in both the LMC and SMC (see Soszyński et al. 2011 fig. 3 for the SMC). It is also clear that there are very few short period carbon variables on the Wood sequence C (the Mira sequence) of any amplitude in either Magellanic Cloud. It is notable that the distribution of LMC and SMC C-rich variables in both the amplitude-period and the PL relations appear to be very similar though the ratio of O-rich to C-rich variables differs greatly.
While the existence of Miras with periods in excess of 600 days in NGC6822 is quite striking, they only constitute 6 percent of the total number. Thus we would only expect to see one in all the Local Group dwarf spheroidals if they were present in the same proportions. However, our survey is probably not complete for long-period variables, as our failure to identify BD v21 (P=613 days) shows; it was too faint at $H$.
The smaller fraction of short period Miras, less than 300 days, in NGC6822 and the Magellanic Clouds compared to the dwarf spheroidals, is notable. Of course for short period Miras the magnitudes are fainter and the amplitudes are lower (on average) than they are for the longer period stars, so they are more difficult to find. Nevertheless, we have followed the same procedure here as we did in the dwarf spheroidals to identify variables, so we should have found them if they were there, provided that they did not have exceptional dust shells. For example, BD v16 (our N40590) was not initially identified as a Mira by us, presumably because its amplitude was slightly lower when we observed it than when they did. It seems that the variables in NGC6822 with periods less than 300 days have low amplitudes, i.e., there are no stars like L7020 in LeoI which has $\Delta K_S =1.2$ mag and $P=191$ days. However, L2077 in LeoI which has $\Delta K_S =1.2$ mag and $P=283$ days is much redder with mean magnitudes of $J=20.9$, $H=19.0$ and $K_S=17.4$. Given that our sensitivity is limited to stars with $H<18.3$ mag this star would have been missed. Since the period decreases with increasing age for Miras, it seems probable that the different period distributions are due to a larger proportion of an older C-rich population in the dwarf spheroidals. The evolutionary status of this population is somewhat problematic, as discussed by Menzies et al (2011).
Although we have spectral types for only a few of the Miras in any of these galaxies, the dwarf spheroidals do not have any long period M stars that we know of. This of course is to be expected given what we know about the metallicity and star formation history of the dwarf spheroidals.
![Histogram of the periods of the C-rich Miras in NGC6822 (lower panel including N40419 P=193 days and BD v24 P=670 days) and in the four dwarf spheroidals (central panel) and LMC (top panel from Soszyński et al. (2009)).[]{data-label="fig_hist"}](fig_hist.ps){width="6cm"}
Conclusions
===========
The large number of C-rich Miras now found in NGC6822 allows us to demonstrate that the slope of the bolometric PL relation in that galaxy is, within the errors, the same as that in the LMC. The distance modulus found from this relation is in satisfactory agreement with that found by other methods and with that derived from the PL($K$) relation for the small number of shorter period O-rich Miras. Whilst there are problems with determining bolometric magnitudes for C-rich AGB stars, these are not important for distance scale studies provided a consistent method is employed for both programme stars and calibrators. The period distribution of high amplitude carbon-rich AGB variables in NGC6822 is probably similar to that in the two Magellanic Clouds but differs from that in Local Group dwarf spheroidals, which contain a population of high amplitude, short period C-rich variables. Since these short period stars are believed to be old, this indicates that the dwarf spheroidals contain an old population that is capable of producing C-rich AGB variables which is absent or relatively rare in both NGC6822 and the Magellanic Clouds.\
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This publication makes extensive use of the various databases operated by CDS, Strasbourg, France. MWF, JWM and PAW gratefully acknowledge the receipt of research grants from the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa and FN thanks the National Astrophysics and Space Science Programme (NASSP) of South Africa for financial support. We would also like to thank Serge Demers for sending us data and preprints of his work with Paolo Battinelli in advance of publication and the referee Jacco van Loon for his comments.
Aaronson M., Mould J., Cook K. H., 1985, ApJ, 291, L41 Antonello E., Fuazza D., Mantegazza L., Stefanon M., 2002, IBVS, 5251, 1 Baldacci L., Rizzi L., Clementini G., Held E. V., 2005, A&A, 431, 1189 Battaglia G., Rejkuba M., Tolstoy E., Irwin M. J., Beccari, G., 2012, MNRAS, 424, 1113 Battinelli P., Demers S., 2011, A&A, 525, 69 Carpenter J.M., 2001, AJ, 121, 2851 Cannon J.M., et al., 2012, ApJ, 747, 122 Cioni M.-R. L., Habing H. L., 2005, A&A, 429, 837 Clementini G., Held E.V., Baldacci L., Rizzi L., 2003, ApJ, 588, L85 Demers S., Battinelli P., Kunkel W., 2006, ApJ, 636, L85 Elias J. H., Frogel J. A., 1985, ApJ, 289, 141 Feast M. W., 2009, in: Ueta, Matsunaga, Ita, (eds.) AGB Stars and Related Phenomena, a conference in honour of Y. Nakada, p. 48 Feast M. W., Glass I. S., Whitelock P. A., Catchpole R. M., 1989, MNRAS, 241, 375 Feast M. W., Whitelock P. A., Menzies J. W., 2002, MNRAS, 329, L7 Feast M. W., Whitelock P. A., Menzies J. W., Matsunaga N., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 2998 Filippenko A. V., Chornock R., 2003, IAUC 8158 Groenewegen M. A. T. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 376, 313 Groenewegen M. A. T., Lançon A., Marescaux M., 2009, A&A, 504, 103 Ita Y., et al., 2004, MNRAS, 347, 720 Kacharov N., Rejkuba M., Cioni M.-R. L., 2012, A&A, 537, A108 Kang A., Sohn Y.-J., Kim H.-I. et al., 2006, A&A, 454, 717 Kamath D., Wood P. R., Soszyński I., Lebzelter T., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 522 Kayser S. E., 1967, AJ, 72, 134 Kerschbaum F., Lebzelter T., Makul L., 2010, A&A, 524, A87 Kniazev A. Y., et al., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1121 Levesque E. M., Massey P., 2012, AJ, 144, 2 Letarte B., Demers S., Battinelli P., Kunkel W. E., 2002, AJ, 123, 832 Lundgren K., 1988, A&A, 200, 85 Massey P., 1998, ApJ, 501, 153 Menzies J., Feast M., Tanabé T., Whitelock P., Nakada Y., MNRAS, 2002, 335, 923 Menzies J., Feast M., Whitelock P., Olivier E., Matsunaga N., da Costa G., 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1045 Menzies J., Whitelock P., Feast M., Matsunaga N., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 86 Menzies J., Feast M., Whitelock P., Matsunaga N., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 3492 Muschielok B., Kudritzki R. P., Appenzeller, I. et al. 1999, A&A, 352, 40 Nagayama T., et al., 2003, SPIE, 4841, 459 Nikolaev S., Weinberg M. D., 2000, ApJ, 542, 804 Nsengiyumva F., 2010, Asymptotic Giant Branch Variables in NGC6822, MSc thesis, University of Cape Town Persson S.E., Madore B.F., Krzemiński W., Freedman W.L., Roth M., Murphy D.C., 2004, AJ, 128, 2239 Robertson B. S. C., Feast M. W., 1981, MNRAS, 196, 111 Sackmann I.-J., Boothroyd A., 1992, ApJ, 392, L71 Schlegel D.J., Finkbeiner D.P, Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525 Siess L., 2008, in: Deng, L., & Chan, K.L. (eds.), The Art of Modeling Stars in the 21st Century, IAUS, 252, 297 Sibbons L. F., Ryan S. G., Cioni M.-R. L., Irwin, M., Napiwotzki R., 2012, A& A, 540, 135 Smith V. V., Plez B., Lambert D. L., Lubowich D. A., 1995, ApJ, 441, 735 Soszyński I. et al. 2009, Act.Ast., 59, 239 Soszyński I. et al. 2011, Act.Ast., 61, 217 Whitelock P. A., 1997, in: R. Ferlet, J.-P. Maillard, B. Raban (eds.) Variable Stars and the Astrophysical Returns of Microlensing Surveys, Editions Frontieres, p. 163 Whitelock P. A., Feast M. W., Marang F., Overbeek M. D., 1997, MNRAS, 288, 512 Venn K.A. et al., 2001, ApJ, 547, 765 Whitelock P. A., Feast M. W., van Loon J. Th., Zijlstra A. A., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 86 Whitelock P. A., Feast M. W.,Marang F., Groenewegen M. A. T., 2006, MNRAS, 369, 751 Whitelock P. A., Feast M. W., van Leeuwen F., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 313 Whitelock P. A., Menzies J. W., Feast M. W., Matsunaga N., Tanabé T., Ita Y., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 795 Wood P. R., 2000, PASA, 17,18
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
(b), arbitrarily phased (zero at JD2450000); each point is plotted twice to emphasize the variability. The best fitting first order curve is also illustrated, it is from this that the mean magnitude and amplitude were determined.[]{data-label="fig_lc1"}](fig_lc1.ps "fig:"){width="8cm"} (b), arbitrarily phased (zero at JD2450000); each point is plotted twice to emphasize the variability. The best fitting first order curve is also illustrated, it is from this that the mean magnitude and amplitude were determined.[]{data-label="fig_lc1"}](fig_lc2.ps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
{width="8cm"}
[^1]: most of these will be C stars, but this is also the place we expect to find OH/IR stars if such objects exist in NGC6822.
[^2]: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/ jmc/2mass/v3/transformations/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'As a nonrelativistic particle constrained to remain on an $N-1$ ($N\geq 2$) dimensional hypersurface embedded in an $N$ dimensional Euclidean space, two different components $p_{i}$ and $p_{j}$ ($i,j=1,2,3,...N$) of the Cartesian momentum of the particle are not mutually commutative, and explicitly commutation relations $[p_{i},p_{j}]\left( \neq 0\right) $ depend on products of positions and momenta in uncontrollable ways. The *generalized* Dupin indicatrix of the hypersurface, a local analysis technique, is utilized to explore the dependence of the noncommutativity on the curvatures on a *local point* of the hypersurface. The first finding is that the noncommutativity can be grouped into two categories; one is the product of a sectional curvature and the angular momentum, and another is the product of a principal curvature and the momentum. The second finding is that, for a small circle lying a *tangential plane* covering the *local point*, the noncommutativity leads to a rotation operator and the amount of the rotation is an angle anholonomy; and along each of the *normal sectional curves* centering the *given point* the noncommutativity leads to a translation plus an additional rotation and the amount of the rotation is one half of the tangential angle change of the arc.'
author:
- 'Q. H. Liu'
- 'X. Yang'
- 'Z. Li'
title: 'Curvature-induced noncommutativity of two different components of momentum for a particle on a hypersurface'
---
Introduction
============
In quantum mechanics there are so-called fundamental quantum conditions that include as the vital part the commutation relations between any pair of different components of momentum [@dirac; @dirac1]. The momentum operators in flat space are well understood, but it is not so in curved space. For a particle moves on the curved hypersurface that can be modelled as a simple curved space, the commutation relations for momentum have complicated structure. Though Dirac proposed in 1950 the standard procedure of constructing the commutation relations for momentum, and the quantization of the motion for the particle on the surface has been studied for more than six decades [dirac1,dirac2,dirac3,1968,homma,ikegami,Klauder,kleinert,Golovnev,weinberg,liu11]{}, the understanding of the commutation relations for momentum is still insufficient, through the curvature-induced effects have been investigated theoretically and experimentally [liu11,liu17,liu13-1,liu13-2,liu13-3,liu14,wang17,liu07,waveguide]{}. A recent article contains a mini-review of the current theoretical researches on this subject [@liu19].
In order to get an unambiguous result on the noncommutativity (*c.f.* Eq. (\[ppd\])), let us recall the powerful local analysis in physics and mathematics. For instance, in the general relativity, the small region of globally curved spacetime is approximately flat, and a non-linear differential equation can be made linear one if examining locally. For a two-dimensional curved surface, the Dupin indicatrix is a standard method for characterizing the local shape of a surface [@lp], which can be easily to be generalized to hypersurfaces in higher dimensions to analyze the local shape [@1960]. Such a analysis was performed to investigate the curvature-induced potential for the particle constrained on the hypersurface [@Golovnev], yielding a form of the curvature-induced potential originally predicted by the well-defined *confining potential formalism* [@QP1] (or called thin-layer quantization procedure [@Golovnev]). In present study, the technique is utilized to investigate the long-lasting noncommutative commutation relations of momentum operators, revealing novel results which has not been revealed before.
For a nonrelativistic particle constrained to remain on an ($N-1$)-dimensional smooth curved surface $\Sigma ^{N-1}$ in flat space $R^{N}$ ($%
N\succeq 2$), one can for the particle define $N$ pairs of Cartesian variable $(p_{i},x_{i})$ (hereafter $i,j,l=1,2,3,...N$) where $p_{i}$ is $i$th cartesian momentum and $x_{i}$ is $i$th coordinate. In classical mechanics, we know that two different components of the momentum ${\mathbf{p}%
}$ do not commute with each other [1968,homma,ikegami,Klauder,kleinert,Golovnev,weinberg]{}, $$\lbrack p_{i},p_{j}]_{D}=\Pi _{ij}\equiv
\sum_{l=1}^{N}(n_{j}n_{i,l}-n_{i}n_{j,l})p_{l}\neq 0,(i\neq j), \label{ppd}$$where subscript $D$ in the square bracket denotes the Dirac bracket, and $%
n_{i}$ is the $i$-th component of the normal vector $\mathbf{n}$ at a point of the surface $\Sigma ^{N-1}$ and symbol “$,l$” in the subscript stands for the derivative with respect to the coordinate $x_{l}$, and so forth.
Since 1968 [@1968], there are different approaches to construct the quantum mechanical commutation relations $[p_{i},p_{j}]=i\hbar \hat{\Pi}_{ij}
$, which has been nevertheless a controversial issue, where $\hat{F}$ denotes the operator form of a classical quantity $F$, and the hat “$\wedge $” over the quantity $F$ is usually omitted for convenience. A notoriously operator-ordering difficulty as to distribute $p_{l}$ in $n_{j}n_{i,l}$ and $%
n_{i}n_{j,l}$ in $\Pi _{ij}$ (\[ppd\]) is hard to resolve. Take the distribution problem of inserting $p_{l}$ in $n_{j}n_{i,l}$ for instance, and there are different approaches. The first approach is a simple combination of two possibilities $p_{l}n_{j}n_{i,l}$ and $n_{j}n_{i,l}p_{l}$ [@homma], and the second is to consider following four possibilities $%
p_{l}n_{j}n_{i,l}$, $n_{j}p_{l}n_{i,l}$, $n_{i,l}p_{l}n_{j}$, and $%
n_{j}n_{i,l}p_{l}$ [@ikegami]. The attempt of Weinberg is to insert $%
p_{l}$ into position-dependent factors forming $n_{j}$ [@weinberg], which is subtle. So far, except for very special case such as the spherical surface [1968,homma,ikegami,Klauder,kleinert,Golovnev,weinberg,liu11,liu17,liu13-1,liu13-2]{} and the flat plane, the physical significance of the quantity $\Pi _{ij}$ (\[ppd\]) in general has been an open problem for quite a long time. An important issue relevant to an nonrelativistic particle constrained on the hypersurface is that there is the curvature-induced geometric potential [liu17]{}, but we deal with fundamental quantum conditions (\[ppd\]) which apply to both nonrelativistic and relativistic case in which there is no curvature-induced geometric potential [@liu19; @2016].
The structure of $\Pi _{ij}$ (\[ppd\]) for a small area of surface around a given point is surprisingly simple, which in quantum mechanics becomes operator-ordering free. It is in sharp contrast to what the noncommutativity might suggest. Results in section II show that the leading contribution of $%
\Pi _{ij}$ in (\[ppd\]) can be categorized into two classes. In section III we construct two geometrically infinitesimal displacement operators (GIDOs), and demonstrate that these two GIDOs can be divided into two groups of operators, in which one is purely rotational and another is translational plus rotational. Section IV presents conclusions and discussions.
A local expansion of the surface equation and noncommutativity without operator-ordering problem
================================================================================================
Let us consider the surface equation $f(x)=0$, where $f(x)$ is some smooth function of position $x=(x_{1},x_{2},...x_{N})$ in $R^{N}$, whose normal vector is $\mathbf{n}\equiv \nabla f(x)/|\nabla f(x)|$. We can always choose the equation of the surface such that $|\nabla f(x)|=1$, so that $\mathbf{n}%
\equiv \nabla f(x)$. This is because physics does not depend on the specific form of the surface equations, but depend on the invariants of the surface, which remain the same for all possible surface equations. Some geometric invariants include, the normal vector, principal curvatures, and number of genus, etc.
At any point of the surface, let us put the origin $O$ of an $N$ dimensional cartesian coordinates at the given point of the surface. In a sufficiently small region covering the origin $O$, we construct a system of orthogonal coordinates $(X_{1},X_{2},...X_{N-1},X_{N})$ which can be used to specify a point in the vicinity of the origin $O(X=0)$ on the hypersurface, and the surface equation around the origin $O$ can be so chosen $f(X)\equiv
X_{N}-w(X_{1},X_{2},...X_{N-1})$ that $w(X_{1},X_{2},...X_{N-1})$ is Monge’s form of the hypersurface. What is more, we can always choose the coordinates such that the normal direction $\mathbf{n}$ is along the $X_{N}$-axis and principal directions are along $N-1$ coordinates $X_{a}$ ($a,b=1,2,3,...N-1$), respectively, and the hypersurface is asymptotically represented by the generalization of the two-dimensional Dupin indicatrix [lp,1960,Golovnev]{},$$f(X)=0\longrightarrow X_{N}\approx \frac{1}{2}\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}k_{a}X_{a}^{2},
\label{dupin}$$where $k_{a}$ is the $a$-th principal curvature of the curve formed by the intersection of the $X_{a}X_{N}$-plane on the hypersurface $\Sigma ^{N-1}$ at the origin $O$, and the intersections from the normal sections, and there are in total $N-1$ normal sections. A product $K_{ab}\equiv k_{a}k_{b\text{ }%
}$($a\neq b$) is right the $ab$-th sectional curvature [Golovnev,docarmo,mathpage]{}. The normal vector near the origin $O$ is,
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{n} &\mathbf{\approx }&\nabla
f(x)=(-k_{1}X_{1},-k_{2}X_{2},...,-k_{N-1}X_{N-1},1),\text{or } \label{nO}
\\
n_{a} &\approx &-k_{a}X_{a},\text{ and \ }n_{N}=1, \label{n01}\end{aligned}$$
which at $O$ reduces to $\mathbf{n}=(0,0,...,0,1)$. The derivative of the normal vector $\mathbf{n}$ with respect to the coordinate $X_{l}$ gives,
$$n_{a,l}\approx \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
k_{a}(1+o(X^{2}))\delta _{l,a} \\
o(X^{2})(1-\delta _{l,a})%
\end{array}%
\right. ,\text{ and }n_{a,N}\approx o(X)\left( 1-\delta _{Na}\right) ,
\label{nal}$$
where $o(X)$ and $o(X^{2})$ denote quantities of order $X$ and $X^{2}$, respectively. At $O$, we have, respectively, the mean curvature, $$M\equiv {-}\sum_{i=1}^{N}n_{i,i}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}k_{a},
\label{meancurvature}$$and, $$\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}\left( n_{i,j}\right) ^{2}=\sum_{a=1}^{N-1}k_{a}^{2}.
\label{k2}$$The central results of the present study are, up to the leading term,$$\lbrack
p_{a},p_{b}]_{D}=\sum_{l=1}^{N}(n_{b}n_{a,l}-n_{a}n_{b,l})p_{l}\approx
-K_{ab}L_{ab},(a\neq b), \label{local}$$where $L_{ab}\equiv X_{a}p_{b}-X_{b}p_{a}$, and, $$\lbrack p_{a},p_{N}]_{D}\approx -k_{a}p_{a}. \label{angle}$$In consequence, we have the *local* commutation relations in quantum mechanics, $$\lbrack p_{a},p_{b}]\approx -i\hbar K_{ab}L_{ab},\text{ and }%
[p_{a},p_{N}]\approx -i\hbar k_{a}p_{a}. \label{qlocal}$$These two sets of commutation relations are remarkable for they are free from operator-ordering difficulty.
Two immediate remarks on these local relations (\[angle\]) and (\[local\]) follow. 1) They depend on the local geometric invariants of the surface such as $K_{ab}$, $k_{a}$, $L_{ab}$ and $p_{a}$ etc., so they hold irrespective of coordinates chosen. 2) The brackets (\[local\]) and ([angle]{}) are zero once $K_{ab}$ and $k_{a}$ are zero respectively, as expected.
Geometrically infinitesimal displacement operators and rotations
================================================================
Now we further investigate the physical significances of the commutation relations (\[qlocal\]).
First, we construct a GIDO along a small circle which is approximated by* a small square* in the *tangential* $X_{a}X_{b}$-plane around the origin $O$; and let the small square be formed by four points at A($%
-\delta X_{a}/2,-\delta X_{b}/2$), B($\delta X_{a}/2,-\delta X_{b}/2$), C($%
\delta X_{a}/2,\delta X_{b}/2$) and D($\delta X_{a}/2,-\delta X_{b}/2$), with center at the origin $O$ with $\left\vert \delta X_{a}\right\vert
=\left\vert \delta X_{b}\right\vert $. The initial and final points of the displacements coincide at point A($-\delta X_{a}/2,-\delta X_{b}/2$), and order of the displacement is A$\rightarrow $B$\rightarrow $C$\rightarrow $D$%
\rightarrow $A. We have a GIDO along a small square $\square $ABCD, $$G_{\square }\equiv e^{i\frac{\delta X_{b}p_{b}}{\hbar }}e^{i\frac{\delta
X_{a}p_{a}}{\hbar }}e^{-i\frac{\delta X_{b}p_{b}}{\hbar }}e^{-i\frac{\delta
X_{a}p_{a}}{\hbar }}\approx e^{\frac{\delta X_{a}\delta X_{b}}{\hbar ^{2}}%
[p_{a},p_{b}]}\approx e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar }\left( \delta X_{a}\delta
X_{b}K_{ab}\right) L_{ab}}. \label{ro}$$In calculation, the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula for two possibly noncommutative operators $u$ and $v$ as $e^{u}e^{v}\approx
e^{u+v}e^{[u,v]/2} $ is used. We see that the GIDO $G_{\square }$ (\[ro\]) is a rotational operator on the $X_{a}X_{b}$-plane, and the angle of the rotation is $\left( \delta X_{a}\delta X_{b}K_{ab}\right) $ which is the sectional anholonomy. It is originally defined by the angle of rotation of the vector as it is accumulated during parallel transport of the vector on a the hypersurface along the the small circle on the $X_{a}X_{b}$-plane. The angle anholonomy formed by a loop covering an finite area $\Delta S$ on the hypersurface is given by, $$\sum_{a,b=1}^{N-1}\int_{\Delta S}K_{ab}dX_{a}\wedge dX_{b}, \label{anh}$$where the finite area $\Delta S$ is formed by infinitely many flat pieces covering the area, and $\sum_{a,b=1}^{N-1}\oint K_{ab}dX_{a}\wedge
dX_{b}=2\pi \chi $, where $\chi $ is the Chern number.
If the hypersurface is a two-dimensional spherical surface, the angle anholonomy is equal to the solid angle subtended by loop. If the surface is locally a saddle, the infinitesimal angle anholonomy is negative. If it is a cylinder whose gaussian curvature is vanishing, the angle anholonomy is zero.
Secondly, considering *the small arc length* from E$(-\delta
X_{a},-\delta X_{N})$ via $\mathit{O}$ to G$(\delta X_{a},-\delta X_{N})$ along the small portion of the normal sectional curve on the *normal* $%
X_{a}X_{N}$-plane at the origin, we immediately find that the commutator $%
[p_{a},p_{N}]\approx -i\hbar k_{a}p_{a}$ leads to a displacement plus an additional rotation. To see it, we construct following GIDO which shifts a quantum state along the arc from point E $\rightarrow $ $O$ $\rightarrow $ G, $$G_{\frown }\equiv \exp \left( -i\frac{\delta X_{a}p_{a}-\delta X_{N}p_{N}}{%
\hbar }\right) \exp \left( -i\frac{\delta X_{a}p_{a}+\delta X_{N}p_{N}}{%
\hbar }\right) \approx \exp \left( -i\frac{2\delta X_{a}p_{a}}{\hbar }%
\right) \exp \left( -\frac{\delta X_{a}\delta X_{N}}{\hbar ^{2}}\left[
p_{a},p_{N}\right] \right) . \label{last-2}$$In right-handed side of this equation, we see two parts, and one is a simple translational operator $\exp \left( -i\frac{2\delta X_{a}p_{a}}{\hbar }%
\right) $ and another is, $$\exp \left( -\frac{\delta X_{a}\delta X_{N}}{\hbar ^{2}}\left[ p_{a},p_{N}%
\right] \right) =\exp \left( i\frac{\delta X_{a}\delta X_{N}}{\hbar }%
k_{a}p_{a}\right) . \label{last-1}$$The physical significance becomes evident. The arc length element of along E $\rightarrow $ O $\rightarrow $ G is $ds\equiv 2\sqrt{\delta
X_{N}^{2}+\delta X_{a}^{2}}\approx 2\delta X_{a}$ with noting that $\delta
X_{N}\approx k_{a}X_{a}\delta X_{a}=o(X)\delta X_{a}$ from (\[dupin\]). The change of the tangential vector along the arc is $-\delta \theta \equiv
k_{a}ds\equiv 2k_{a}\sqrt{\delta X_{N}^{2}+\delta X_{a}^{2}}\approx
2k_{a}\delta X_{a}$, and we have from above equation (\[last-1\]),$$\exp \left( i\frac{\delta X_{a}\delta X_{N}}{\hbar }k_{a}p_{a}\right)
\approx \exp \left( -\frac{i}{\hbar }\left( \frac{-\delta \theta }{2}\right)
L_{Na}\right) , \label{last}$$where an angular momentum operator defined by a torque of momentum $p_{a}$ with respective to point ($0,-\delta X_{N}$) is $L_{Na}\equiv \delta
X_{N}p_{a}$.
Let us move a quantum state along closed curves formed by piecewise smooth normal sectional lines, the rotation operator gives an accumulation of the rotational angle is $\sum \delta \theta =2\pi $. Specially, when the surface is a two-dimensional spherical surface, the normal sectional curves are great circles and the GIDO $G_{\frown }$ for a great circle leads to that the total angular change is $2\pi $.
Thus, we have demonstrated that two seemingly different kinds of noncommutativity, given by (\[qlocal\]), have the same crucial parts: rotation operators given by $G_{\square }$ (\[ro\]) and (\[last\]) in $%
G_{\frown }$ (\[last-2\]), respectively. The amount of the rotations depends on the curvature of the surface.
Conclusions and discussions
===========================
For a nonrelativistic particle constrained to remain on a hypersurface, Dirac brackets for two different components of momentum are not mutually commuting with each other. The noncommutativity $\Pi _{ij}$ on a local point of the hypersurface is examined and results show that the noncommutativity is due to the local curvature of the surface. At the point, there are, respectively, $(N-1)(N-2)/2$ mutually perpendicular two-dimensional *tangential planes* and $N-1$ mutually perpendicular *normal sectional curves*. In quantum mechanics, with GIDOs constructed on the base of the noncommutativity, we find that, at the point, for a small circle lying on each of the tangential planes covering the point the noncommutativity leads to a rotation operator and the amount of the rotation is an angle anholonomy, and for a short arc length along each of the intersecting curves centering the given point the noncommutativity leads to a translation plus an additional rotation and the amount of the rotation is one half of the tangential angle change of the arc. All results are obtained by examination of the noncommutativity, without necessarily knowing the form of the momentum.
In many aspects our results are in sharp contrast to what the intuition suggests. For instance, the locally approximated flatness of the surface suggests that the momentum might reduce to the usual one, but it is not the case for that the noncommutativity depends on the curvature. The noncommutativity of commutation relations for momentum operators on a local point remains, but the heavy operator-ordering difficulty is got rid of. There is no angular momentum operator in the commutation relations $%
[p_{a},p_{N}]\approx -i\hbar k_{a}p_{a}$, but they can certainly have quantum states on the surface angularly shifted.
This work is financially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11675051.
[99]{} P. A. M. Dirac, *The principles of quantum mechanics*, 4th ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1967).
P. A. M. Dirac, *Can.* *J. Math.* **2**, 129(1950).
P. G. Bergmann and I. Goldberg, *Phys. Rev.* **98**, 531(1955).
P. A. M. Dirac, *Lectures on quantum mechanics* (Yeshiva University, New York, 1964).
G. Gyorgyi and S. Kovesi-Domokos, *Nuovo Cimento B* **58**, 191(1968).
T. Homma, T. Inamoto, and T. Miyazaki, *Phys. Rev. D* **42**, 2049(1990).
M. Ikegami, Y. Nagaoka, S. Takagi, and T. Tanzawa,* Prog. Theor. Phys. ***88**,229(1992).
J. R. Klauder, S. V. Shabanov, *Nucl. Phys. B* **511**, 713(1998).
H. Kleinert and S. V. Shabanov, *Phys. Lett. A* **232**, 327(1997).
A. V. Golovnev, *J. Math. Phys.* **47**, 082105(2006).
S. Weinberg, *Lectures on Quantum Mechanics*, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015).
Q. H. Liu, L. H. Tang, D. M. Xun, *Phys. Rev. A ***84**, 042101(2011).
D. K. Lian, L. D. Hu, Q. H. Liu, *Ann. Phys. (Berlin)* **530**, 1700415(2018).
Q. H. Liu, *J. Math. Phys.* **54**, 122113(2013).
Q. H. Liu, *J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.* **82**, 104002(2013).
D. M. Xun, Q. H. Liu, and X. M. Zhu, *Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)* **338**, 123(2013).
D. M. Xun and Q. H. Liu, *Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)* **341**, 132(2014).
Y. L. Wang, H. Jiang, and H. S. Zong, *Phys. Rev. A* **96**, 022116(2017).
Q. H. Liu, C. L. Tong, and M. M. Lai, *J. Phys. A* **40**, 4161(2007).
R. Spittel, P. Uebel, H. Bartelt, and M. A. Schmidt, *Opt. Express* **23**, 12174(2015).
Q. H. Liu, Z. Li, X. Y. Zhou, Z. Q. Yang and W. K. Du, *Eur. Phys. J. C.* **79**, 712(2019).
L. P. Eisenhart, *An introduction to differential geometry with use of the tensor calculus*, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1964).
C. E. Weatherburn, *Introduction to Riemannian Geometry, and the Tensor Calculus*, (Cambridge University Press, London, 2008).
P. C. Schuster, and R. L. Jaffe, *Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)* **307**, 132(2003).
F. T. Brandt, and J. A. Sáchez-Monroy, *Phys. Lett. A* **380**, 3036(2016).
M. P. do Carmo, *Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces* (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1976), p.164, p.442.
M. M. Postnikov, *Geometry VI: Riemannian Geometry* (Spring-Verlag, Berlin, 2001), p.272.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Dept of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK'
author:
- 'ROB IVISON[^1]'
title: |
SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE DARK SIDE OF GALAXY FORMATION:\
SUBMILLIMETRE SURVEYS THROUGH LENSING CLUSTERS
---
Historical perspective
======================
Sub-mm/mm surveys have revolutionised our understanding of star formation in the early Universe[@bl99] through the discovery of a vast population of very luminous galaxies,[@sm97; @ba98; @hu98; @ea99; @be00] clarifying the relative importance of obscured and unobscured emission. Many are extremely red[@de99; @sm99; @idsd] (a factor $\ge$100 in flux between 1 and 2$\mu$m) and most are optically invisible, $BV\!RI > 26$, even to the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{}[@hu98; @sm98] ([*HST*]{}).
The impact of sub-mm/mm surveys has been due to the commissioning of revolutionary bolometer cameras such as SCUBA[@ho99] on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope and MAMBO[@kr99] at the Institut de Radioastronomie Millimétrique and the sensitivity of those devices to heavily extinguished galaxies[@bl93] – to [*‘the optically dark side of galaxy formation’*]{}.[@gu97] SCUBA, in particular, has made a huge impact in cosmology through its ability to measure the bolometric output of $1<z<5$ dust-enshrouded galaxies (albeit with a resolution of only 14$''$) whose energy distributions peak in the sub-mm band.
The foundations of sub-mm/mm cosmology are already in place, only a few years after the commissioning of SCUBA, and the community is moving rapidly to build on them, developing new telescopes and instrumentation (e.g. the Atacama Large Millimeter Array in Chile, the Large Millimeter Telescope in Mexico, and the next-generation of ground-based bolometer cameras, SCUBA-2 and BOLOCAM).
Sub-mm/mm surveys and the nature of sub-mm galaxies
===================================================
The first generation of sub-mm/mm surveys, completed and ongoing, are listed in Table 1.
--------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------- ---------------------
Survey name Wavelength$^{\rm d}$/ Area Depth (rms)
[fwhm]{} of beam /arcmin$^2$ /mJybeam$^{-1}$
[*Completed:*]{}
SCUBA lens survey[@sm97] 850$\mu$m/14$''$$^{\rm b}$ 36$^{\rm b}$ 1.7$^{\rm b}$
Hawaii survey fields[@ba99] 850$\mu$m/14$''$ 104$^{\rm e}$ 2.7$^{\rm e}$
HDF[@hu98] (UK sub-mm survey consortium) 850$\mu$m/14$''$ 5.6 0.5
Hawaii HFF radio-selected survey[@ba00] 850$\mu$m/14$''$ 31 2
Canada-UK deep sub-mm survey[@ea99] (CUDSS) 850$\mu$m/20$''$$^{\rm a}$ 92 1.2
Dutch lens survey[@pvdw] 850$\mu$m/14$''$$^{\rm b}$ 50$^{\rm b}$ $\sim$2$^{\rm b,f}$
Canada HFF survey[@bo01] 850$\mu$m/17$''$ 121 $\sim$3
Canada lens survey[@ch01] 850$\mu$m/14$''$$^{\rm b}$ 42$^{\rm b}$ $\sim$2$^{\rm b}$
MAMBO survey[@be01] 1250$\mu$m/10$''$ 450$^{\rm c}$ 0.5$^{\rm c}$
[*Ongoing:*]{}
8mJy survey (UK sub-mm survey consortium) 850$\mu$m/14$''$ 240 2.7
High-$z$ signpost survey[@idsd] 850$\mu$m/14$''$ 78 1
UK shallow lens survey 850$\mu$m/14$''$$^{\rm b}$ 45$^{\rm b}$ 2.5$^{\rm b}$
A370/A2218 SCUBA lens surveys 850$\mu$m/14$''$$^{\rm b}$ 11$^{\rm b}$ 0.5$^{\rm b}$
A2218 MAMBO lens survey 1250$\mu$m/10$''$$^{\rm b}$ 20$^{\rm b}$ 0.3$^{\rm b}$
--------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------- ---------------------
: Published and ongoing sub-mm/mm surveys and their claimed areas and rms sensitivities.
$^{\rm a}$ Effective [fwhm]{} is 20$''$ after convolving with beam to achieve depth of 1.2mJybeam$^{-1}$ rms.
$^{\rm b}$ Divide values by $\sim$2.5 to calculate the effective source-plane area/depth/resolution.
$^{\rm c}$ Equivalent to $\sim$1.2mJybeam$^{-1}$ rms at 850$\mu$m for $z \sim 2.5$.
$^{\rm d}$ Note that 450-$\mu$m source counts have also been reported[@bl00].
$^{\rm e}$ Sub-area of 7.7arcmin$^2$ to 0.8mJybeam$^{-1}$ rms.
$^{\rm f}$ Two/two/four fields to 1.5/2/3mJybeam$^{-1}$ rms.
It is apparent that conventional blank fields have soaked up most of the time spent on cosmology surveys. Areas and rms depths range from the UKSSC 8-mJy survey’s 200arcmin$^2$/2.7mJy beam$^{-1}$ to the UKSSC HDF[@hu98] survey’s 5.6arcmin$^2$/0.5mJybeam$^{-1}$, and MAMBO has now completed its first deep 1250-$\mu$m survey[@be01] (450arcmin$^2$/0.5mJybeam$^{-1}$, [fwhm]{} 10$''$).
These blank-field surveys have been tremendously successful, determining the 850-$\mu$m source counts above 2mJy and thereby resolving directly up to about half of the [*COBE*]{} background at 850$\mu$m. The deepest map, of the HDF[@hu98], has also yielded a statistical detection of the sub-mm emission from Lyman-break galaxies[@pe00].
After initial uncertainty, there is now a growing consensus amongst the sub-mm/mm community that the sources uncovered by SCUBA (and now MAMBO) are massive, intensely star-forming galaxies at *z* $\sim
3$ (possibly slightly closer[@li99]), resembling ultraluminous [*IRAS*]{} galaxies in some respects, usually with only a tiny fraction ($<$1%) of their luminosity released in the rest-frame UV[@sa00] (c.f.[@ad00; @la00]) so that many qualify as ‘extremely red objects’[@de99; @sm99; @idsd] (EROs, $R-K \gs 6$).
The road to this consensus has been paved by painstaking efforts to determine the nature of individual galaxies, largely through a process of trial and error, slowly determining the most efficient techniques for identifying near-IR or optical counterparts, investigating basic properties and, in pitifully few cases, measuring redshifts[@iv98; @iv00].
To date, deep imaging in the radio and near-IR bands[@sm99; @sm00] have been far and away the most effective techniques, pinpointing counterparts (see Figures 1 and 2 and their captions) and facilitating spectroscopic follow up. This has culminated in several CO detections that suggest molecular gas masses consistent with the formation of elliptical galaxies.[@fr98; @fr99; @kn00]
Radio flux measurements or limits at 1.4GHz have also provided a plausible redshift distribution[@sm00] based on new photometric techniques[@cy99; @cy00]. Other techniques – mm interferometry, for example[@do99; @be00; @ge01] – have been less successful at elucidating what we know of the SCUBA galaxy population, but clearly hold promise for the future[@fr00], particularly for very bright sources ($\gs$8mJy at 850$\mu$m) found in the field, through cluster lenses or near luminous radio galaxies[@idsd]. There are hopes that broad-band spectral devices may be able to determine spectroscopic redshifts using CO transitions, regardless of the availability of plausible optical/IR counterparts, though the technical challenges are immense.
The current samples of sub-mm/mm galaxies contain a small but significant fraction of active galactic nuclei (AGN), though deep, hard-X-ray imaging[@fa00; @ho00; @mu00] has so far failed to uncover the large, heavily obscured AGN population that some had suspected from the earliest follow-up work[@iv98] and from theoretical arguments[@al99].
The problem of confusion – lifting and separating with a lens
=============================================================
Had the galaxies discovered in sub-mm surveys been only fractionally fainter or less numerous, a second, more sensitive generation of bolometer cameras would have been required to discover them. Early surveys[@sm97; @ba98; @hu98; @ea99] would collectively have uncovered only a couple of sources – the first, an obvious AGN[@iv98] (SMMJ02399$-$0136) and the second,[@hu98] a puzzle with no optical or near-IR counterpart (HDF850.1). Who can say what conclusions might have been reached and how future surveys, e.g. with [*FIRST*]{}, may have suffered?
We have been fortunate, then, that first-generation bolometer arrays were sufficiently sensitive to enable rapid progress in sub-mm cosmology. We have been less fortunate regarding source confusion: few would have predicted that SCUBA would reach its effective confusion limit[@bl98] within a few months of being commissioned. The deepest direct counts[@hu98] are already at the confusion limit, suggesting that further progress in constraining the intensity of the sub-mm background and the nature of the faint sub-mm population requires an innovative approach.
To probe below the confusion limit using the existing sub-mm/mm cameras requires the use of the natural magnifying glasses that provide the raison d’$\hat{\rm e}$tre for this conference: gravitational lenses. Massive clusters provide a magnified (although distorted) image of a small region of the background sky; thus both the effective resolution and sensitivity of the survey are increased, as measured on the background sky. This enables surveys to probe faint flux densities without suffering confusion, albeit at the price of a distorted view.
With an accurate cluster mass model, the distortion can be corrected. The first lens survey[@sm97; @bl99] illustrated the advantages of this approach for the counts.[@deep] About 100% of the [*COBE*]{} 850-$\mu$m background was resolved down to 0.5mJy. Follow-up observations,[@fr98; @iv98; @fr99; @sm99; @fr00; @iv00; @sm00] also benefitted from achromatic gravitational amplification: not only was the effective depth of the sub-mm maps increased, but the counterparts at all other wavelengths were similarly amplified. This allows useful follow-up observations to be obtained in several hours or tens of hours using the current generation of telescopes and instrumentation: it is no coincidence that of the $\sim$100 known sub-mm galaxies, only a handful have reliable spectroscopic redshifts and [*all*]{} of these were discovered through cluster lenses.
Another advantage of using clusters is that extraordinarily deep images – X-ray, optical, IR and radio – exist or are scheduled for these fields. The HDF is the only blank field that is equally blessed. Abell 851, 1835 and 2218 (and many other cluster fields) have superb [*HST*]{} images and near-IR data; Abell 370, 851 and 2125 have 1.4-GHz maps with $<$10-$\mu$Jybeam$^{-1}$ noise levels.
Future plans and concluding remarks
===================================
Following on from the success of the earliest sub-mm cluster survey[@sm97; @bl99], groups in the UK, Holland and Hawaii are currently undertaking more surveys with SCUBA and MAMBO that exploit cluster lenses. The latest of these will combine a long integration (equal to that obtained on the HDF) with amplification by the cores of amongst the most massive, well-constrained cluster lenses known, A370 and A2218.
At modest amplifications ($A\sim$2–5), it should be possible to detect the optically-identified arclet population; probing fainter, it is likely that a new, largely unexplored class of lensed feature may appear: multiply-imaged pairs, recognised in the first [*HST*]{} cluster images.
These appear in the optical/near-IR as symmetric images with typical separations of 5–10$''$ (i.e. within a single SCUBA or MAMBO beam) and can be simply and successfully modelled as highly magnified images ($A \sim$10–100) of very faint, compact sources which lie close to a critical line. In a well-constrained lens such as A2218, their location in the cluster, combined with the positions and separation of any radio/IR/optical counterparts, can give the source redshift and amplification to high precision. The area of the source plane in which pairs are formed can also be estimated from the lens models, allowing their rate of occurence to be converted into an estimate of the surface density of extremely faint (tens of $\mu$Jy) sub-mm/mm background sources, with the bonus of crude redshift information.
Using the superb recent [*HST*]{} imaging of A2218, at least 4 highly magnified pairs have been identified (from a source population with a comparable surface density to that expected for the very faint sub-mm/mm population, $\sim$10arcmin$^{-2}$) suggesting that the cluster amplification cross-section is high and that the chance of finding such systems is good. Failure to detect any of these highly magnified sources using SCUBA and MAMBO would indicate convergence of the source counts and can be used to impose strong limits on the surface density of very faint sources and the total intensity in resolved sources in the sub-mm background.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I acknowledge a PPARC Advanced Fellowship and support from the Training and Mobility of Researchers Programme.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{} Adelberger K.L., Steidel C.C., 2000, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0001126) Almaini O., Lawrence A., Boyle B.J., 1999, MNRAS, 305, L59 Barger A.J. et al., 1998, Nature, 394, 248 Barger A.J. et al., 1999, ApJ, 518, L5 Barger A.J. et al., 2000, AJ, 119, 2092 Bertoldi F. et al., 2000, A&A, submitted (astro-ph/0006094) Bertoldi F. et al., 2001, in preparation Blain A.W., Longair M.S., 1993, MNRAS, 264, 509 Blain A.W., Ivison R.J., Smail I., 1998, MNRAS, 296, L29 Blain A.W. et al., 1999, MNRAS, 302, 632 Blain A.W. et al., 1999, ApJ, 512, L87 Blain A.W. et al., 2000, ASP Conf. Series 193, 246 (astro-ph/9908024) Borys C. et al., 2001, ApJ, in preparation Carilli C.L., Yun M.S., 1999, ApJ, 513, L13 Carilli C.L., Yun M.S., 2000, ApJ, 530, 618 Chapman S.C. et al., 2001, ApJ, in preparation Dey A. et al., 1999, ApJ, 519, 610 Downes D. et al., 1999, A&A, 347, 809 Eales S.A. et al., 1999, ApJ, 515, 518 Fabian A.C. et al., 2000, MNRAS, 315, L8 Frayer D.T. et al., 1998, ApJ, 506, L7 Frayer D.T. et al., 1999, ApJ, 514, L13 Frayer D.T. et al., 2000, AJ, in press (astro-ph/0005239) Gear W.K.P. et al., 2001, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0007054) Guiderdoni B. et al., 1997, Nature, 390, 257 Holland W.S. et al., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 659 Hornschemeier A.E. et al., 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0004260) Hughes D.H. et al., 1998, Nature, 394, 241 Ivison R.J. et al., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 583 Ivison R.J. et al., 2000, MNRAS, 315, 209 Ivison R.J. et al., 2000, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0005234) Kneib J.-P. et al., 2000, A&A, in preparation Kreysa E. et al., 1999, SPIE 3357, 319 Lawrence A., 2000, MNRAS, submitted Lilly S.J. et al., 1999, ApJ, 518, 641 Mushotzky R.F. et al., 2000, Nature, 404, 459 Peacock J.A. et al., 2000, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/9912231) Sanders D.B., 2000 (astro-ph/9910028) Smail I., Ivison R.J., Blain A.W., 1997, ApJ, 490, L5 Smail I. et al., 1998, ApJ, 507, L21 Smail I. et al., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 1061 Smail I. et al., 2000, ApJ, 528, 612 van der Werf P. et al., 2000, A&A, in preparation
[^1]: This work is being undertaken with Andrew Blain, James Dunlop, Thomas Grève, Jean-Paul Kneib, Kirsten Knudsen, John Peacock, Ian Smail and Paul van der Werf.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define quaternionic Hermite polynomials by analogy with two families of complex Hermite polynomials. As in the complex case, these polynomials consatitute orthogonal families of vectors in ambient quaternionic $L^2$-spaces. Using these polynomials, we then define regular and anti-regular subspaces of these $L^2$-spaces, the associated reproducing kernels and the ensuing quaternionic coherent states.'
address:
- '$^{1}$ Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Concordia University, 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada. '
- '$^2$ Department of mathematics and Statistics, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8, Canada'
author:
- 'K. Thirulogasanthar$^{1}$ and S. Twareque Ali$^{2}$'
title: Regular subspaces of a quaternionic Hilbert space from quaternionic Hermite polynomials and associated Coherent states
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec_intro}
============
Building quantum mechanics on quaternionic Hilbert spaces has been a much studied problem for many years (see, for example, [@Ad] and the many references cited therein). Associated to this problem is that of building appropriate families of coherent states on quaternionic Hilbert spaces. The fact that the analogues of the usual canonical coherent states cannot be built using a group theoretical argument in the case of quaternions, has been elaborated in [@AdMil]. On the other hand, analogues of such coherent states in a quaternionic setting have been constructed using other methods in [@AliBhatRoy] and [@Thi2]. In this paper we study the possibility of constructing some analogues of the so-called [*non-linear*]{} coherent states on quaternionic Hilbert spaces, using the recently developed holomorphic function theory for quaternionic variables [@Am; @Gra1; @Gra2].
Recall that the real Hermite polynomials are defined by $$\label{I1}
H_n(x)=(-1)^ne^{x^2}\frac{d^n}{dx^n}e^{-x^2}$$ and it is well known that the functions $C_ne^{-x^2/2}H_n(x)$, for some normalization constants $C_n$, are the eigensolutions of the quantum harmonic oscillator [@AFG]. As an immediate extension of the real Hermite polynomials, by replacing the real variable $x$ by a complex number $z$, the complex Hermite polynomials, $H_n(z)$, were studied in [@VE]. In particular, in [@VE], it has been shown that these complex Hermite polynomials form an orthonormal basis of a certain Hilbert space of complex functions over $\mathbb C$ and this Hilbert space is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. In [@Ga], using these holomorphic Hermite polynomials, a set of coherent states (CS) have been built, which is then used to study some quantum mechanical issues and a quantization of the non-commutative plane. Apart from $H_n(z)$, another interesting set of Hermite polynomials, $H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$, were studied in [@Ghan; @Mat; @Wil] (see also references therein). In these papers it has been shown that the functions, $e^{-|z|^2/2}H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$ are eigensolutions of the Landau problem [@AFG; @Ghan]. Recently, several interesting features of the $H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$ have been studied by fixing either $n=0$ or $m=0$. In fact, by so fixing one can recover the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic subspaces of a certain $L^2$-space and the subspaces so obtained can also be identified as the well known Bargmann spaces of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic functions. These are also reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces with reproducing kernels associated to the canonical coherent states. More generally, other reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces have been obtained using subsets of $H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$ as bases [@AFG; @Nic], which also admit coherent states. In [@Nic], these coherent states have been used to implement quantizations of $\mathbb C$. In [@Nic; @Ga] the Hermite polynomials $H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$ and $H_n(z)$ and kernels associated with these polynomials have been used to obtain coherent states and the authors have used the CS so obtained to study some quantum phenomena and quantizations. In fact, the procedure used in [@Nic; @Ga] to build CS was earlier worked out in [@Iwa] and later in [@Ali; @Thi3] as generalization of the definition of canonical CS. In this paper we shall use a similar approach to obtain quaternionic coherent states.
For the sake of completeness we briefly revisit the procedure for building generalized and nonlinear coherent states.
Let $\{\phi_m\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$ be an orthonormal basis of an abstract separable Hilbert space ${\mathfrak{H}}$. The well known canonical coherent states are defined by: $$\mid z\rangle=e^{-\frac{r^2}{2}}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{z^m}{\sqrt{m!}}\phi_m\in{\mathfrak{H}},
\label{can-comp_CS}$$ where $z = re^{i\theta}\in\mathbb C$, the complex plane.
A possible generalization of the above definition of canonical coherent states, to the so-called nonlinear coherent states, goes as follows: Let ${\mathfrak{D}}$ be an open subset of ${\mathbb{C}}$. For $z\in{\mathfrak{D}}$ set $$\label{can-cs}
\mid z\rangle={\mathcal{N}}(|z|)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{z^m}{\sqrt{\rho(m)}}\phi_m\in{\mathfrak{H}},$$ where $\{\rho(m)\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$ is a positive sequence of real numbers and ${\mathcal{N}}(|z|)$ is the normalization factor ensuring that $\langle z\mid z\rangle=1.$ If in addition $\{\mid z\rangle \mid z\in
{\mathfrak{D}}\}$ satisfy $$\label{can-res}
\int_{{\mathfrak{D}}}\mid z\rangle\langle z\mid d\mu=I_{{\mathfrak{H}}},$$ where $d\mu$ is an appropriately chosen measure on ${\mathfrak{D}}$ and $I_{{\mathfrak{H}}}$ is the identity operator on ${\mathfrak{H}}$, then $\{\mid z\rangle \mid z\in {\mathfrak{D}}\}$ is said to be a set of nonlinear coherent states on ${\mathfrak{D}}$.\
More generally, (generalized) CS can be constructed as follows: Let $(\Omega,\mu)$ be a measure space and ${\mathbb{H}}$ a closed subspace of $L^2(\Omega,\mu)$. Let $\{\Phi_m\}_{m=0}^{\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})}}$, $\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})}$ denoting the dimension of ${\mathbb{H}}$, be an orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{H}}$ satisfying: $$\sum_{m=0}^{\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})}}{\lvert\Phi_m(x)\rvert}^2<\infty$$ for all $x\in\Omega$. Let ${\mathfrak{H}}$ be another Hilbert space such that $\text{dim}({\mathbb{H}})=\text{dim}({\mathfrak{H}})$. Let $\{\phi_m\}_{m=0}^{\text{dim}{({\mathfrak{H}})}}$ be an orthonormal basis of ${\mathfrak{H}}$. Define $$\label{rep}
K(x,y)=\sum_{m=0}^{\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})}}\overline{\Phi_m(x)}\Phi_{m}(y).$$ Then $K(x,y)$ is a reproducing kernel, that is, $K(x,y)$ satisfies
1. hermiticity, $K(x,y)=\overline{K(y,x)}$ for all $x,y\in \Omega$;
2. positivity, $K(x,x)\geq 0$ for all $x\in\Omega$;
3. idempotence, $\int_{\Omega}K(x,y)K(y,z)d\mu(y)=K(x,z),$
and ${\mathbb{H}}$ is the corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space. For $x\in \Omega$, define $$\label{rep-cs}
\mid x\rangle=K(x,x)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sum_{m=0}^{\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})}}\overline{\Phi_m(x)}\phi_m \in \mathfrak H\; .$$ Then, $$\langle x\mid x\rangle=K(x,x)^{-1}
\sum_{m=0}^{\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})}}\overline{\Phi_m(x)}\Phi_m(x)=1,$$ and $$\mathcal{W}:{\mathfrak{H}}\longrightarrow{\mathbb{H}}\;\;\;\text{with}\;\;\;\mathcal{W}\phi(x)
=K(x,x)^{\frac{1}{2}}\langle x\mid \phi\rangle$$ is an isometry. Then, for $\phi,\psi\in{\mathfrak{H}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\phi\mid\psi\rangle_{{\mathfrak{H}}}=\langle\mathcal{W}\phi\mid\mathcal{W}\psi\rangle_{{\mathbb{H}}}&=&
\int_{\Omega}\overline{\mathcal{W}\phi(x)}\mathcal{W}\psi(x)d\mu(x)\\
&=&\int_{\Omega}\langle\phi\mid x\rangle\langle x\mid\psi\rangle K(x,x)d\mu(x),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{res-rep}
\int_{\Omega}\mid x\rangle\langle x\mid K(x,x)d\mu(x)=I_{{\mathfrak{H}}},$$ where $K(x,x)$ plays the role of a positive weight function. Thus, the set of states $\{\mid x\rangle \mid x\in\Omega\}$ forms a set of (generalized) CS.
In the case where $\{\Phi_m\}_{m=0}^{\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})}}$ is an orthogonal basis of ${\mathbb{H}}$, one can define $\rho(m)=\|\Phi_m\|^2;\;m=0,1,2, ...,\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})},$ and obtain an orthonormal basis $$\left\{\frac{\Phi_m}{\sqrt{\rho(m)}}\right\}_{m=0}^{\text{dim}{({\mathbb{H}})}}$$ of ${\mathbb{H}}$. Then, setting $$\label{rep-cs-2}
\mid x\rangle=K(x,x)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\sum_{m=0}^{\text{dim}({\mathfrak{H}})}\frac{\Phi_m(x)}{\sqrt{\rho(m)}}\phi_m\in{\mathfrak{H}},$$ one obtains the desired result which is analogous to (\[can-cs\]).
The above discussion motivates the following definition.
\[def-CS\] Let ${\mathfrak{D}}$ be an open subset of $\mathbb C$. Let $$\Phi_m: {\mathfrak{D}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb{C}},\;\;\;m=0,1,2,\dots,$$ be a sequence of complex functions. Define $$\label{ma-cs}
\mid z\rangle=\mathcal N(|z|)^{-\frac{1}{2}}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{\Phi_{m}(z)}{\sqrt{\rho(m)}}
\phi_{m}\in\mathfrak{H};\;\;z\in{\mathfrak{D}},$$ where $\mathcal N(|z|)$ is a normalization factor and $\{\rho(m)\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$ is a sequence of nonzero positive real numbers. The set of vectors in (\[ma-cs\]) is said to form a set of CS if
1. $\langle z\mid z\rangle=1$ for all $z\in{\mathfrak{D}}$;
2. the states $\{\mid z\rangle \mid z\in{\mathfrak{D}}\}$ satisfy a resolution of the identity: $$\int_{\mathfrak D}\mid z\rangle \langle z\mid d\mu=I_{\mathfrak H}
\label{2},$$
where $d\mu$ is an appropriately chosen measure and $I_{\mathfrak H}$ is the identity operator on $\mathfrak H$.
In [@Thi], we studied what were called quaternionic CS in a complex Hilbert space. These were defined as vector CS, built using a quaternionic variable. However, recently, in [@Thi2] we have defined the cannonical quaternionic CS by replacing the $z$ in (\[can-cs\]) by a quaternion ${\mathbf{q}}$ and considered these CS as vectors in a quaternionic Hilbert space (see also [@AdMil] for Prelemov type quaternionic CS). Further, we have also defined the quaternionic version of Hermite polynomials by replacing $z$ in $H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$ by a quaternion. Since there is more than one way of defining a derivative with respect to a quaternionic variable [@Am], in [@Thi2] the quaternionic derivative was introduced in a formal sense. However, recent developments of quaternionic analysis give a definition of a quaternionic derivative, the so-called Cullen derivative [@Gra1; @Gra2], which is more useful for our purposes and we adopt it here.
The novelty of the present paper can be summarized as follows: using the Cullen derivative we define the quaternionic counterparts of the Hermite polynomials $H_n(z)$ and $H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$, as vectors in quaternionic Hilbert spaces by replacing $z$ by a quaternion ${\mathbf{q}}$. The two index quaternionic Hermite polynomials $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ will span a subspace $\mathfrak H_{\mathbf{q}}$ of a quaternionic $L^2$-space. By fixing $n=0$ or $m=0$ in $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ we shall obtain the regular and anti-regular subspaces of $\mathfrak H_{\mathbf{q}}$ (as the counterparts of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic subspaces). We shall also prove that the single indexed quaternionic Hermite polynomials $H_n({\mathbf{q}})$ and $H_n(\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ serve as bases for certain regular and anti-regular subspaces respectively. Apart from these, by defining kernels with $H_n({\mathbf{q}})$ and $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ we will obtain CS resembling (\[ma-cs\]) over quaternionic Hilbert spaces and realize the regular subspace as a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. The functions $e^{-|{\mathbf{q}}|^2/2}H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ are shown to be eigenfunctions of an operator $\mathfrak{L}_H$ with infinite degeneracy as in the Landau problem [@Thi2] (see also end of Section \[sec-quherm-polyn\]). However, we are unable at this point to give a physical meaning to $\mathfrak{L}_H$. Further investigation of this point, quantization of the type done in [@Nic; @Ga] and a study of the modular structures along the lines of [@AFG], using quaternionic coherent states, are left for future work.
Mathematical preleminaries
==========================
In order to make the paper self-contained, we recall a few facts about quaternions which may not be well-known. In particular, we revisit the $2\times 2$ complex matrix representations of quaternions, quaternionic Hilbert spaces, their duals, the Cullen derivative and the definition of regularity of a function of a quaternionic variable.
Quaternions
-----------
Let $H$ denote the field of quaternions. Its elements are of the form ${\mathbf{q}}=x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k$ where $x_0,x_1,x_2$ and $x_3$ are real numbers, and $i,j,k$ are imaginary units such that $i^2=j^2=k^2=-1$, $ij=-ji=k$, $jk=-kj=i$ and $ki=-ik=j$. The quaternionic conjugate of ${\mathbf{q}}$ is defined to be $\overline{{\mathbf{q}}} = x_0 - x_1i - x_2j - x_3k$. We shall find it convenient to use the representation of quaternions by $2\times 2$ complex matrices: $${\mathbf{q}}= x_0 \sigma_{0} + i \underline{x} \cdot \underline{\sigma},$$ with $x_0 \in \mathbb R , \quad \underline{x} = (x_1, x_2, x_3)
\in \mathbb R^3$, $\sigma_0 = \mathbb{I}_2$, the $2\times 2$ identity matrix, and $\underline{\sigma} = (\sigma_1, -\sigma_2, \sigma_3)$, where the $\sigma_\ell, \; \ell =1,2,3$ are the usual Pauli matrices. The quaternionic imaginary units are identified as, $i = \sqrt{-1}\sigma_1, \;\; j = -\sqrt{-1}\sigma_2, \;\; k = \sqrt{-1}\sigma_3$. Thus, $${\mathbf{q}}= \left(\begin{array}{cc}
x_0 + i x_3 & -x_2 + i x_1 \\
x_2 + i x_1 & x_0 - i x_3
\end{array}\right) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \overline{{\mathbf{q}}} = {\mathbf{q}}^\dag\quad \text{(matrix adjoint)}\; .
\label{q3}$$ Introducing the polar coordinates: $$\begin{aligned}
x_0 &=& r \cos{\theta}, \\
x_1 &=& r \sin{\theta} \sin{\phi} \cos{\psi}, \\
x_2 &=& r \sin{\theta} \sin{\phi} \sin{\psi}, \\
x_3 &=& r \sin{\theta} \cos{\phi},
\end{aligned}$$ where $r \in [0,\infty)$, $\theta, \phi \in [0,\pi]$, and $\psi
\in [0,2\pi)$, we may write $${\mathbf{q}}= A(r) e^{i \theta \sigma(\widehat{n})}
\label{q4},$$ where $$A(r) = r\mathbb \sigma_0 \quad \text{and} \quad
\sigma(\widehat{n}) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos{\phi} & \sin{\phi} e^{i\psi} \\
\sin{\phi} e^{-i\psi} & -\cos{\phi}
\end{array}\right).
\label{q5}$$ The matrices $A(r)$ and $\sigma(\widehat{n})$ satisfy the conditions, $$A(r) = A(r)^\dagger \quad,\quad \sigma(\widehat{n})^2 = \sigma_0
\quad,\quad \sigma(\widehat{n})^\dagger = \sigma(\widehat{n})
\quad,\quad \lbrack A(r), \sigma(\widehat{n}) \rbrack = 0.
\label{san1}$$ Note that $\vert{\mathbf{q}}\vert^2 := \overline{{\mathbf{q}}} {\mathbf{q}}= r^2 \sigma_0 = (x_0^2 + x_1^2 + x_2^2 + x_3^2)\mathbb I_2$ defines a real norm on $H$.
Using the above complex representation for quaternions, we defined a set of vector coherent states (VCS) in [@Thi]. To recall that construction briefly, if $\{\phi_m\}_{m=0}^\infty $ is an orthonormal basis of an abstract, complex separable Hilbert space $\mathfrak{H}$ and $\{\chi^1, \chi^2\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{C}^2$, then the VCS take the form, $$\mid {\mathbf{q}},j \rangle = \mathcal{N}_1(\vert {\mathbf{q}}\vert)^{-1/2}
\sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{{\mathbf{q}}^m}{\sqrt{x_m!}} \chi^j \otimes \phi_m
\in \mathbb C^2 \otimes \mathfrak H, \quad j=1,2,
\label{qv2}$$ where $\mathcal{N}_1(\vert {\mathbf{q}}\vert)$ and $x_m! = \rho(m)$ can be chosen appropriately. Using (\[san1\]) we can determine the normalization constant $\mathcal N_1(\vert {\mathbf{q}}\vert)$, and the resolution of the identity (for details see [@Thi]). First note that, in order for the norm of the vector $\mid {\mathbf{q}},j \rangle$ to be finite, we must have, $$\langle {\mathbf{q}},j \mid {\mathbf{q}},j \rangle = \mathcal N_1(\vert {\mathbf{q}}\vert)^{-1} \sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac {r^{2m}}{x_m!} < \infty.$$ Thus, if $\lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} x_m = x$, we need to restrict $r$ to $0 \leq r < L = \sqrt{x}$ for the convergence of the above series. In this case, define $$\label{domain}
\mathcal D = \{(r, \theta, \phi, \psi) \mid 0 \leq r < L, \; 0
\leq \phi \leq \pi, \; 0 \leq \theta, \psi < 2\pi\},$$ The resolution of the identity is then given with respect to a measure of the type $$\label{measure}
d\varsigma(r, \theta,
\phi, \psi)= d\tau(r) d\theta d\Omega(\phi ,\psi ), \quad \text{ with} \quad
d\Omega(\phi ,\psi) = \displaystyle{\frac{1}{4\pi}} \sin{\phi}
d\phi d\psi .$$
Quaternionic Hilbert spaces
---------------------------
In this subsection we define left and right quaternionic Hilbert spaces. For details we refer the reader to [@Ad]. We also define the Hilbert space of square integrable functions on quaternions based on [@Vis].
### Right Quaternionic Hilbert Space
Let $V_{H}^{R}$ be a linear vector space under right multiplication by quaternionic scalars (again $H$ standing for the field of quaternions). For $f,g,h\in V_{H}^{R}$ and ${\mathbf{q}}\in H$, the inner product $$\langle\cdot\mid\cdot\rangle:V_{H}^{R}\times V_{H}^{R}\longrightarrow H$$ satisfies the following properties
1. $\overline{\langle f\mid g\rangle}=\langle g\mid f\rangle$
2. $\|f\|^{2}=\langle f\mid f\rangle>0$ unless $f=0$, a real norm
3. $\langle f\mid g+h\rangle=\langle f\mid g\rangle+\langle f\mid h\rangle$
4. $\langle f\mid g{\mathbf{q}}\rangle=\langle f\mid g\rangle{\mathbf{q}}$
5. $\langle f{\mathbf{q}}\mid g\rangle=\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}\langle f\mid g\rangle$
where $\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}$ stands for the quaternionic conjugate. We assume that the space $V_{H}^{R}$ is complete under the norm given above. Then, together with $\langle\cdot\mid\cdot\rangle$ this defines a right quaternionic Hilbert space, which we shall assume to be separable. Quaternionic Hilbert spaces share most of the standard properties of complex Hilbert spaces. In particular, the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality holds on quaternionic Hilbert spaces as well as the Riesz representation theorem for their duals (see below). Thus, the Dirac bra-ket notation can be adapted to quaternionic Hilbert spaces: $$\mid f{\mathbf{q}}\rangle=\mid f\rangle{\mathbf{q}},\hspace{1cm}\langle f{\mathbf{q}}\mid=\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}\langle f\mid\;,$$ for a right quaternionic Hilbert space, with $\vert f\rangle$ denoting the vector $f$ and $\langle f\vert$ its dual vector.
### Left Quaternionic Hilbert Space
Let $V_{H}^{L}$ be a linear vector space under left multiplication by quaternionic scalars. For $f,g,h\in V_{H}^{L}$ and ${\mathbf{q}}\in H$, the inner product $$\langle\cdot\mid\cdot\rangle:V_{H}^{L}\times V_{H}^{L}\longrightarrow H$$ satisfies the following properties
1. $\overline{\langle f\mid g\rangle}=\langle g\mid f\rangle$
2. $\|f\|^{2}=\langle f\mid f\rangle>0$ unless $f=0$, a real norm
3. $\langle f\mid g+h\rangle=\langle f\mid g\rangle+\langle f\mid h\rangle$
4. $\langle {\mathbf{q}}f\mid g\rangle={\mathbf{q}}\langle f\mid g\rangle$
5. $\langle f\mid {\mathbf{q}}g\rangle=\langle f\mid g\rangle\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}$
Again, we shall assume that the space $V_{H}^{L}$ together with $\langle\cdot\mid\cdot\rangle$ is a separable Hilbert space. Also, $$\label{leftcs}
\mid {\mathbf{q}}f\rangle=\mid f\rangle\overline{{\mathbf{q}}},\hspace{1cm}\langle {\mathbf{q}}f\mid={\mathbf{q}}\langle f\mid.$$ Note that, because of our convention for inner products, for a left quaternionic Hilbert space, the bra vector $\langle f\mid$ is to be identified with the vector itself, while the ket vector $\mid f \rangle$ is to be identified with its dual. (There is a natural left multiplication by quaternionic scalars on the dual of a right quaternionic Hilbert space and a similar right multiplication on the dual of a left quaternionic Hilbert space.)
Separable quaternionic Hilbert spaces admit countable orthonormal bases. Let $V_H^L$ be a left quaternionic Hilbert space and let $\{e_v\}_{\nu = 0}^N$ ($N$ could be finite or infinite) be an orthonormal basis for it. Then, $\langle e_\nu \mid e_\mu\rangle = \delta_{\nu \mu}$ and any vector $f \in V_H^L$ has the expansion $f = \sum_\nu f_\nu e_\nu$, with $f_\nu = \langle f\mid e_\nu\rangle \in H$. Using such a basis, it is possible to introduce a multiplication from the right on $V_H^L$ by elements of $H$. Indeed, for $f \in V_H^L$ and ${\mathbf{q}}\in H$ we define, $$f{\mathbf{q}}= \sum_\nu (f_\nu {\mathbf{q}})e_\nu .
\label{rightmult}$$
The field of quaternions $H$ itself can be turned into a left quaternionic Hilbert space by defining the inner product $\langle {\mathbf{q}}\mid {\mathbf{q}}^\prime \rangle = {\mathbf{q}}{\mathbf{q}}^{\prime\dag} = {\mathbf{q}}\overline{{\mathbf{q}}^\prime}$ or into a right quaternionic Hilbert space with $\langle {\mathbf{q}}\mid {\mathbf{q}}^\prime \rangle = {\mathbf{q}}^\dag {\mathbf{q}}^\prime = \overline{{\mathbf{q}}}{\mathbf{q}}^\prime$.
### Quaternionic Hilbert Spaces of Square Integrable Functions
Let $(X, \mu)$ be a measure space and $H$ the field of quaternions, then $$L^2_H(X,\mu)=\left\{f:X\rightarrow H\;\; \left| \;\; \int_X|f(x)|^2d\mu(x)<\infty \right.\right\}$$\[L\^2\] is a left quaternionic Hilbert space, with the (left) scalar product $$\langle f \mid g\rangle =\int_X f(x)\overline{g(x)} d\mu(x),
\label{left-sc-prod}$$ where $\overline{g(x)}$ is the quaternionic conjugate of $g(x)$, and (left) scalar multiplication $af, \; a\in H,$ with $(af)(q) = af(q)$ (see [@Vis] for details). Similarly, one could define a right quaternionic Hilbert space of square integrable functions.
Dual spaces
-----------
In order to obtain a quaternionic version of the Riesz representation theorem, we need to recall a few facts about the dual space of a quaternionic Hilbert space. We follow [@Alek] in order to do this. Let $\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$ be the left dual space of the left quaternionic Hilbert space $V_H^L$. That is, $$\mathfrak{H}_{ld}=\{h : V_H^L\longrightarrow H~ \mid ~h~ \text{is bounded and left linear}\}$$ with the usual norm $\|h\|= \sup\{\vert h(x)\vert \;\mid \;\|x\|=1,~x\in V_H^L\}$. It is known that $\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$ is a real vector space. Moreover, $\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$ can be transformed into a quaternionic Hilbert space. Indeed, as noted above, $V_H^L$ also admits a right multiplication by quaternionic scalars. Using this fact, for any functional $h\in\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$ and any $\lambda\in H$ define $$(\lambda h)(x)=h(x\lambda),\quad (h\lambda)(x)=h(x)\lambda;~~~~~x\in V_H^L.$$ Then $\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$ becomes a two-sided quaternionic Banach space, with the scalar multiplication so defined.
For any functional $h\in\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$, exactly as in the real and complex cases, $$\label{E13}
h(x)=\langle x\vert y\rangle,\quad x\in V_H^L$$ for a vector $y\in V_H^L$, and then $\|h\|=\|y\|$.
Let $\{e_{\nu}\mid \nu\in\Lambda\}$ be a fixed orthonormal basis of $V_H^L$ and define $J:\mathfrak{H}_{ld}\longrightarrow V_H^L$ by the cannonical mapping defined by the relation (\[E13\]), that is by, $h(x)=\langle x\vert Jh\rangle;~~x\in V_H^L$. Then it can be shown that $J$ is additive, isometric and bijective. Now define $$K:V_H^L\longrightarrow V_H^L, \qquad K(x)=\sum_{\nu\in\Lambda}\overline{\langle x\vert e_{\nu}\rangle}e_{\nu}.$$ Clearly, $K$ is additive. (Note, $x = \sum_{\nu\in\Lambda}\langle x\vert e_{\nu}\rangle e_{\nu}$).
The left dual space $\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$ of $V_H^L$, is also a two-sided quaternionic Hilbert space, if we introduce the inner product in $\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$ by $$\label{E14}
\langle h\vert k\rangle=\langle KJh\vert KJk\rangle;~~~~~h,k\in\mathfrak{H}_{ld}.$$ The inner product (\[E14\]) is consistent with the norm of $\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$.
Further, if we define $U:\mathfrak{H}_{ld}\longrightarrow V_H^L$ by $U=KJ$, then $U$ is a two-linear bijective map, and thereby $\mathfrak{H}_{ld}$ is isomorphic to $V_H^L$.
Cullen regular functions
------------------------
There have been a number of different suggestions in the literature on how the notion of holomorphy could be extended to functions of a quaternionic variable. We mention two here, of which we shall adopt the second definition. For a brief history of quaternionic holomorphy we refer the reader to [@Am]. The first definition of quaternionic holomorpy is given via the Cauchy-Fueter equations, which attempts to mimic the Cauchy-Riemann equations in a straightforward way.
(Cauchy-Fueter equations) [@Am; @Gra1]\[def-cauchy-fueter\] Let $f:H\longrightarrow H$ be a quaternion valued function of a quaternionic variable. We say that $f$ is left-regular if it satisfies the Cauchy-Fueter equation $$\frac{\partial_l f}{\partial{\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}}}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_0}+ i\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}+ j\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_2}+ k\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_3}=0 ,$$ and that $f$ is right-regular if it satisfies the other Cauchy-Fueter equation $$\frac{\partial_r f}{\partial{\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}}}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_0}+\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}i+\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_2}j+\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_3}k=0 .$$
Using this definition a theory of regular functions has been developed as a well structured theory. However, the unpleasant feature of this definition is that under the Cauchy-Fueter equations the function $f({\mathbf{q}})={\mathbf{q}}$ is not regular, and thereby none of the monomials or polynomials are regular. There have been several attempts to overcome this feature. The most promising, and recent attempt has appeared in [@Gra1] (see also [@Gra2]) where the following definition is offered. Let $\mathbb{S}=\{{\mathbf{q}}=x_1i+x_2j+x_3j~\vert~x_1,x_2,x_3\in\mathbb{R},~x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2=1\}$.
(Slice-regular functions [@Gra1])\[D2\] Let $\Omega$ be a domain in $H$. A real differentiable (i.e., with respect to $x_0$ and the $x_i,\; i=1,2,3$) function $f:\Omega\longrightarrow H$ is said to be slice left regular if, for every quaternion $I\in\mathbb{S}$, the restriction of $f$ to the complex line $L_I=\mathbb{R}+I\mathbb{R}$ passing through the origin, and containing $1$ and $I$, has continuous partial derivatives (with respect to $x$ and $y$, every element in $L_I$ being uniquely expressible as $x + yI$) and satisfies $$\overline{\partial}_I f (x + yI) := \frac 12\left(\frac {\partial f_I (x + yI )}{\partial x}
+ I \frac {\partial f_I (x + yI )}{\partial y}\right) = 0\; .
\label{leftslicereg}$$ Similarly, it is said to be slice right regular if $$\overline{\partial}_I f (x + yI) := \frac 12\left(\frac {\partial f_I (x + yI )}{\partial x}
+ \frac {\partial f_I (x + yI )}{\partial y}I\right) = 0\; .
\label{rightslicereg}$$
With this definition all monomials of the form $a{\mathbf{q}}^n,~a\in H,~n\in\mathbb{N}$, are slice right regular while those of the form ${\mathbf{q}}^n a,\; a\in H,~n\in\mathbb{N}$, are slice left regular . Since regularity respects addition, all polynomials of the form $f({\mathbf{q}})=\sum_{t=0}^{n}a_t{\mathbf{q}}^t$, with $a_t\in H$, are slice right regular and similarly polynomials of the form $f({\mathbf{q}})=\sum_{t=0}^{n}{\mathbf{q}}^t a_t$, are slice left regular. Further, an analog of Abel’s theorem guarantees convergence of appropriate infinite power series.
[@Gra1]\[P1\] For any non-real quaternion ${\mathbf{q}}\in H-\mathbb{R}$, there exist, and are unique, $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ with $y>0$, and $I\in\mathbb{S}$ such that ${\mathbf{q}}=x+yI$.
Henceforth we shall refer to slice right (left) regular functions simply as right (left) regular functions. We now define the Cullen derivative of regular functions.
(Cullen derivative [@Gra1; @Gra2])\[D3\] Let $\Omega$ be a domain in $H$, and let $f:\Omega\longrightarrow H$ be a left regular function. The Cullen derivative of $f$, $\partial_cf$, is defined as $$\partial_c f ({\mathbf{q}})=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
\partial_If({\mathbf{q}}):=\dfrac{1}{2}\left(\dfrac{\partial f_I(x+Iy)}{\partial x}-I\dfrac{\partial f_I(x+Iy)}{\partial y}\right)&\text{if}&y\not=0\\[4mm]
\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x)&\text{if}&{\mathbf{q}}=x~~\text{is real}\end{array}
\right.$$ Similarly, for a right regular function $f$ its Cullen derivative is defined as $$\partial_c f ({\mathbf{q}})=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
\partial_If({\mathbf{q}}):=\dfrac{1}{2}\left(\dfrac{\partial f_I(x+Iy)}{\partial x}-\dfrac{\partial f_I(x+Iy)}{\partial y} I\right)&\text{if}&y\not=0\\[4mm]
\dfrac{\partial f}{\partial x}(x)&\text{if}&{\mathbf{q}}=x~~\text{is real}\end{array}
\right.$$
Under the above definition the Cullen derivative of a regular function is regular and with $a_n\in H$ we have, for example, for a right regular power series, $$\label{E11}
\partial_c\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n {\mathbf{q}}^n\right)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} n a_n {\mathbf{q}}^{n-1}.$$ The following theorem gives the quaternionic version of holomorphy via a Taylor series. Let $B(0,R)$ be an open ball in $H$, of radius $R$ and centered at $0$.
[@Gra1]\[T5\] A function $f: B(0,R)\longrightarrow H$ is right, respectively left, regular if and only if it has a series expansion of the form $$f({\mathbf{q}})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!}\frac{\partial^n f}{\partial x^n}(0){\mathbf{q}}^n , \qquad\text{respectively,} \qquad f({\mathbf{q}})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}{\mathbf{q}}^n\frac{1}{n!}\frac{\partial^n f}{\partial x^n}(0),$$ converging on $B(0, R)$.
Complex Hermite polynomials
===========================
For the construction and analysis of the quaternionic Hermite polynomials, $H_n({\mathbf{q}})$ and $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$, it would be useful to first review some facts about their complex counterparts, specially since the results we obtain here in the quaternionic case are parallel to those in the complex case. For a detailed discussion of the complex Hermite polynomials $H_n(z)$ and $H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$, we refer the reader to [@AFG; @Ga; @Ghan; @Mat; @Wil; @VE].
The polynomials $H_n(z)$
------------------------
Let $z=x+iy\in{\mathbb{C}}, \;\; 0<s<1$, $$d\nu(z)=d\nu(x,y)=\exp\left[-(1-s)x^2-(\frac{1}{s}-1)y^2\right]dxdy
\label{measure1}$$ and $$b_n(s)=\frac{\pi\sqrt{s}}{1-s}\left(2\frac{1+s}{1-s}\right)^n n!\, .
\label{normalization}$$ Define $$\label{H1}
H_n(z)=n!\sum_{m=0}^{[n/2]}\frac{(-1)^m(2z)^{n-2m}}{m!(n-2m)!}=n!\sum_{m=0}^{[n/2]}C_{nm}z^{n-2m}.$$ ($[x]$ denoting the integer part of $x$) and observe that $\overline{H_n(x+iy)}=H_n(x-iy)$. The $H_n$ are just the usual Hermite polynomials, written in terms of a complex argument. From [@Ga] and [@VE] we have $$\label{H2}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}H_n(x+iy)\overline{H_m(x+iy)}d\nu(x,y)=b_n(s)\; \delta_{nm}\; .$$ Define $$\label{F3}
\mathfrak{h}_{n,s}(z)= b_n(s)^{-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-z^2/2}H_n(z)$$ and the Hilbert space of entire functions $$\mathfrak{X}_s=\left\{f~\mid~\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}|f(x+iy)|^2\exp(sx^2-\frac{1}{s}y^2)dxdy<\infty\right\}.$$ It has been shown in [@VE] that $\{\mathfrak{h}_{n,s}(z)\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\mathfrak{X}_s$ and $\mathfrak{X}_s$ is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space with the kernel $$\label{F4}
\mathfrak{K}_s(z,\overline{w})=\sum_{n}\mathfrak{h}_{n,s}(z)\overline{\mathfrak{h}_{n,s}(w)}=\frac{1-s^2}{2\pi s}\exp\left[-\frac{1+s^2}{4s}(z^2+\overline{w}^2)+\frac{1-s^2}{2s}z\overline{w}\right],$$ where $\quad z,w\in{\mathbb{C}}$. The expression for the kernel can be reduced to (see [@Ga]) $$\label{F5}
\mathfrak{K}_s(z,\overline{z})=\frac{1-s^2}{2\pi s}\exp[-sx^2+\frac{1}{s}y^2],\quad z=x+iy.$$ If we take $$\label{H3}
h_{n,s}(z)= b_n(s)^{-\frac{1}{2}}H_n(z)$$ then for $z,w\in\mathbb{C}$, $$\label{H4}
K_s(z,\overline{w})=\sum_{n}h_{n,s}(z)\overline{h_{n,s}(w)}=\frac{1-s^2}{2\pi s}\exp\left[-\frac{(s-1)^2}{4s}(z^2+\overline{w}^2)+\frac{1-s^2}{2s}z\overline{w}\right].$$ Further by replacing $w$ by $z$ we get $$\label{H5}
K_s(z,\overline{z})=\frac{1-s^2}{2\pi s}\exp\left[\frac{1-s}{2}x^2+\frac{s^2-3s+2}{2s}y^2\right],\quad z=x+iy.$$ The kernel (\[H4\]) is also a reproducing kernel. In fact it is easily seen that the corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space, $\mathfrak H^s_{hol}$, which is again a Hilbert space of analytic functions, and for which the vectors (\[H3\]) form an orthonormal basis, is a subspace of the Hilbert space $L^2 (\mathbb C , d\mu_s )$, where $$d\mu_s (x,y) = e^{-[(1-s)x^2 + (\frac 1s -1)y^2]}\; dx\; dy\; .
\label{s-measure}$$ Similarly, the polynomials $h_{n,s} (\overline{z})$ would span a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathfrak H_{a-hol} \subset L^2 (\mathbb C , d\mu_s )$ of anti-analytic functions, with reproducing kernel $\overline{K_s(z,\overline{w})}$.
The polynomials $H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$ {#subsec-comp-herm}
-----------------------------------------
A second class of complex Hermite polynomials have been studied in [@Wil]. These are defined, for positive integers $n,m$, as $$\label{E1}
H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})=(-2)^{n+m}\text{exp}(z\overline{z}/2)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)^n\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{z}}\right)^m\text{exp}(-z\overline{z}/2).$$ The generating function for this polynomial is $$\label{E2}
\text{exp}[(a\overline{z}+\overline{a}z-a\overline{a})/2]=\sum\frac{(a/2)^n(\overline{a}/2)^m}{n!m!}H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z}).$$ When $m\geq n$ and $n\geq 0$, the complex Hermite polynomials can also be written as $$H_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})=\frac{m!}{(m-n)!}z^{m-n}(-2)^n{}_1F_1(-n,m-n+1,z\overline{z}/2).$$ These polynomials satisfy the orthogonality relation $$\label{E3}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\text{exp}(-z\overline{z}/2)H_{n,m}(z,
\overline{z})\overline{H_{\nu,\mu}(z,\overline{z})}\; dx\; dy =2\pi \delta_{n \nu}\delta_{m \mu}n!m!2^{n+m}.$$ Now let $$\label{E4}
h_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})=(-1)^{n+m}\text{exp}(|z|^2)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)^n
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{z}}\right)^m\text{exp}(-|z|^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{n}
\sum_{j=0}^{m}a_{ij}z^i{\overline{z}}^j.$$ From (\[E3\]) (see also [@Nic; @Ghan] ), the polynomials $h_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})$ form a complete orthogonal system in the Hilbert space $L^2(\mathbb{C}, e^{-|z|^2}d\lambda)$, where $d\lambda=\frac{1}{\pi}d^2z$ is the Lebesque measure on $\mathbb{C}$. For proof of completeness see [@Ghan]. Also from (\[E3\]) we have $$\label{E5}
\int_{\mathbb{C}}e^{-|z|^2}h_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})\overline{h_{n,m}(z,\overline{z})}\; d\lambda
=n!m!$$ and thereby $$\|h_{n,m}\|_{L^2}=\sqrt{n!m!}.$$ The operator $$\label{E6}
\mathfrak{L}=-\frac{1}{4}\left\{4\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z\partial{\overline{z}}}+
2\left(z\frac{\partial}{\partial z}-{\overline{z}}\frac{\partial}{\partial{\overline{z}}}\right)-{\lvertz\rvert}^2\right\}$$ is the Hamiltonian of a nonrelativistic quantum particle moving on the plane under the action of a constant external magnetic field applied perpendicularly to the plane. The functions $e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2/2}h_{m,n}(z,{\overline{z}})$ are the eigenfunctions of $\mathfrak{L}$ with eigenvalues $n+\frac{1}{2}$, each eigenvalue being infinitely degenerate. The degeneracy is given by $m=0,1,2,\cdots$. For details see [@Ghan; @Mat].\
Quaternionic Hermite polynomials {#sec-quherm-polyn}
================================
In this section we define the quaternionic Hermite polynomials $H_n({\mathbf{q}})$ and $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$, by analogy with the complex polynomials introduced above. We shall identify the set of all polynomials $H_n({\mathbf{q}})$ as an orthogonal set in a $L^2$-space and similarly for the $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$. We also obtain reproducing kernels using the polynomials $H_n({\mathbf{q}})$ and $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ and the corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces. Finally we look at an operator $\mathfrak{L}_H$ which can be considered as the quaternionic version of the Landau operator (\[E6\]).
It is well-known (see, e.g., [@Thi]) that any ${\mathbf{q}}\in H$, in the $2\times 2$ matrix representation, can be written as $$\label{dc}
{\mathbf{q}}=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}Zu_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger},$$ where $$u_{{\mathbf{q}}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
e^{i\psi/2}&0\\
0&e^{-i\psi/2}\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\frac{\phi}{2}&i\sin\frac{\phi}{2}\\
i\sin\frac{\phi}{2}&\cos\frac{\phi}{2}\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
e^{i\psi/2}&0\\
0&e^{-i\psi/2}\end{array}\right)\in SU(2),$$ and $Z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
z&0\\
0&{\overline{z}}\end{array}\right), \; z \in \mathbb C$. Since $SU(2)$ is a compact group, let $d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})$ be the normalized Haar measure on it. From the decomposition (\[dc\]), $d\mu ({\mathbf{q}}) := e^{-|z|^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})$ is a measure on $H$ and $L^2_H(H, e^{-|z|^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}}))$ can be considered to be a [*left quaternionic Hilbert space*]{}, with an inner product defined as in (\[left-sc-prod\]).
From (\[dc\]), for any $i,j\in\mathbb{N}$ we have $${\mathbf{q}}^i=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
z^i&0\\
0&{\overline{z}}^i\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}\quad\text{and}\quad
{\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}}^j=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\overline{z}}^j&0\\
0&z^j\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}$$ and thereby, $$\label{E7}
{\mathbf{q}}^i\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}^j=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
z^i{\overline{z}}^j&0\\
0&{\overline{z}}^iz^j\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}.$$
The quaternionic Hermite polynomials $H_n({\mathbf{q}})$
--------------------------------------------------------
Let $d\eta({\mathbf{q}})=d\mu_s(z)d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})$, with $d\mu_s$ as in (\[s-measure\]). Since $${\mathbf{q}}^{n-2m}=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}z^{n-2m}&0\\0&\overline{z}^{n-2m}\end{array}\right)
u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}$$ and the $C_{nm}$ in (\[H1\]) are real numbers, we have $$C_{nm}{\mathbf{q}}^{n-2m}=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}C_{nm}z^{n-2m}&0\\0&C_{nm}\overline{z}^{(n-2m)}
\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}$$ and thereby $$n!\sum_{m=0}^{[n/2]}C_{nm}{\mathbf{q}}^{n-2m}=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}n!\sum_{m=0}^{[n/2]}
C_{nm}z^{n-2m}&0\\0&n!\sum_{m=0}^{[n/2]}C_{nm}\overline{z}^{(n-2m)}\end{array}\right)
u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}$$ That is $$H_n({\mathbf{q}})=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_n(z)&0\\0&H_n(\overline{z})\end{array}\right)
u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}.$$ Observe that $$\overline{H_n({\mathbf{q}})}=H_n(\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_n(\overline{z})&0\\
0&H_n(z)\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}.$$
Similarly, from (\[H1\]) we easily see that $$H({\mathbf{q}}) = n!\sum_{m=0}^{[n/2]}\frac{(-1)^m(2{\mathbf{q}})^{n-2m}}{m!(n-2m)!}\;,
\label{q-herm-exp}$$ which means that they satisfy the same recursion relations, $${\mathbf{q}}H_n ({\mathbf{q}}) = \frac 12 H_{n+1}({\mathbf{q}}) + n H_{n-1} ({\mathbf{q}})\; ,
\label{q-herm-rec}$$ as the real Hermite polynomials $H_n (x)$, or also $$H_{n+1} ({\mathbf{q}}) = 2{\mathbf{q}}H_n({\mathbf{q}}) - H^\prime_n({\mathbf{q}})\; ,
\label{q-herm-rec2}$$ the prime denoting the (Cullen) derivative.
Let $$L_H^2(H,d\eta({\mathbf{q}}))=\left\{f:H\rightarrow H\;\; \left|\;\;\int_Hf({\mathbf{q}})\overline{f({\mathbf{q}})}d\eta({\mathbf{q}})<\infty \right.\right\}.$$ This is a left quaternionic Hilbert space with a scalar product as in (\[left-sc-prod\]).
\[TH1\] The set $\left\{H_n({\mathbf{q}})\;\;\left| \;\; \right.n\in\mathbb{N}\right\}$ is an orthogonal set in $L_H^2(H,d\eta({\mathbf{q}}))$.
Consider $$\begin{aligned}
& &\int_HH_n({\mathbf{q}})\overline{H_m({\mathbf{q}})}d\eta({\mathbf{q}})\\
&=&\int_{SU(2)}u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}H_n(z)H_m(\overline{z})d\nu(x,y)&0\\0&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}H_m(z)H_n(\overline{z})d\nu(x,y)\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})\\
&=&\int_{SU(2)}u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
b_n(s)n!\delta_{mn}&0\\
0&b_m(s)m!\delta_{mn}\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})\\
&=&\int_{SU(2)}u_{{\mathbf{q}}}u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})b_n(s)n!\delta_{mn}\\
&=&b_n(s)n!\delta_{nm}.\end{aligned}$$
Redefine $$\label{C3}
H_n^s ({\mathbf{q}})=b_n(s)^{-\frac{1}{2}}H_n({\mathbf{q}}),$$ then $H_n^s({\mathbf{q}})\in L_H^2(H,d\eta({\mathbf{q}}))$ and $$\label{H6}
\int_HH_n^s({\mathbf{q}})\overline{H_m^s({\mathbf{q}})}d\eta({\mathbf{q}})=\delta_{nm}.$$ Define the kernel $$\label{H7}
K_s({\mathbf{q}}_1,\overline{{\mathbf{q}}_2})=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}H_n^s({\mathbf{q}}_1)\overline{H_n^s({\mathbf{q}}_2)},$$ then from (\[H4\]) $K_s({\mathbf{q}}_1,{\mathbf{q}}_2)$ is a reproducing kernel and the corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space is $$\label{C1}
A_s=\overline{\text{span}\{H_n^s({\mathbf{q}}) \mid n\in\mathbb{N}\}},$$ the span and its closure being taken under left multiplication by quaternionic constants. Note that the above reproducing kernel is the quaternionic equivalent of the kernel (\[H4\]) and the Hilbert space $A_s$ the equivalent of $\mathfrak H_{hol}^s$, generated by that kernel.
\[L1\] $K_s({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})=K_s(z,\overline{z})\mathbb{I}_2.$
Since $$H_n({\mathbf{q}})=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_n(z)&0\\0&H_n(\overline{z})\end{array}\right)
u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger},$$ we have $$H_n({\mathbf{q}})\overline{H_n({\mathbf{q}})}=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_n(z)\overline{H_n(z)}&0\\0&H_n(z)\overline{H_n(z)}\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}.$$ Since $b_n(s)$ are real numbers, $$\begin{aligned}
b_n(s)^{-1}H_n({\mathbf{q}})\overline{H_n({\mathbf{q}})}&=&u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}b_n(s)^{-1}H_n(z)\overline{H_n(z)}&0\\
0&b_n(s)^{-1}H_n(z)\overline{H_n(z)}\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}\\
&=&u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_{n,s}(z)\overline{h_{n,s}(z)}&0\\0&h_{n,s}(z)\overline{h_{n,s}(z)}\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n}b_n(s)^{-1}H_n({\mathbf{q}})\overline{H_n({\mathbf{q}})}&=&u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sum_nh_{n,s}(z)\overline{h_{n,s}(z)}&0\\0&\sum_nh_{n,s}(z)\overline{h_{n,s}(z)}\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}\\
&=&u({\mathbf{q}})\left(\begin{array}{cc}K_s(z,z)&0\\0&K_s(z,z)\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}\\
&=&K_s(z,\overline{z})\mathbb{I}_2.\end{aligned}$$ That is, $$\label{C2}
K_s({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})=K_s(z,\overline{z})\mathbb{I}_2.$$
The quaternionic Hermite polynomials $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exponential series $$e^{{\mathbf{q}}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^n}{n!},\quad {\mathbf{q}}\in H,$$ converges absolutely, and uniformly on compact subsets with respect to the norm of $H$ [@Ebb] (p 204). Thereby $$e^{-|{\mathbf{q}}|^2}=e^{-{\mathbf{q}}\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^n\frac{({\mathbf{q}}\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})^n}{n!}$$ converges uniformly. Further ${\mathbf{q}}$ and $\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}$ commute and real numbers commute with quaternions. Therefore, as in the complex case, as an extension of complex hermite polynomials, using Definition \[D3\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E8}
h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})&=&(-1)^{n+m}e^{|{\mathbf{q}}|^2}\frac{\partial^{n+m}}
{\partial{\mathbf{q}}^n\partial\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}^m}e^{-|{\mathbf{q}}|^2}=\sum_{i=0}^{n}\sum_{j=0}^{m}a_{ij}{\mathbf{q}}^i\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}^j\\
&=& n!m!\sum_{j=0}^{\text{min}\{n,m\}}\frac{(\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})^{n-j}}{(n-j)!}\frac{{\mathbf{q}}^{m-j}}{(m-j)!},\end{aligned}$$ where the $a_{ij}$ are real coefficients and the derivatives should be understood in the Cullen sense. Further from (\[E7\]) we have $$a_{ij}{\mathbf{q}}^i\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}^j=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a_{ij}z^i{\overline{z}}^j&0\\
0&a_{ij}{\overline{z}}^iz^j\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}.$$ Therefore $$\sum_{i=0}^{n}\sum_{j=0}^{m}a_{ij}{\mathbf{q}}^i\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}^j=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\sum_{i=0}^{n}\sum_{j=0}^{m}a_{ij}z^i{\overline{z}}^j&0\\
0&\sum_{i=0}^{n}\sum_{j=0}^{m}a_{ij}{\overline{z}}^iz^j\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}.$$ Thereby from (\[E8\]) we get $$\label{E9}
h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
h_{n,m}(z,{\overline{z}})&0\\
0&h_{m,n}(z,{\overline{z}})\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}.$$ We can see from (\[E4\]) that $h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ is obtained by substituting $z$ by ${\mathbf{q}}$ in the definition (\[E4\]) of $h_{n,m}(z,{\overline{z}})$. Thereby, using the fact that $h_{n,m}(z,{\overline{z}})\in L^2(\mathbb{C}, e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda)$ and $SU(2)$ is a compact group, we have $h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})\in L^2_H(H, e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}}))$.
\[T1\] The set $\left\{h_{m,n}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})~\vert~m,n\in\mathbb{N}\right\}$ is an orthogonal set in $L_H^2(H, e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}$ $d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})).$
See [@Thi2].
\[T2\] $\|h_{m,n}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})\|_{L_H^2}=\sqrt{n!m!}$ in $L_H^2(H, e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})).$
From (\[E5\]) and (\[E9\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{H}h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})\overline{h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})}e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})\\
&=&\int_{SU(2)}\int_{\mathbb{C}}u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
h_{n,m}(z,{\overline{z}})\overline{h_{n,m}(z,{\overline{z}})}&0\\
0&h_{m,n}(z,{\overline{z}})\overline{h_{m,n}(z,{\overline{z}})}\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})\\
&=&\int_{SU(2)}u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\int_{\mathbb{C}}h_{n,m}(z,{\overline{z}})\overline{h_{n,m}(z,{\overline{z}})}e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda&0\\
0&\int_{\mathbb{C}}h_{m,n}(z,{\overline{z}})\overline{h_{m,n}(z,{\overline{z}})}e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda\end{array}\right)\\
&\times & u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}
d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})\\
&=&n!m!\int_{SU(2)}u_{{\mathbf{q}}}u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}
d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})\\
&=&n!m!\mathbb{I}_2.\end{aligned}$$
From [@Ghan; @Mat], (\[E6\]) and (\[E9\]) it is clear that the functions $e^{-{\lvert{\mathbf{q}}\rvert}^2/2}h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ are the eigenfunctions of the operator $$\mathfrak{L}_{H}=u_{{\mathbf{q}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathfrak{L}&0\\0&\overline{\mathfrak{L}}
\end{array}\right)u_{{\mathbf{q}}}^{\dagger}$$ with spectrum $n+\frac{1}{2}$, each level being infinitely degenerate ($m=0,1,2,3,...\;$). Even though this operator can be considered as the quaternionic version of the complex Landau operator, we do not have at the moment a proper physical understanding of it.
Coherent states {#sec-CS}
===============
In this section we define CS over quaternionic Hilbert spaces and in particular CS arising from quaternionic Hilbert spaces of (slice) regular functions. As examples we build CS using the quaternionic Hermite polynomials $H_n({\mathbf{q}})$ and $H_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$.
The general construction {#subsec-gen-cons}
------------------------
Coherent states may be built on quaternionic Hilbert spaces, in more or less the same way as was outlined in Section \[sec\_intro\], for coherent states on complex Hilbert spaces. Indeed, let $V^L_H$ be a left quaternionic Hilbert space whose dimension could be finite or countably infinite and let $\phi_m , \;\; m =0,1,2, \ldots$, be an orthonormal basis of this space. Let $X$ be a locally compact space and $\mu$ a (Radon) measure on it. Consider a set of functions $\Phi_m : X \longrightarrow H , \;\; m =0,1,2, \ldots ,$ of the same cardinality as the dimension of $V^L_H$, and which satisfy the two conditions,
- $ 0 < \mathcal N (x) := \sum_m\vert\Phi_m (x)\vert^2 < \infty$, for all $x \in X$.
- $\int_X \Phi_m (x)\overline{\Phi_n (x)}\; d\mu (x) = \delta_{m n}$, for all $m$ and $n$.
A family of coherent states $\{ \eta_x \mid x \in X\}\subset V^L_H$ can now be defined to be the vectors, $$\eta_x = \mathcal N (x)^{- \frac 12} \sum_m \Phi_m (x) \phi_m\; .
\label{quat-CS}$$
By construction, these coherent states are seen to be normalized, i.e., $\Vert \eta_x \Vert^2 =1$, for all $x\in X$, and to satisfy the resolution of the identity, $$\int_X \langle f \mid \eta_x \rangle \langle \eta_x \mid g \rangle \; \mathcal N (x)d\mu (x)\;
= \langle f \mid g\rangle \; , \qquad f,g \in V^L_H \; .$$ Moreover, taking $L^2_H (X, d\mu )$ to be a left quaternionic Hilbert space, the map $$W: V^L_H \longrightarrow L^2_H (X, d\mu ), \quad \text{with} \quad W f (x) = \mathcal N (x)^{\frac 12}\langle f\mid \eta_x\rangle_{V^L_H}
\label{CS-isom}$$ is a linear isometry onto a closed subspace $$\mathfrak H_K := WV^L_H \subset L^2_H (X, d\mu ).$$ The subspace $\mathfrak H_K$ is a [*reproducing kernel Hilbert space*]{}, with reproducing kernel $$K: X \times X \longrightarrow H, \qquad K(y,x ) = \left[\mathcal N (y)\; \mathcal N (x)\right]^{\frac 12}\; \langle \eta_y \mid \eta_x\rangle = \sum_m \Phi_m (y)\overline{\Phi_m (x)}\; .
\label{quat-repker}$$ Thus, if $F \in \mathfrak H_K$, so that $F(x) = \mathcal N(x)^{\frac 12}\langle f \mid \eta_x\rangle$, for some $f\in V^L_K$, then $$\int_X F(y) K(x, y)\; d\mu (y) = F(x),$$ for all $x \in X$. This also means that for each $x\in X$, the [*evaluation map*]{}, $E_x : \mathfrak H_K \longrightarrow H$, with $E_x (F) = F(x)$, is continuous and $$\vert F(x)\vert \leq \mathcal N(x)^{\frac 12}\Vert f\Vert_{V^L_H} = \mathcal N(x)^{\frac 12}\Vert F\Vert_{\mathfrak H_K}.
\label{eval-est}$$
All these results are familiar from the theory of coherent states on complex Hilbert spaces. Thus, entirely analogous results hold on quaternionic Hilbert spaces.
Suppose, in particular, that $X = \mathcal D$ (some open ball in $H$, centered at the origin) and that the functions $\Phi_m, \;\; m =0,1,2, \ldots ,$ are elements in $L^2_H (\mathcal D, d\mu )$, which are regular functions, whose Taylor expansions (around the origin) have [*real coefficients*]{} (for example, they could be normalized polynomials, of degree $m$ in the quaternionic variable ${\mathbf{q}}$, with real coefficients). Then, for any $f \in V^L_H$ the transformed function $Wf \in L^2_H (\mathcal D, d\mu )$ is a series in the conjugate variable $\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}$ i.e., it has the form $$Wf (\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}) = \sum_m \alpha_m \overline{{\mathbf{q}}}^m , \qquad \alpha_m \in H\; ,$$ the sum converging in the $L^2$-norm. We now show that the above series is in fact a [*right anti-regular*]{} function (i.e., regular in the variable $\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}$). For this we need the following lemma, which is an adaptation of Lemma 2.5 in [@Gra1].
\[split-lemma\] If $f$ is a right regular function on $B = B(0, R)$, then for every $I \in \mathbb S$ and every $J$ in $\mathbb S$, perpendicular to $I$, there exist two holomorphic functions $F, G : B\cap L_I \longrightarrow L_I$ such that the restriction of $f$ to $L_I$ can be split as the sum $$f_I (z ) = F(z) + J G(z), \qquad z = x + y I \in L_I\; .
\label{splitting}$$
Note that if $f$ were to be an anti-regular function, a similar splitting into two anti-holomorphic functions would hold.
\[reg-hilb-sp\] The reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathfrak H_K$ is a space of right anti-regular functions.
First note that in view of the boundedness condition $$\mathcal N ({\mathbf{q}}) = \sum_m \vert \Phi_m ({\mathbf{q}})\vert^2 < \infty, \qquad {\mathbf{q}}\in \mathcal D,$$ to each ${\mathbf{q}}\in \mathcal D$ and $I \in \mathbb S$, there exists a neighbourhood of the origin, $N({\mathbf{q}}) \subset L_I \cap \mathcal D$, in which the above sum converges uniformly. Let $\phi_m$ be one of the basis vectors in $V^L_H$, used to build the coherent states (\[quat-CS\]). By (\[CS-isom\]), $W\phi_m = \overline{\Phi}_m$ and since $\Phi_m$ has a series expansion with real coefficients, $\overline{\Phi_m ({\mathbf{q}})} =
\Phi_m (\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$. Thus these vectors form a basis for $\mathfrak H_K$. A general element $f \in \mathfrak H_K$ is thus an $L^2$-limit of a sequence of vectors $f_n , \;\; n =1,2,3, \ldots$, each one of which is a finite (left) quaternionic linear combination of these basis vectors. Hence each $f_n$ is a right anti-regular function. By (\[eval-est\]) $\vert f_n(\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}) -
f(\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})\vert \leq \vert \mathcal N ({\mathbf{q}})\vert\; \Vert f_n - f\Vert_{V^L_H}$ and thus for each ${\mathbf{q}}\in \mathcal D$, the sequence $f_n (\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ converges to $f(\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ uniformly in $\overline{N({\mathbf{q}})}$. Since each $f_n$ is an anti-regular function, and since the uniform limit of an anti-holomorphic function is anti-holomorphic, Lemma \[split-lemma\] implies that $f$ is also anti-regular, proving the theorem.
Henceforth we shall denote the space $\mathfrak H_K$ by $\mathfrak H_{a-reg}$. In an entirely analogous manner we can also define a reproducing kernel Hilbert space $\mathfrak H_{reg}$ of regular functions, starting from coherent states built out of the polynomials $H_m (\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ instead of $H_m ({\mathbf{q}})$. Both these spaces are contained as subspaces of $L^2 (H, d\mu)$.
Two examples {#subsec-examples}
------------
We now construct coherent states following the above procedure and using the Hermite polynomials introduced in Section \[sec-quherm-polyn\]. From (\[H4\]) and Lemma \[L1\] it is clear that the functions $H^s_n({\mathbf{q}})$ in (\[C3\]) satisfy the conditions 1. and 2. stated at the beginning of Section \[subsec-gen-cons\]. Thus, we have the result:
\[reg\_CS\_theor\]Let $\{\phi_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ be an orthonormal basis of the left quaternionic Hilbert space $V_H^L$. For ${\mathbf{q}}\in H$, $0<s<1$, $K_s({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ as in (\[C2\]) and $H_n^s({\mathbf{q}})$ as in (\[C3\]), the set of vectors $$\label{H8}
\eta_{{\mathbf{q}},s}=K_s({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}H_n^s({\mathbf{q}})\phi_n\in V_H^L$$ forms a set of coherent states.
By Theorem \[reg\_CS\_theor\], the reproducing kernel Hilbert space associated to this family of CS is a space of right anti-regular functions. Similarly, had we constructed these CS using the functions $H^s_n (\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$, the corresponding reproducing kernel Hilbert space would have consisted of right regular functions, and in fact would have been the space $A_s$ in (\[C1\]).
Next, for each fixed $n$, let $B_n=\left\{h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})\mid m\in\mathbb{N},
\right\}$ and let $A_n(H)$ be the closed linear span, under left multiplication by quaternionic scalars, of the vectors in $B_n$. Then $B_n$ is a basis of $A_n(H)$ and $\bigoplus_{n=0}^{\infty}A_n(H)$ is a left quaternionic Hilbert space, which is a closed subspace of $L^2_H(H, e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})).$ Note that unlike in the case of the complex polynomials, discussed in Section \[subsec-comp-herm\], where the vectors $h_{n,m}$ spanned the entire space $L^2(\mathbb{C}, e^{-|z|^2}d\lambda)$, here $\bigoplus_{n=0}^{\infty}A_n(H)$ is only a proper subspace of $L^2_H(H, e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})).$ Further $$\label{E10a}
K_n({\mathbf{q}}_1,\overline{{\mathbf{q}}_2})=\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n!m!}h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}}_1,\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}_1)
\overline{h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}}_2,\overline{{\mathbf{q}}}_2)}$$ is a reproducing kernel of the Hilbert subspace $A_n(H)$. The convergence of the above sum easily follows from the convergence of the analogous sum in the complex case, i.e., with ${\mathbf{q}}$ replaced by the complex variable $z$ [@intint]. In particular we have $K_0({\mathbf{q}},{\mathbf{q}})=e^{|{\mathbf{q}}|^2}$.\
Assume that $\{\phi_m\}_{m=0}^{\infty}$ is an orthonormal basis of $V_H^L$. For ${\mathbf{q}}\in H$, define $$\label{E10}
\eta_{{\mathbf{q}},n} := K_n({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})^{-1/2}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\frac{h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})}{\sqrt{n!m!}}\phi_m\in V_H^L.$$ The vectors $\{\eta_{{\mathbf{q}}, n} \mid q\in H\}$ are then a family of coherent states, for each $n$. In particular, the vectors $$\eta_{{\mathbf{q}}, 0} = e^{-\frac {\vert{\mathbf{q}}\vert^2}2} \sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac {{\mathbf{q}}^m}{\sqrt{m!}}\phi_m
\in V^L_H\; ,$$ are the so-called [*canonical quaternionic coherent states.*]{} The corresponding reproducing kernel, which is easily computed using (\[quat-repker\]), is seen to be $$K_0 ({\mathbf{q}}_1 , \overline{{\mathbf{q}}_2} ) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac {{\mathbf{q}}_1^n \; \overline{{\mathbf{q}}_2^n}}{n!}\; ,$$ the quaternionic analogue of the well-known complex Bargmann kernel. (Note that, since ${\mathbf{q}}_1$ and $\overline{{\mathbf{q}}_2}$ do not necessarily commute, we cannot write this as $\exp[{\mathbf{q}}_1 \overline{{\mathbf{q}}_2}]$.)
Again, the reproducing kernel Hilbert space associated to these canonical quaternionic CS is a space of right anti-regular functons. It is of course a subspace of the bigger space $ L_H^2(H, e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}}))$. This is analogous to the space of anti-analytic functions generated by the canonical CS (\[can-comp\_CS\]) on a complex Hilbert space. Similarly, we could have constructed the conjugate family of canonical quaternionic CS and the reproducing kernel space would have consisted of right regular functions, again as in the complex case. Thus, we get the two spaces (completion under left multiplication by quaternionic scalars is implied), $$\mathfrak{H}_{reg}=\overline{\text{span}\left\{h_{0,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})~\vert~m\in\mathbb{N}
\right\}}$$ and $$\mathfrak{H}_{a-reg}=\overline{\text{span}\left\{h_{n,0}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})~\vert~n\in\mathbb{N}
\right\}}\; ,$$ of right regular and right anti-regular functions, respectively. The first Hilbert space is the quaternionic analogue of the Bargmann space of analytic functions, with $$h_{0,m} ({\mathbf{q}}, \overline{{\mathbf{q}}}) = \frac {{\mathbf{q}}^m}{\sqrt{m!}}\; , \qquad m =0,1,2, \ldots\; .$$ It is interesting to note that if we define the formal annihilation and creation operators on this space by $a h_{0,m}= \sqrt{m}h_{0, m-1},\;\; a^\dag h_{0, m} = \sqrt{m+1}h_{0, m+1}$, then these have realizations by the (Cullen) derivative w.r.t. ${\mathbf{q}}$ and multiplication by ${\mathbf{q}}$, respectively (again in complete analogy with the complex case).
Note that since the $h_{n,m}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})$ are mutually orthogonal elements in the ambient space $L_H^2(H,e^{-{\lvertz\rvert}^2}$ $d\lambda d\omega(u_{{\mathbf{q}}})),$ the elements of $\mathfrak{H}_{reg}$ and $\mathfrak{H}_{a-reg}$ are mutually orthogonal except for the one-dimensional subspace generated by the vector $h_{0,0}({\mathbf{q}},\overline{{\mathbf{q}}})=1$ which is common to both spaces.
Conclusion {#sec-disc}
==========
Using the notion of the Cullen derivative and the related notions of regular and anti-regular functions of quaternionic variables, we have obtained a wide ranging generalization of certain physically interesting classes of coherent states to quaternionic Hilbert spaces. The analysis shows, among others, that all the so-called non-linear coherent states, which can be realized on Hilbert spaces of analytic or anti-analytic functions, have quaternionic generalizations. In the process we have also obtained fairly straightforward generalizations of two different types of complex orthogonal Hermite polynomials to analogous polynomials in a quaternionic variable, again satisfying similar orthogonality and recursion relations. It would be interesting to explore other families of orthogonal polynomials in the same vein. In recent years, formulations of quantum mechanics on quaternionic Hilbert spaces have been proposed to address some of the conceptual problems associated to particle interactions at very short distances (see, for example, [@Ad]). In view of the importance of coherent states in usual quantum mechanics, it is expected that they would also be of importance in quaternionic quantum mechanics.
[XXXX]{}
Adler, S.L., [*Quaternionic quantum mechanics and Quantum fields*]{}, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
Adler, S.L. and Millard, A.C., [*Coherent states in quaternionic quantum mechanics*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**38**]{} (1997), 2117 - 2126.
Ali, S.T., Bhattacharyya, T. and Roy, S.S., [*Coherent states on Hilbert modules*]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., [**44**]{} (2011), 275202(16pp).
Ali, S.T., Antoine, J-P. and Gazeau, J-P., [*Coherent States, Wavelets and Their Generalizations*]{}, Springer, New York, 2000.
Ali, S.T., Bagarello, F. and Honnouvo, G., [*Modular structures on trace class operators and applications to Landau levels*]{}, J.Phys.A: Math. Theor.,[**43**]{}, (2010), 105202.
Bargmann, B. [*On a Hilbert space of analytic functions and an associated integral transform: Part-I*]{}, Commun. Pure and Applied Math. [**14**]{} (1961), 187-214.
Buchmann, A., [*A brief history of quaternions and the theory of holomorphic functions of quaternionic variables*]{}, arXiv:1111.6088v1\[Math.HO\]
Cotfas, N., Gazeau, J-P. and Gorska, K., [*Complex and real Hermite polynomials and related quantizations*]{}, J. Phys.A: Math. Theor. [**43**]{} (2010), 305304.
Ebbinghaus, H.D., Hermes, H., Hirzebruch, F., Koecher, M., Mainzer, K., Neukirch, J., Prestel, A. and Remmert, R., [*Numbers*]{},(3rd Edition), Springer, New York, 1995.
Gazeau, J-P. and Szafraniec, F.H., [*Holomorphic Hermite polynomials and non-commutative plane*]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**44**]{} (2011), 495201.
Gentili, G. and Struppa, D.C., [*A new theory of regular functions of a quaternionic variable*]{}, Adv. Math. [**216**]{} (2007), 279-301.
Gentili, G. and Stoppato, C., [*Power series and analyticity over the quaternions*]{}, Math. Ann. [**352**]{} (2012), 113-131.
Ghanmi, A., [*A class of generalized complex Hermite polynomials*]{}, J. Math. Anal. and App. [**340**]{} (2008), 1395-1406.
Intissar, A. and Intissar A., [*Spectral properties of the Cauchy transform on $L_2 (\mathbb C, e^{-\vert z \vert^2} \lambda (z))$*]{}, J. Math. Anal. and Applications [**313**]{} (2006), 400-418.
Iwata, G., [*Non-hermitian operators and eigenfunction expansions*]{}, Progress Theoret. Phys. [**6**]{} (1951), 216-226.
Matsumoto, H., [*Quadratic Hamiltonians and associated orthogonal polynomials*]{}, J.Funct. Anal. [**140**]{} (1996), 218-255.
McGee, W.F., [*Complex Gaussian noise moments*]{}, IEEE Trans. Information Theory [**17**]{} (1971), 149-157.
Thirulogasanthar, K. and Ali, S.T., [*A class of vector coherent states defined over matrix domains*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**44**]{} (2003), 5070-5083.
Thirulogasanthar, K., Honnouvo, G. and Krzyzak, A., [*Coherent states and Hermite polynomials on Quaternionic Hilbert spaces*]{}, J. Phys.A: Math. Theor. [**43**]{} (2010), 385205.
Thirulogasanthar, K. and Saad, N., [*Coherent states associated with the wavefunctions and the spectrum of the isotonic oscillator*]{}, J.Phys.A: Math. Gen., [**37**]{} (2004), 4567.
Torgasev, A., [*Dual space of a quaternion Hilbert space*]{}, Ser. Math. Inform. [**14**]{} (1999), 71-77.
van Eijndhoven, S.J.L. and Meyers, J.L.H. [*New orthogonality relations for the Hermite polynomials and related Hilbert spaces*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**146**]{} (1990), 89-98.
Viswanath, K., [*Normal operators on quaternionic Hilbert spaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**162**]{} (1971), 337-350.
[^1]: The research of one of the authors (STA) was supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note, we construct torsion-free countable, amenable, weakly mixing groups, which answer a question of V. Bergelson. Some results related to verbal subgroups and crystallographic groups are also presented.'
author:
- |
\
Rostislav Grigorchuk [^1]\
Texas A&M University\
$\ $\
Rostyslav Kravchenko [^2]\
University of Chicago\
$\ $\
Alexander Ol’shanskii [^3]\
Vanderbilt University and Moscow State University
title: 'Constructions of torsion-free countable, amenable, weakly mixing groups'
---
[**Keywords**]{}: weakly mixing group, WM group, minimally almost periodic group, variety of groups, verbal subgroup, torsion-free group, wreath product, orderable group\
[**MSC**]{}:20E99, 20C99, 37A15
Introduction
============
Weak mixing of a group action on a measure space is a property stronger than ergodicity and it plays an important role in the modern theory of dynamical systems (see for instance [@Gl03], [@BG04] and the references there). For the actions of cyclic groups, it was introduced by Koopman and von Neumann in [@KvN32]. Later von Neumann [@vN34] introduced the class of so-called ‘minimally almost periodic groups’, which can be characterized by the property that any ergodic measure preserving action of such a group on a finite measure space is in fact weakly mixing. At present, it is customary to call such groups weakly mixing or WM groups for short. Whereas at the beginning of the development of subject, the locally compact groups mostly were involved, in recent investigations, abstract groups started playing an important role. The case, where a group is amenable, attracted special attention in the paper of Bergelson and Furstenberg [@BF], establishing a relation between the WM property and the Ramsey theory (see also recent [@BCRZ14]). For a finitely generated group, to be a WM group is the same as to have no nontrivial finite quotients. For infinitely generated amenable groups property WM is equivalent to have no nontrivial finite quotients or abelian quotients (see Proposition \[prop:char\] below). Thus locally finite simple groups, like the group ${\operatorname{Alt}}_{\textrm{fin}}(\N)$ of finitary even permutations of $\N$ for instance, are WM. These groups are torsion groups.
A few years ago V. Bergelson, in a private discussion with the first author, raised the following question:
\[q1\] Does there exist a countable, *torsion-free, amenable,* WM group?
We give a positive answer to this question providing examples satisfying some additional properties.
This is done in two ways. First, we follow the ideas of B.Neumann [@Ne49], B. Neumann and H. Neumann [@NN59], later developed by P. Hall [@H74] and other researchers. This leads, for instance, to the example of a countable orderable (and hence torsion-free) locally solvable (and hence amenable) WM group (Corollary \[coro1\]). Additional tools allow to construct simple groups that answer Question \[q1\].
As an alternative, we use groups of the type $F'/N'$ ($N'=[N,N]$ is the commutator of $N$), where $F$ is a free group and $N<F$ is a normal subgroup. Groups of the type $F/N'$ and more generally of type $F/{\mathcal{V}}(N)$ (where ${\mathcal{V}}(N)$ is some verbal subgroup of $N$) and their subgroups were studied intensively in the 60s of the last century by many researchers (from [@M39] to [@Sh65] and much more) mostly with the purpose of study varieties of groups ([@N67]). They also play a role the in study of orderable groups, as it can be seen from [@KK74] and the literature cited there. We show that groups of the type $F'/N'$ lead to examples of WM groups under the condition that $F/N$ is an amenable WM group.
The principal difference between these two constructions is the following. The first constructions is an embedding construction. It is quite flexible for embedding of any countable locally solvable or amenable, or elementary amenable, or sub-exponentially amenable, or torsion free, or locally indicable, or orderable, or right orderable group in a countable group of the same type but with additional properties. On the contrary the subgroups of the groups given by the second construction are rather special. They can be regarded as generalizations of torsion-free crystallographic groups (see Proposition \[cr\]), in particular, any non-free subgroup $H$ of the group $F/N'$ has a nontrivial free abelian normal subgroup, and moreover, $H$ must have non-trivial intersection with $N/N'$ (see Proposition \[nf\]).
In the study of amenable groups, an important role is assigned to the splitting of the class $AG$ of amenable groups into disjoint union of the class $EG$ of elementary amenable groups and of class $AG
\setminus EG$ of non-elementary amenable groups. Another interesting subclass of $AG$ is class $SG$ of subexponentially amenable groups, which together with $EG$, $SG\setminus EG$ and $AG\setminus SG$ gives splitting of $AG$ into three subclasses. We provide examples of groups answering Question \[q1\] that belongs to these classes. A group property stronger than to be torsion-free is the property to be orderable. We provide examples with various orderability properties. Unfortunately all our examples are infinitely generated, and it is interesting question if the answer to Bergelson question can be done within the class of finitely generated groups. Observe that a right orderable amenable group can not be finitely generated as it is indicable (can be mapped onto $\mathbb{Z}$) by the result of Morris [@Mo06]. An interesting open question related to the above discussion is:
\[q2\] Does there exist a finitely generated torsion-free, amenable, simple group?
A part of our note contains some results concerning verbal subgroups (this is related to the second construction of WM groups) and a construction of crystallographic groups, which is also based on the use of groups of type $F'/N'$.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}: The authors are grateful to L. Bowen and P. de la Harpe for interest to this work and valuable remarks and suggestions. The first and second authors acknowledge the support of Institute of Henry Poincare at Paris, as a big part of the work on this note has been done during the trimester program “Random Walks and Asymptotic Geometry of Groups”. The first author also acknowledge support of University of Geneva and Swiss National Science Foundation, grant $200020-141329$.
Preliminaries
=============
Since our note lies between group theory and ergodic theory, we write more details and give more definitions than it would require for a paper in one field.
A group $G$ is called WM (weakly mixing, or minimally almost periodic) if it is non-trivial and one of the following equivalent conditions holds:
- $G$ has no non-trivial finite-dimensional unitary representations.
- $G$ does not admit non-constant almost periodic functions.
- Any ergodic measure preserving action of $G$ on a finite measure space is in fact weakly mixing.
Equivalences $\alpha\sim \beta$ and $ \alpha \sim \gamma$ are proven in [@vN34] and [@Sc84] respectively.
First we provide an alternative characterization of WM groups in the presence of amenability or finite generation.
\[prop:char\] Let $G$ be a group.
1. If $G$ is WM then $G$ has no non-trivial finite or abelian quotients.
2. If $G$ is non-trivial and finitely generated and has no non-trivial finite quotients then $G$ is WM.
3. If $G$ is non-trivial and does not have non-cyclic free subgroups (in particular if $G$ is amenable) then group $G$ is WM if and only if it does not have non-trivial finite or abelian quotients.
<!-- -->
1. Any non-trivial finite or abelian group admits non-trivial finite dimensional unitary representations. If $G$ admits such a group as a quotient, then such a representation can be pulled back to $G$ showing that $G$ is not WM.
2. Suppose $G$ is finitely generated and is not WM. Then there is a non-trivial finite dimensional unitary representation $\pi:G \to U(n)$. Note $\pi(G)$ is a non-trivial finitely generated linear group. Mal’cev proved [@Ma40] that all such groups are residually finite. In particular, $\pi(G)$ has a non-trivial finite quotient and therefore, $G$ also has a non-trivial finite quotient, a contradiction.
3. One direction follows immediately from the point 1. Suppose now that $G$ is non-trivial, has no free subgroups on two generators, does not have non-trivial finite or abelian quotients, and is not WM. Then there is a non-trivial finite dimensional unitary representation $\pi:G \to U(n)$. Note that $\pi(G)$ is virtually solvable by the Tits alternative [@Ti72]. If $\pi(G)$ has a proper subgroup of finite index then, pulling back, $G$ also has a proper subgroup of finite index and therefore $G$ has a non-trivial finite quotient. If $\pi(G)$ does not have a proper subgroup of finite index then $\pi(G)$ is solvable, and hence has a non-trivial abelian quotient, which implies that $G$ has a non-trivial abelian quotient, a contradiction.
Let $H$ be Higman’s finitely presented group $H$ without finite quotients constructed in [@H51]. Let $H/N$ by a quotient of $H$ by some maximal normal subgroup $N$ (it is a simple finitely generated group). Then both $H$ and $H/N$ are WM groups.
Recall that a group is called locally finite if every its finitely generated subgroup is finite, and similarly, for locally solvable groups. Such groups are amenable (and even elementary amenable, see the definition below).
\[cor:locally-finite\] Infinite simple locally finite groups are WM.
There are many examples of simple locally finite groups (the simplest example ${\operatorname{Alt}}_{\textrm{fin}}(\N)$ was presented in the introduction). But all these groups are torsion. As was already indicated, the question about existence of finitely generated torsion-free, amenable, simple group remains open. The following question is open too.
Does there exist a finitely generated infinite, torsion, amenable, simple group?
Recall that a group $G$ is amenable if it has invariant mean, which is equivalent to have a finitely additive left invariant measure $\mu$ with values in $[0,1]$ defined on the algebra of all subsets of $G$ and normalized by the condition $\mu(G)=1$. Finite, abelian groups, and groups of subexponential growth are amenable, and the class $AG$ of amenable groups is closed with respect to operations: (i) taking subgroup, (ii) taking quotient, (iii) extension, (iv) direct limit (the latter operation can be replaced by directed unions). Class $EG$ of elementary amenable groups is the smallest class of groups containing finite and abelian groups and closed with respect to the operations (i)-(iv) (it was introduced by M.Day in [@Da57]). The class $SG$ of subexponentially amenable groups is the smallest class of groups containing all finitely generated groups of subexponential growth and closed with respect to the operations (i)-(iv) (it was introduced in [@Gr98]). The inclusions $EG\subset SG\subset AG$ hold and are proper [@Gr98; @BV05]. We will say that the *type of amenability* of amenable group is $\mathcal{T}_1,\mathcal{T}_2$ or $\mathcal{T}_3$ depending to what set $EG$, $SG\setminus EG$ or $\mathcal{T}_3=AG\setminus SG$, respectively, the group belongs. A classical source for information about amenable groups is , more recent source of information is the survey [@CGH99] and monograph [@CC10].
Recall that a group $G$ is called orderable group if it has linear order (called also total order) that is invariant with respect to left and right multiplication. It is called a right (left) orderable group if it has linear order invariant with respect to right (left) multiplication. To be orderable is a stronger condition than to be right orderable, the latter is equivalent to be left orderable and is stronger than to be torsion free. We will deal in the first construction with restricted and unrestricted wreath products of groups. Observe that although a restricted wreath product of (right) orderable groups is (right) orderable, for unrestricted products, this is not correct in the class of orderable groups (but it is correct in the class of right orderable groups [@MR77], Theorem 7.3.2). Nevertheless there is a way to set a bi-invariant order on some special subgroups of an unrestricted wreath product (see proof of part (d) of lemma \[3.2\]). The books [@KK74; @MR77] are good sources of information about orderable groups.
The first construction of torsion free WM groups
================================================
Our first construction gives a possibility to embed a group into a simple group in the way that many group properties (first of all properties to be torsion free and amenable) can be preserved. This construction uses ideas of [@Ne49; @NN59] and [@H74] and some of our statements are simplified versions of statement that can be found in these papers. We present the proof for the reader’s convenience. We begin with the simplest way of getting examples that answer in affirmative Question \[q1\]. The corresponding groups are elementary amenable as they are locally solvable groups.
Recall that a group $G$ is called perfect if $G=G'$, where $G'=[G,G]$ is a commutator subgroup. The derived series $G^{(s)}$ is defined inductively by the rule $G^{(0)}=G$, $G^{(1)}=G'=[G,G]$ and $G^{(s+1)}=[G^{(s)},G^{(s)}]$. A group is called locally indicable if every its finitely generated nontrivial subgroup is indicable, i.e. can be mapped homomorphically onto an infinite cyclic groups.
\[thm:solv\] Let $\cal P$ be any combination of the following group properties: to be amenable or elementary amenable, or sub-exponentially amenable, or torsion free, or locally indicable, or orderable, or right orderable group. Assume that $G$ is a countable group with the property $\cal P$. Then $G$ embeds in a countable perfect group with the property $\cal P$.
\[coro1\] There is an infinite countable, locally solvable, orderable, perfect, WM group.
\[rem1\] Observe that the group property to be orderabe implies the property to be locally indicable (Corollary 2, section 2.2 in [@KK74]). Also right orderable amenable groups are locally indicable [@Mo06]. In fact, local indicability of involved groups can be seen directly from the construction if we start with indicable group and proceed as in the proof of Lemma \[3.2\].
The next result provides more advanced examples.
\[thm:simple\] Every countable group $A$ with the property $\cal P$ introduced in Theorem \[thm:solv\] embeds in a countable simple group $H$ with the property $\cal P$.
\[coro2\] There exists a countable amenable, simple, orderable, WM group. Moreover, such examples exist in the class $EG$ of elementary amenable groups, in the class $SG\setminus EG$ of sub-exponentially amenable but not elementary amenable groups, and in the class $AG\setminus SG$ of amenable but not subexponentially amenable groups
The next lemma is the key argument in proving theorem \[thm:solv\] and it also serves as the starting point for the construction leading to the simple groups mentioned in Theorem \[thm:simple\].
\[3.2\] Let $G$ be a countable group. There exists a countable group $H$ and an embedding of $G$ into $H$ such that $G\le [H,H]$, and the following properties hold.
- If $G$ is torsion-free, then $H$ is torsion-free, and if $G$ is locally indicable, then $H$ is locally indicable.
- If $G$ is solvable of derived length $s$, then $H$ is solvable of derived length $\le s+1$.
- If $G$ is amenable, then $H$ is amenable of the same type amenability as $G$ is.
- If $G$ is (right) ordered, then $H$ is also (right) orderable with an order extending the order on $G$.
Take $H_0$ to be the unrestricted wreath product of $G$ and $\Z$, $H_0=G^\Z\rtimes\Z$. For $g\in G$, define ${\delta}_g\in G^\Z$ by the rule ${\delta}_g(0)=g$, ${\delta}_g(n)=1$ if $n\neq 0$. Let $G\to H_0$ be the inclusion $g\mapsto {\delta}_g$.
Define also $f_g(n)=g$ if $n\leq 0$ and $f_g(n)=1$ if $n>0$. Let $\sigma$, be the generator of the active group $\Z$ acting on $G^\Z$ as the shift to the left, that is for $n\in\Z$, $\sigma(f)(n)=f(n+1)$. Then $[f_g,\sigma]=f_g\sigma f_g^{-1}\sigma^{-1}=f_g\sigma(f^{-1}_{g})={\delta}_g$. Now take $H$ to be the subgroup of $H_0$ generated by $\sigma$ and all $f_g$, $g\in G$. It is clear that $G \leq [H,H]$.
- $G$ is torsion free if and only if $H_0$ is torsion free and thus $H\leq H_0$ is torsion free. If $H$ is not a subgroup of the base group $G^\Z$ of wreath product then $H$ surjects onto nontrivial subgroup of $\Z$. If $H\leq G^\Z$ and $H$ is finitely generated and nontrivial then its projection on some factor $G$ in the product $G^\Z$ is finitely generated and nontrivial and therefor $H$ can be mapped onto $\Z$.
- Suppose $G^{(s)}=1$. Since $H_0'\leq G^\Z$ we have $H_0^{(s+1)}=1$, thus $H^{(s+1)}=1$.
- Suppose a subgroup $U\le H\cap G^\Z$ is generated by a finite number of elements of the form $f_{g}^{\sigma^i}, i\in \Z$. Since $f_g:\Z\to G$ has only two different values, the set $\Z$ is a disjoint union of finitely many subsets $Z_i=Z_i(U)$ such that every function from the generating set of $U,$ and therefore every function from $U$, is constant on each $Z_i$. Therefore $U$ is embeddable into a product of finitely many copies of $G$.
Hence $U$ is amenable, and so is $H\cap G^\Z$ as an ascending union of such finitely generated subgroups. Finally, the group $H$ ia amenable being an extension of $H\cap G^\Z$ by a cyclic group. If $G$ is elementary amenable or belongs to one of the classes $SG\setminus EG$, $AG\setminus SG$, then the product of finitely many copies of $G$ is also elementary amenable or belongs to $SG\setminus EG$ or to $AG\setminus SG$, respectively. As $H\cap G^\Z$ surjects onto $G$, we conclude that $H$ is in the same class of amenability as $G$.
- Assume that a right or two-sided order $<$ on $G$ is given. Recall that such order is determined by a semigroup (called also a cone) of positive elements (that is elements $>1$). To extend the order $<$ to $H$, we will define a cone $U$ of positive elements in $H$. Namely $(f,m)\in U$, where $f\in G^\Z$, $m\in \Z$, $(f,m)\in H$, if $m>0$ or $m=0$, $f\ne 1$, and the last nontrivial value of the function $f$ is positive in $G$ (i.e., $f(i)>1$ in $G$ for some $i$, and $f(j)=1$ for all $j>i$. The last nontrivial value of $f$ exists as every function from $H^{\cal\Z}$ has trivial values $f(k)$ starting with some integer $k_0$.) The set $U$ of such positive pairs is a subsemigroup of $H$, and it is easy to see that $U\cup U^{-1}=H\backslash\{1\}$ and $U\cap U^{-1}=\emptyset$ for $U^{-1}=\{u^{-1}\mid u\in U\}$. It follows that $U$ is the cone of positive elements defining the total right order on $H$ by the rule: $h_1>h_2$ iff $h_1h_2^{-1}\in
U$. This order extends the right order on $G$. The cone $U$ is invariant under conjugations by all $h\in H$ (it suffices to check for $h=(1,n)$ and $h=(f,0)$) if the order on $G$ is two-sided. So $U$ defines a two-sided order on $H$ in this case, as desired.
Construct a sequence $G_0<G_1<\dots$, where $G_0=G$ and $G_{i+1}$ is obtained from $G_i$ according to Lemma \[3.2\] Let $G$ be the union of $\{G_i\}$. If $g\in G$ then $g\in G_j\le G_{j+1}'\le G'$ for some $j$. Thus $G'=G$. The property $\cal P$ holds for every $G_i$ by the inductive application of Lemma \[3.2\] Hence the group $G$ is a $\cal P$-group too.
Let us start with $G_0=\Z$ with the canonical order or with any orderable countable, solvable group (for instance, finitely generated free solvable group of derived length $s\geq 1$). Then every group $G_i$ from the above construction is solvable by Lemma \[3.2\], and so the union $G=\cup_{i=0}^{\infty}G_i$ is locally solvable. It is orderable and perfect by Theorem \[thm:solv\].
Since $G=G'$, $G$ cannot have nontrivial abelian quotients, and since $G$ is locally solvable, any finite quotient $K$ of $G$ is solvable which together with $K=K'$ implies that $K=\{1\}$.
Now we are going to use a restricted wreath product of groups $A$ and $B$, which is denoted by $A\wr
B$. We will identify the group $A$ with the subgroup of $A\wr B=(\times_B A)\rtimes B$, $a\mapsto \delta_a\in
\times_B A$, $\delta_a(1)=a$, $\delta_a(b)=1$ if $b\neq 1$. We will use the following
\[claim\] Let $G=A\wr B$, $N$ a normal subgroup of $G$ containing a nontrivial element $b$ from $B$. Then $N$ contains $A'$.
Let $x,y\in A$. Then $b\neq 1$ implies that $x$ and $byb^{-1}$ commute. Also, $y=byb^{-1}\mod N$. Thus $xy=yx \mod N$, or equivalently $[x,y]\in N$.
Given a group $A$, we denote by $\bar{A}$ the group containing $A$ and constructed according to Lemma \[3.2\]. Denote by $A_i$, $i\geq 0$ the copies of $\bar{A}$. Define $W_0=A_0$, $W_{i+1}=W_i\wr A_{i+1}$. Identify $W_i$ with a subgroup of $W_{i+1}$ as suggested above. Define $W=\cup_{i=0}^{\infty} W_i$.
The isomorphisms $\phi_i:A_i\to A_{i+1}$ ($i=0,1,\dots$) induce an endomorphism $\phi$ of $W$. (Here we use the property that if $X\leq Y$ then $X$ and $Z$ generate a subgroup in $Y\wr Z$ canonically isomorphic to $X\wr Z$.)
Therefore we can define the descending HNN extension $C$ of $W$ using an extra generator $t$, where $twt^{-1}=\phi(w)$ for every $w\in W$.
The normal closure $N$ of any $1\neq a\in A_0$ in $C$ must contain $A'_0$. Indeed, $N$ contains $b=tat^{-1}\in A_1$ and so it contains $A'_0$ by Lemma \[claim\]. Recall that $A_0$ is a copy of $\bar{A}$, and so by Lemma \[claim\] we can derive that the normal closure of any nontrivial $a\in A$ in $C$ contains $A$, where $A$ is identified with a subgroup of $A_0$ and so with a subgroup of $C$.
Let us denote the operation of getting the group $C$ from $A$ by $\theta$, so $C=\theta(A)$. We then have the ascending series $\theta(A)<\theta(\theta(A))<\dots$. Let $H=\cup_{i\geq 0}\theta^i(A)$. Then $H$ is a simple group. Indeed, take nontrivial $a\in \theta^i(A)$. Then the normal closure $N$ of $a$ in $\theta^{i+1}(A)$ and hence in $H$ contains $\theta^{i}(A)$ as in the previous paragraph. Similarly, since $a\in \theta^{i+1}(A)$, it contains $\theta^{i+1}(A)$ as well, and so on. Thus $N=H$. It remains to check that the group $H$ has the property $\cal P$.
Note that the groups $A_i$ ($i=0,1,\dots$) inherit this property by Lemma \[3.2\]. The property $\cal P$ holds for the group $W$ as well. Indeed, the property to be locally indicable is closed under subgroups, Cartesian products, group extensions and direct unions. Also each of the groups $W_i$ is (right) orderable if $A_0$ is, and the order on $W_{i+1}$ extends the order on $W_i$ since these properties hold for a wreath product of (right) orderable groups (see Proposition 4 in section 1.1 of [@KK74] or define the order as we did in the proof of Lemma \[3.2\]). So $W$ is orderable if $A$ is.
The group $C$ is a semidirect product of the group $\bar W=\cup_{i=0}^{\infty} t^{-i}Wt^i$ and the infinite cyclic group $\langle t\rangle$. We have by induction that each of the groups $t^{-i}Wt^i$ has an order extending the order on its subgroup $t^{-i+1}Wt^{i-1}$ by the property of the endomorphism $\phi$. Hence the group $\bar W$ has an order extending the order on $A$. Finally the order on $C$ extending this order is given by the rule $t^m w>1$ for $w\in \bar W$ if $m>0$ or $m=0, w>1$. The reader can easily check that we have a positive cone indeed. The order is two-sided if one starts with a two-sided order on $A$ and is one-sided if one starts with a one-sided order on $A$. (Use that the endomorphism $\phi$ preserves the order to check that the cone is invariant under conjugation in the former case.)
So the group $\theta(A)$ has an order extending the order of $A$ if $A$ is (right) orderable. Then this order similarly extends to the orders of $\theta(\theta(A)),\dots, H$. The other parts of the property $\cal P$ extend from $A_0$ to $H$ by the standard argument. The theorem is proved.
If we apply Theorem \[thm:simple\] to $A=1$, then we will have an elementary amenable orderable group $H$. Since it is infinite and simple, it is a $WM$ group by Proposition \[prop:char\] (3).
Let now $\cal G$ be any of 3-generated 2-groups of intermediate (between polynomial and exponential) growth constructed by the first author in [@Gr84]. It belongs to $SG \setminus EG$ by the well known fact that groups of subexponential growth are amenable and the result from [@Ch80] showing that there is no groups of intermediate growth in the class $EG$. We present it in the form $F/N$, where $F$ is a free group of rank 3. It is known that $\cal G$ is a residually (finite $2$-group), and therefore the intersection of all the derived subgroups $G^{(i)}$ is trivial. Hence the group $A=F/N''$ is orderable (see Corollary 2 on page 109 of [@KK74]). We have $A\in SG$ since the class $SG$ is closed under extensions and $A\notin EG$, since the homomorphic image $G$ is not in $EG$. Then by Theorem \[thm:simple\], $H\in SG$ but $H\notin EG$ since $A$ is a subgroup of $H$. Hence $H$ is the required example.
Finally, we will use the Basilica group $\cal B$ that was constructed in[@GZ02]. It is 3-generated residually finite-2 group, amenable [@BV05] but not subexponentially amenable[@GZ02]. Therefore if we take $G=\cal B$ in the argument of the previous paragraph, then we obtain the desired example $H \in
AG\setminus SG$.
It is worth to note that the Basilica group $\mathcal {B}$ is [*right*]{} orderable itself. To explain this we should use some facts from [@GZ02] and the terminology from [@BGS03]. Proposition 2 and Lemma 7 from [@GZ02] show that $\mathcal {B}$ is weakly regular branch over its commutator subgroup $\mathcal {B}'$, and the relation $\mathcal {B}'=(\mathcal {B}'\times \mathcal
{B}')\rtimes <c>$ holds, where $c$ is one of the generators, and therefore $\mathcal {B}'/(\mathcal
{B}'\times \mathcal {B}')$ is isomorphic to an infinite cyclic group while $\mathcal {B}/\mathcal
{B}'\simeq \mathbb{Z}^2$. It follows that $\mathcal {B}$ contains a descending sequence of normal subgroups $\{H_n\}, n=0,1,2,\dots$ with trivial intersection, where $H_0=\mathcal {B}, H_1=\mathcal {B}'$, $H_n$ is isomorphic to the direct product of $2^{n-1}$ copies of $\mathcal {B}'$ and $H_0/H_1\simeq
\mathbb{Z}^{2}, H_n/H_{n+1}\simeq \mathbb{Z}^{2^{n-1}}, n\geq 1$. As the quotients $H_n/H_{n+1}$ are torsion-free abelian, by the result of Zaiceva (Proposition 1, Section 5.4 in [@KK74]), $\mathcal {B}$ is right orderable.
Observe that so far it is not known if the group $\mathcal {B}$ and the torsion-free group of intermediate growth $\mathcal{G}$ constructed by the first author in [@Gr85] (and later observed to be right orderable [@GM93]) are orderable.
\[q3\]
Does there exist an orderable group of intermediate growth?
The second approach to WM groups
================================
The following lemma is well known (see [@H55]) in the case when $G$ is a free group. The same proof works in the following version of it.
\[lem:torsion\] Let $G$ be a group such that for any subgroup $H\leq G$ the abelianization $H/H'$ is a torsion-free group. Then for any normal subgroup $N\triangleleft G$, $G/N'$ is a torsion-free group.
Let $a\in G$ and $H=\langle a, N\rangle=\langle a\rangle N$. It suffices to show that $H/N'$ is torsion-free. Consider the exact sequence $$1\to H'/N'\to H/N'\to H/H'\to 1.$$ We have that $H'\leq N$, since $H=\langle a\rangle N$. So $H'/N'\leq N/N'$, and hence $H'/N'$ is free abelian. So $H/N'$ is an extension of a torsion-free group by a torsion-free group, and thus, it is torsion-free.
Further we need the following result, which is interesting by its own right. To the reader not familiar with the notion of variety of groups, we suggest, instead of arbitrary variety, to think on the variety of abelian groups, replacing in the statement and the proof the notation of verbal subgroup ${\mathcal{V}}(G)$ by the notation of derived subgroup $G'$ (only this special case will be used later).
Recall that if we have a set of words in a countable group alphabet, then the corresponding variety is the class of all groups which have these words $w$ as left-hand sides of the identical relations $w=1$ (or laws). A proper variety is a variety which is not equal to the class of all groups. If ${\mathcal{V}}$ is a variety and $G$ is a group, ${\mathcal{V}}(G)$ means the subgroup of $G$ generated by all values of the words from the corresponding set in $G$ (${\mathcal{V}}(G)$ is called a [*verbal subgroup*]{} of $G$). Note that ${\mathcal{V}}(G)$ is normal and moreover fully characteristic in $G$ and $G/{\mathcal{V}}(G)\in {\mathcal{V}}$.
We prove the following theorem:
\[thm:var\] Let $F$ be a non-cyclic free group and $N$ a normal subgroup of $F$. Let ${\mathcal{V}}$ be a proper variety of groups. Then the group ${\mathcal{V}}(F)/{\mathcal{V}}(N)$ has a non-trivial quotient in ${\mathcal{V}}$ if and only if $F/N$ has.
Define the variety ${\mathcal{V}}^2$ by the rule ${\mathcal{V}}^2(G)={\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{V}}(G))$. Suppose ${\mathcal{V}}(F)/{\mathcal{V}}(N)$ surjects onto a non-trivial group $Q\in{\mathcal{V}}$. It follows that $${\mathcal{V}}({\mathcal{V}}(F)/{\mathcal{V}}(N))={\mathcal{V}}^2(F){\mathcal{V}}(N)/{\mathcal{V}}(N)\neq {\mathcal{V}}(F)/{\mathcal{V}}(N).$$ So ${\mathcal{V}}^2(F){\mathcal{V}}(N)$ is properly contained in ${\mathcal{V}}(F)$. Thus we have that $F/{\mathcal{V}}^2(F){\mathcal{V}}(N)\not\in{\mathcal{V}}$.
To obtain a contradiction, suppose $F/N$ has no non-trivial ${\mathcal{V}}$ quotients. Note that $F/N$ factors onto $F/{\mathcal{V}}^2(F)N\in{\mathcal{V}}^2$. It follows that $F/{\mathcal{V}}^2(F)N=1$, so $F={\mathcal{V}}^2(F)N$. Therefore we have the surjection $$N/{\mathcal{V}}(N)\to {\mathcal{V}}^2(F)N/{\mathcal{V}}^2(F){\mathcal{V}}(N)=F/{\mathcal{V}}^2(F){\mathcal{V}}(N).$$ Since $N/{\mathcal{V}}(N)\in {\mathcal{V}}$, we must have $F/{\mathcal{V}}^2(F){\mathcal{V}}(N)\in {\mathcal{V}}$, a contradiction.
Assume now that $F/N$ has a non-trivial quotient $G\in {\mathcal{V}}$; that is we have a normal subgroup $M\geq N$ with $F/M = G$. Then $H={\mathcal{V}}(F)/{\mathcal{V}}(M)\in {\mathcal{V}}$ since ${\mathcal{V}}(F)\leq M$. The group $H$ is non-trivial by Theorem 43.41 in [@N67], since $M\neq F$ and the variety ${\mathcal{V}}$ is proper. Since ${\mathcal{V}}(N)\le {\mathcal{V}}(M)$, it follows that $H$ is a quotient of ${\mathcal{V}}(F)/{\mathcal{V}}(N)$ as desired.
Note that only the second part of the proof uses that $F$ is non-cyclic and free (and that ${\mathcal{V}}$ is a proper variety).
\[33\] Let $F$ be a non-abelian free group of at most countable rank and $N\vartriangleleft F$ a normal subgroup.
1. If $F/N$ is amenable, then $F'/N'$ is torsion-free amenable of the same type of amenability as $F/N$.
2. If $F/N$ is amenable WM group then $F'/N'$ is a countable torsion-free, amenable, WM group.
Consider the exact sequence $$\label{star}
1 \to N/ N' \to F/N' \to F/N \to 1.$$ $F'/N'$ is a subgroup of the extension of the amenable group $N/N'$ by the abelian group $F/N$, and so it is also amenable if $F/N$ is amenable. It follows from Lemma \[lem:torsion\] that the group $F'/N'$ is torsion-free. If $F/N$ is elementary amenable, then $F/N'$ and hence $F'/N'$ are elementary amenable. If $F/N$ belongs to the class $SG\setminus EG$ then $F/N'$ also belongs to this class and hence $F'/N'$ belongs to $SG\setminus EG$ as $F/N'/F'/N'=F/F'$ is abelian. Finally, if $F/N$ belongs to the class $AG\setminus SG$ then the same argument shows that $F'/N' \in AG\setminus SG$. This proves the first statement.
To prove the second statement, we assume that $F/N$ is an amenable WM group. By the part (1), of this theorem and by Proposition \[prop:char\] (3), it suffices to prove that $F'/N'$ does not admit any non-trivial finite or abelian quotients. Note that abelian groups form a proper variety, so by Theorem \[thm:var\], if $F'/N'$ has a non-trivial abelian quotient, then $F/N$ has a non-trivial abelian quotient, a contradiction with Proposition \[prop:char\] (1).
Suppose $F'/N'$ has a non-trivial finite quotient $H$. We may assume in addition that $H$ is simple and non-abelian. The subgroup $F'\cap N/N'\leq N/N'$ is normal and abelian, and so $H$ is in fact a quotient of $F'/(F'\cap N)$, which is isomorphic to $F'N/N$, the commutator subgroup of $F/N$. Since $F/N$ is WM, $F/N=(F/N)'$, so $H$ is a factor of $F/N$, a contradiction with Proposition \[prop:char\] (1).
To prove the second statement, it remains to show that $F'/N'$ is non-trivial. Suppose instead that $F' = N'$. Then $N$ contains $F'$ so $F/N$ is abelian. Since it is also a WM group, we obtain a contradiction with Proposition \[prop:char\] (1).
Suppose that $F$ is a non-abelian free group, and $N$ a normal subgroup in $F$. If $F/N$ has a non-trivial finite quotient, then $F'/N'$ also has a non-trivial finite quotient. Indeed we then have that there is a normal subgroup $N\leq R< F$ such that $F/R$ is finite. It follows that $F/R'$ is virtually free abelian group, and hence is residually finite. Thus $F'/R'\leq F/R'$ is also residually finite. Moreover $F'/R'$ is non-trivial by the Auslander-Lyndon result ([@AL55 Corollary 1.2]), since $F\neq R$. It is remains to observe that $F'/R'$ is a homomorphic image of $F'/N'$ since $N'\leq R'$.
The same conclusion is true if in the above statement, one replaces the variety of abelian groups by any proper variety ${\mathcal{V}}$ (i.e. to replace the commutator subgroup $N'$ by ${\mathcal{V}}(N)$ (just use P.Neumann’s theorem 43.41 from [@N67] instead of Auslander-Lyndon’s theorem). Also, the class of finite groups can be replaced by any star class defined by K. Gruenberg in [@G57] if this class is closed under homomorphic images. Gruenberg’s star property of an abstract class $\P$ of groups is defined as follows:
Class $\P$ of groups has the star property if
- $\P$ is closed under taking subgroups and direct products of two groups from $\P$,
- If $A$ is a normal subgroup of $B$, $A$ is residually $\P$-group and $B/A \in \P$, then $B$ is a residually $\P$-group.
For instance, the classes of all finite groups, finite p-groups, solvable groups are star classes. Some results about star classes and residual properties of groups of the form $F/{\mathcal{V}}(N)$ were obtained by Baumslag, Dunwoody and Andreev-Olshanskii and they are published in [@B63; @D65; @AO68].
By Theorem \[33\], in order to construct a countable torsion-free, amenable, WM group, it suffices to construct a countable amenable, WM group $G$: simply present $G$ as $G=F/N$, then $F'/N'$ answers Bergelson question. There are some examples below.
Let ${\operatorname{Alt}}_{\textrm{\textrm{fin}}}(\N)$ be the group of all finitely-supported even permutations of the natural numbers. This group is locally finite and therefore amenable. Because it is also simple, Corollary \[cor:locally-finite\] implies that it is a WM group. So if ${\operatorname{Alt}}_{\textrm{\textrm{fin}}}(\N)=F/N$ then by Theorem \[33\], $F'/N'$ is a countable torsion-free, amenable, WM group.
Let $T$ be a minimal homeomorphism of the Cantor set $C$, i.e. a homeomorphism such that the orbit $\{T^ix\,|\, i\in\Z\}$ is dense in $C$ for every $x\in C$. Define its full topological group $[[T]]$ as the group of those homeomorphisms $g$ of $C$, such that there exists a closed and open partition $C=\coprod_{s=1}^n C_s$ with the property that the restriction of g to any $C_s$ coincides with some power $T^{k_s(g)}$ of $T$, where $k_s(g)$ is some integer (see [@M06] or [@JM13]). Let $[[T]]'$ be the commutator subgroup. By [@M06], $[[T]]'$ is a countably infinite simple amenable group, which is finitely generated in the case $(T,C)$ is a subshift over a finite alphabet (see [@LM95]). So if $F/N = [[T]]'$, then Theorem \[33\] implies that $F'/N'$ is a countable torsion-free, amenable, WM group.
\[prop:elem\] The group from the first example is an elementary amenable group, while the group from the second example is amenable but not elementary amenable.
Let $G=F/N$ be an amenable group. If $G$ is an elementary amenable group then $F'/N'$ is also an elementary amenable group. Indeed by we have that $F'/N'$ is an extension of the abelian group $(F' \cap
N)/N'$ by the subgroup $F'N/N\leq F/N$. Note that ${\operatorname{Alt}}_{\textrm{fin}}(\N)$ is elementary amenable (since it is a direct limit of finite groups), this shows that the group in the example 1 is elementary amenable.
In the second example, $G=F/N$ is a simple non-abelian group and thus, we have $F'N/N = F/N$. Hence $F'/N'$ factors onto $G$. Because $G$ is not elementary amenable, this implies that $F'/N'$ is also not elementary amenable.
The next statement gives important information about the subgroups of $F/[N,N]$.
\[nf\] Let $H$ be a non-free subgroup of $F/[N,N]$. Then the intersection $H\cap N/[N,N]$ is nontrivial and therefore $H$ has a nontrivial normal free abelian subgroup.
Let $M=N/[N,N]$ and assume that $H\cap M$ is trivial. Then $HM$ is a semidirect product, and we have an exact sequence $$\label{exact_1}
\xymatrix@1{
1\ar[r] & M\ar[r] & HM\ar[r] & H\ar[r] &1}$$ But $HM$ is a subgroup of $F/[N,N]$ of the form $P/[N,N]$ for some $P,$ $N\leq P<F,$ so we have an exact sequence $$\xymatrix@1{
1\ar[r] & M\ar[r] & {P/[N,N]}\ar[r]^-{\beta} & H\ar[r] & 1 }$$ with $P$ free and $N\triangleleft P$. Let $\gamma:\xymatrix@1{P\ar@{->>}[r] &H}$ be defined as $\gamma=\beta\alpha$, where $\alpha:\xymatrix@1{P\ar[r] & P/[N,N]}$ is the canonical projection. Observe that $$H \cong P/[N,N]/N/[N,N] \cong P/N$$ and therefore ${\operatorname{Ker}}\gamma =N$.
We are going to show that for any $H-$module $A$ the second cohomology group $H^2(H,A)$ vanishes. This will imply that $H$ has cohomological dimension $1$ and hence by Stallings-Swan famous result [@S68; @S69], $H$ would be a free group, a contradiction.
So assume that for some groups $A$ and $G$ with $A$ abelian, we have a short exact sequence $$\label{exact_2}
\xymatrix@1{
1\ar[r] & A\ar[r]^-{i} & G\ar[r]^-{\pi} & H\ar[r] & 1 }$$ Then there are homomorphisms $\psi:\xymatrix@1{F\ar[r] & A}$ and $\varphi:\xymatrix@1{P\ar[r] & G}$ making the diagram $$\xymatrix{
& & P \ar[dl]_{\psi} \ar[d]_{\varphi} \ar[dr]^{\gamma} & &\\
1\ar[r] & A\ar[r]^{i} & G\ar[r]^{\pi} & H\ar[r] & 1
}$$ commutative. Indeed, let $B=\{b_1,b_2,\dots\}$ be a basis of $P$. Then $\{\gamma(b_j)\}$ generate $H$. For each $j$ fix a preimage $g_j\in \pi^{-1}(\gamma(b_j))$ and define $\varphi(b_j)=g_j$. This defines $\varphi$. Similarly one can construct $\psi$ using that $P$ is a free group. Since $A$ is abelian, $\psi([N,N])=1$. Therefore there is a homomorphism $\xi:\xymatrix@1{M\ar[r] & A}$ making the following diagram commutative: $$\xymatrix{
1\ar[r] & M\ar[d]_{\xi}\ar[r] & P/[N,N] \ar[d]^{\varphi} \ar[r] & H\ar@{=}[d]\ar[r] & 1\\
1\ar[r] & A\ar[r] & G\ar[r] & H\ar[r] & 1
}$$ Now if $\mu: H\to P/N'$ is a splitting homomorphism for the top row, i.e. $\beta\mu=id$, then $\varphi\mu$ splits the bottom row, as required.
Concluding remarks
==================
Our next observation is not related to WM groups, but it is based on the use of groups of the type $F'/N'$ and therefore we decided to include it in this note.
A crystallographic group $G$ is a discrete group of isometries of $n$-dimensional Euclidean space with a bounded fundamental domain. By a theorem of Bieberbach, it can be reformulated purely in terms of group theory, which we will use as the definition, because it is more suitable to our goals.
\[cr\_def\] A group $G$, which contains a normal free abelian subgroup $N$ of finite rank having finite index in $G$, and such that the centralizer $C_G(N)$ coincides with $N$, is called [*crystallographic*]{}.
Recall that $C_G(N)$, the centralizer of $N$ in $G$, is defined as the group of those $g\in G$ which commute with every element of $N$. If $N$ is abelian, then clearly $N\leq C_G(N)$, so it is the reverse inclusion that matters.
\[cr\] If $F$ is a finitely generated free group and $|F/N|<\infty$, then all the subgroups of the group $F/N'$ (for example, our group $ F'/N'$) are crystallographic.
This proposition immediately follows from the following
Let $G$ be a finitely generated torsion free group, which is virtually abelian. Then $G$ is crystallographic.
It follows from our assumptions that there exists a maximal normal abelian subgroup $H$ having finite index in $G$. Since $G$ is finitely generated and torsion free, $H$ is a free abelian of finite rank. Suppose $C_G(H)\neq H$. The center of $C_G(H)$ has finite index in $C_G(H)$ since it contains $H$. Therefore by well known Shur’s Theorem $C_G(H)'$ is finite and thus, it is trivial since $G$ is torsion free. Thus, $C_G(H)$ is abelian contrary to the choice of $H$.
[10000000]{}
K. K. Andreev and A. Yu. Olshanskii, On the approximation of groups (Russian). [*Vestnik Moskov. Univ. Ser. I Mat. Meh.*]{} [**23**]{} (1968) no. 2, 60–62.
M. Auslander and R. C. Lyndon, Commutator subgroups of free groups, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**77**]{} (1955), 929–931.
L.Bartholdi, R.Grigorchuk and Z.Sunik, Branch groups. [ *Handbook of Algebra, North-Holland.*]{} [**3**]{} (2003), 989–1112.
L.Bartholdi and B.Virag, Amenability via random walks. [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**130**]{} (2005), no. 1 39–56.
G. Baumslag, Wreath products and extensions, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**81**]{} (1963), 286–299.
V. Bergelson and A. Gorodnik, Weakly mixing group actions: A brief survey and an example, Modern dynamical systems and applications, Cambridge Univ. Press, (2004), 3–25.
V. Bergelson and H. Furstenberg, WM groups and Ramsey theory. [*Topology Appl.*]{} [**156**]{} (2009), 2572–2580.
V. Bergelson and J.Rosenblatt, Mixing actions of groups. [*Illinois J. Math.*]{} [ **32**]{} (1988), 65–80. V. Bergelson, C. Christopherson, D. Robertson and P. Zorin-Kranich, Finite products sets and minimally almost periodic groups. [*arXiv 1402.4736*]{} (2014), 34 pages.
T.Ceccherini-Silberstein, R.Grigorchuk and P. de la Harpe, Amenability and paradoxical decompositions for pseudogroups and discrete metric spaces, [*Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.*]{} [**224**]{}, no. 1 (1999), 57–97.
T.Ceccherini-Silberstein and M.Coornaert, Cellular Automata and Groups. [*Springer*]{}, 2010.
C. Chou, Elementary amenable groups. [*Illinois J. Math*]{}, [**24**]{} (1980), no. 3, 396–407.
M. Day, Amenable semigroups. [*Illinois J. Math.*]{} [**1**]{} (1957), 509–544.
M. J. Dunwoody, On verbal subgroups of free groups. [*Arch. Math. (Basel)*]{} [**16**]{} (1965), 153–157.
E. Glasner. Ergodic Theory via Joinings. [*AMS*]{}, 2003.
F.P.Greenleaf, Invariant means on topological groups and their applications. [ *Van Nostrand Mathematical Studies*]{} no. 16 1969.
R. Grigorchuk, Degrees of growth of finitely generated groups and the theory of invariant means. [*Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat.*]{}, [**48**]{} (1984), no. 5, 939–985.
R. Grigorchuk, Degrees of growth of p-groups and torsion-free groups. [*Mat. Sbornik*]{}, [**126**]{} (1985), no. 2, 194–214.
R. Grigorchuk, An example of a finitely presented amenable group that does not belong to the class EG. [*Mat. Sbornik*]{}, [**189**]{} (1998), no. 1, 79–100.
R. Grigorchuk and A.Machi, On a group of intermediate growth that acts on a line by homeomorphisms. [*Mat. Zametki*]{}, [**53**]{} (1993), no. 2, 46–63.
R. Grigorchuk and A.Zuk. On a torsion-free weakly branch group defined by a three state automaton. [*International Journal of Algebra and Computation* ]{}, [ **12**]{} (2002), no. 1–2, 223–246.
K. W. Gruenberg, Residual properties of infinite soluble groups. [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**7**]{} no. 3 (1957), 29–62.
P. Hall, On the embedding of a group in a join of given groups. Collection of articles dedicated to the memory of Hanna Neumann, VIII, [*J. Austral. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**17**]{} (1974), 434–495.
G. Higman, A finitely generated infinite simple group. [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**26**]{}, (1951). 61–64.
G. Higman, Finite groups having isomorphic images in every finite group of which they are homomorphic images, [*Quart. J. Math. Oxford.*]{} [**6**]{} (1955), 250–254.
K. Juschenko and N. Monod, Cantor systems, piecewise translations and simple amenable groups. [*Ann. of Math. (2)*]{} [**178**]{} (2013) no. 2, 775–787.
A.I.Kokorin, V.M.Kopytov, Fully ordered groups. [*Translated from the Russian by D. Louvish. Halsted Press \[John Wiley&Sons\], New York-Toronto, Ont.*]{}, 1974.
B.O.Koopman and J. von Neumann, Dynamical systems of continuous spectra. [*Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA*]{} [**18**]{} (1932), 255–263.
D. Lind and B. Marcus, An introduction to symbolic dynamics and coding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
W. Magnus, On a theorem of Marshal Hall, [*Ann. of Math. (2)*]{}, [**40**]{} (1939), 764-768.
A. I. Mal’cev, On faithful representations of infinite groups of matrices. [*Mat. Sb.*]{} [**8**]{}, (1940), 405–422. = Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) [**45**]{}, (1965), 1–18.
H. Matui, Some remarks on topological full groups of Cantor minimal systems. [*International Journal of Mathematics*]{} [**17**]{} (2006), 231–251.
D. W. Morris, Amenable groups that act on the line. [*Algebr. Geom. Topol.*]{} [**6**]{}, (2006), 2509–2518.
R.B.Mura and A.Rhemtulla, Orderable groups. [*Marcel Dekker Inc.*]{}, 1977.
J. von Neumann, Zur allgemeinen Theorie des Masses, [*Fund. Math.*]{} [**13**]{}, (1929), 73–116.
J. von Neumann, Almost periodic functions in a group, I. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**36**]{} no. 3, (1934), 445–492.
B.H.Neumann, On ordered groups [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**71**]{}, (1949), 1–18.
H. Neumann, Varieties of groups. [*Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York*]{} 1967.
B. H. Neumann and H. Neumann, Embedding theorems for groups. [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**34**]{} (1959), 465–479.
A. Yu. Olshanskii, Infinite groups with cyclic subgroups. (Russian) [*Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR*]{} [**245**]{} (1979), no. 4, 785–787.
A. Yu. Olshanskii, On the question of the existence of an invariant mean on a group. (Russian) [*Uspekhi Mat. Nauk*]{} [**35**]{} (1980), no. 4(214), 199–200.
A. Shmel’kin, Wreath products and varieties of groups (Russian), [*Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat.*]{} [**29**]{} no. 1, (1965), 149–170.
K.Schmidt, Asymptotic properties of unitary representations. [*Proc. LMS* ]{} [**48**]{} (1984), 445–460.
J. Stallings, On torsion-free groups with infinitely many ends. [*Ann. of Math. (2)*]{} [**88**]{} (1968), 312–334.
R. Swan, Groups of cohomological dimension one, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**12**]{} (1969), 585–610.
J. Tits, Free subgroups in linear groups. [*J. Algebra*]{} [**20**]{} (1972), 250–270.
[^1]: email:[email protected], NSF grant DMS-1207699
[^2]: email:[email protected]
[^3]: email:[email protected], NSF grant DMS-1161294
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper makes use of multiplicative vector fields on Lie groupoids to model infinitesimal symmetries of $S^1$-bundle gerbes. It is shown that a connective structure on a bundle gerbe gives rise to a natural horizontal lift of multiplicative vector fields to the bundle gerbe, and that the 3-curvature presents the obstruction to the horizontal lift being a morphism of Lie 2-algebras. Connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields on a bundle gerbe with connective structure are shown to inherit a natural Lie 2-algebra structure; moreover, this Lie 2-algebra is quasi-isomorphic to the Poisson-Lie 2-algebra of the 2-plectic base manifold $(M,\chi)$, where $\chi$ is the 3-curvature of the connective structure. As an application of this result, we give an analogue of a formula of Kostant in the 2-plectic and quasi-Hamiltonian context.'
address:
- ' Department of Mathematics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada '
- ' Department of Mathematics, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada '
author:
- Derek Krepski
- Jennifer Vaughan
title: Multiplicative vector fields on bundle gerbes
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. A well-known Theorem of Weil [@weil1952] shows that the set of isomorphism classes of principal $S^1$-bundles over $M$ are in one-to-one correspondence with $H^2(M;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. The analogous objects corresponding to cohomology classes in $H^3(M;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$ are known as $S^1$-gerbes, introduced in differential geometry by Brylinski [@brylinski2007loop] using the formalism of stacks (presheaves of groupoids), following Giraud [@giraud1971]. Some later models for $S^1$-gerbes include $S^1$-central extensions of Lie groupoids (e.g., see Behrend-Xu [@behrend2011differentiable]), $S^1$-bundle gerbes (equivalent to $S^1$-central extensions of submersion groupoids), due to Murray [@murray1996bundle] (see also Hitchin [@hitchin2001lectures] and Chatterjee [@chatterjee1998construction]), Dixmier-Douady bundles [@dixmier1963champs], differential cocycles [@krepski2018differential], and principal Lie 2-group bundles [@baez2007higher; @nikolaus2013four; @wockel2011principal]. The present paper primarily adopts the bundle gerbe perspective (see Section \[ss:gerbes\] for a review of bundle gerbes) to establish some results for $S^1$-gerbes that are analogous to well-known results for their degree-2 counterparts, principal $S^1$-bundles.
For example, consider a principal $S^1$-bundle $P\to M$ with connection $\gamma\in \Omega^1(P)$ and let $\mathsf{curv}(\gamma) \in \Omega^2(M)$ denote the curvature of the connection. It is well known that the connection determines a horizontal lift of vector fields on $M$ to vector fields on $P$, $$\mathsf{Lift}_\gamma: \mathfrak{X}(M) \to \mathfrak{X}(P),$$ which is a Lie algebra homomorphism if and only if $\mathsf{curv}(\gamma)=0$. What is the analogue for $S^1$-gerbes?
To arrive at the analogue, we employ *multiplicative vector fields* on Lie groupoids. Recall from [@mackenzie1998classical] that a multiplicative vector field on a Lie groupoid $\mathbf{G}=\{ G_1 {{~\rightrightarrows~}}G_0 \}$ is a Lie groupoid morphism (i.e., a functor) $\xi: \mathbf{G} \to T\mathbf{G} = \{ TG_1 {{~\rightrightarrows~}}TG_0 \}$ such that $\pi_{\mathbf{G}} \circ \xi = {{\operatorname{id}}}_{\mathbf{G}}$. Such a functor can be defined by a multiplicative vector field is a pair of vector fields $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$ on $G_0$ and $G_1$, respectively, compatible with the Lie groupoid structure (so that the pair defines such a functor). The multiplicative vector fields on $\mathbf{G}$ are the objects of a category $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})$, whose morphisms are natural transformations $\eta:\xi \Rightarrow \xi'$ satisfying $\pi_\mathbf{G}(\eta(x))=\epsilon(x)$ for every object $x\in G_0$, where $\epsilon:G_0\to G_1$ denotes the unit map. By a Theorem of Hepworth [@hepworth2009vector Theorem 4.15], multiplicative vector fields on a Lie groupoid $\mathbf{G}$ correspond to vector fields on the associated differentiable stack $B\mathbf{G}$.
An $S^1$-gerbe on a smooth manifold $M$ is a differentiable stack, which may be presented as a bundle gerbe over $M$, or equivalently an $S^1$-central extension $ P {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ of the submersion Lie groupoid $X\times_M X {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ associated to a surjective submersion $X\to M$ (see Section \[ss:centext\]). Therefore, vector fields on the $S^1$-gerbe may be modelled by multiplicative vector fields on the Lie groupoid $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$. In fact, as we show in Theorem \[t:equiv-mvf-col\], the category $\mathbb{X}(P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)$ of multiplicative vector fields on $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ is equivalent to the category described by Collier [@collier-PhDThesis2012] of *infinitesimal symmetries* of the corresponding $S^1$-gerbe, viewed as a stack.
Additionally, by a recent result of Berwick-Evans and Lerman [@berwick2016lie], multiplicative vector fields on a Lie groupoid naturally have a structure of a Lie 2-algebra. In this work, a Lie 2-algebra is a 2-term $L_\infty$-algebra (e.g., see Baez-Crans [@baez2004higher])—that is, a 2-term chain complex $L_1 \to L_0$, equipped with a graded bracket and a chain homotopy coherently measuring the failure of the bracket to satisfy the Jacobi identity. For morphisms, we work with a localization of the bicategory of 2-term $L_\infty$-algebras with respect to quasi-isomorphisms—namely, Noohi’s bicategory with *butterflies* as 1-morphisms (see Section \[ss:Lie2defs\] for a review of the bicategory of Lie 2-algebras).
We thus find a natural setting in which to formulate the bundle gerbe analogue of the aforementioned result on horizontal lifts. Indeed, suppose an $S^1$-gerbe over $M$ is presented by a bundle gerbe $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$, an $S^1$-central extension of $X\times_M X {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$, where $X\to M$ is a surjective submersion. The Lie 2-algebra of multiplicative vector fields $\mathbb{X}(X\times_M X {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)$ is naturally quasi-isomorphic to $\mathfrak{X}(M)$, and we show in Theorem \[p:3curv\_obs\] that a connective structure on $P {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ (i.e., a multiplicative connection $\gamma \in \Omega^1(P)$ and curving $B\in \Omega^2(X)$) gives rise to a map $$\mathsf{Lift}_\gamma: \mathbb{X}(X\times_M X {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X) \to \mathbb{X}(P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X),$$ which is a morphism of Lie 2-algebras if and only if the associated 3-curvature $3\text{-}\mathsf{curv}(B,\gamma) \in \Omega^3(M)$ of the connective structure vanishes.
The Lie 2-algebra of *connection-preserving* multiplicative vector fields on a bundle gerbe plays a natural role in establishing some other results that may be viewed as 2-plectic and quasi-Hamiltonian analogues of classical results in symplectic geometry. A multiplicative vector field on a bundle gerbe $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$, given by a pair of vector fields $\widetilde{\xi}$ and $\check{\xi}$ on $X$ and $P$, respectively, is said to preserve a connective structure $(B,\gamma)$ if $$L_{\widetilde{\xi}} B = d\alpha, \quad \text{and} \quad L_{\check{\gamma}} = \delta \alpha, \quad \text{for some }\, \alpha\in \Omega^1(X),$$ where $\delta = \Sigma (-1)^j \delta_j^*$ is the simplicial differential for $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$. We show that the collection $\mathbb{X}(P; B,\gamma)$ of connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields is a subcategory $\mathbb{X}(P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)$ (see Corollary \[c:subcat\] for the precise statement), and it naturally inherits a Lie 2-algebra structure (see Proposition \[p:multivfLie2\]).
Recall that for a 2-plectic manifold $(M,\chi)$, the analogue of the Poisson algebra of smooth functions on a symplectic manifold is the Poisson-Lie 2-algebra $\mathbb{L}(M,\chi)$ (see Definition \[d:rogers\], due to Rogers [@rogers20132plectic]). Consider a bundle gerbe $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ over $M$, equipped with a connective structure $(B,\gamma)$ as above, with $3\text{-}\mathsf{curv}(B,\gamma) =\chi$ (i.e., a *prequantization* of $(M,\chi))$. In Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\], we show that $\mathbb{L}(M,\chi)$ is quasi-isomorphic to the Lie 2-algebra $\mathbb{X}(P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X; B,\gamma)$ of *connection-preserving* multiplicative vector fields on $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$. In other words, the Poisson Lie 2-algebra $\mathbb{L}(M,\chi)$ of a 2-plectic manifold is quasi-isomorphic to the Lie 2-algebra of infinitesimal symmetries of its prequantization, sometimes called *infinitesimal quantomorphisms* in the literature—e.g., see [@fiorenza2014algebras] wherein the authors prove a similar result (*cf*. Remark \[r:FRS\].)
As an application of Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\], we propose 2-plectic and quasi-Hamiltonian analogues of a formula of Kostant. Given a Hamiltonian Lie algebra action ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\to \mathfrak{X}(M,\omega)$ on a symplectic manifold, Kostant gives a lift to a ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action on a prequantization of $(M,\omega)$ (a principal $S^1$-bundle $P\to M$ with connection whose curvature equals $\omega$) by infinitesimal quantomorphisms. In Section \[s:app\], we show that a Hamiltonian ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action on a 2-plectic manifold $(M,\chi)$ (i.e., one admitting a *homotopy moment map* as in [@callies2016homotopy]) naturally lifts to an infinitesimal ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action on a prequantization of $(M,\chi)$. For quasi-Hamiltonian spaces with Lie group-valued moment maps, a similar lift is obtained.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[s:prelim\], we review some preliminaries to establish notation used throughout the paper. In Section \[s:gerbes\], we recall some foundational aspects of bundle gerbes and begin our study of multiplicative vector fields on bundle gerbes. We discuss their basic properties, and provide a sketch of the equivalence between the category of multiplicative vector fields on a bundle gerbe and the category of infinitesimal symmetries of the underlying gerbe, and similarly for multiplicative vector fields and infinitesimal symmetries that preserve a connective structure. In Section \[s:lie2\], we review the 2-category of Lie 2-algebras used in this work, and establish Theorem \[p:3curv\_obs\] characterizing the 3-curvature as the obstruction to the horizontal lift defining a morphism of Lie 2-algebras. We also introduce (Proposition \[p:multivfLie2\]) the Lie 2-algebra of connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields on a bundle gerbe. In Section \[s:app\], we establish some results in 2-plectic geometry and quasi-Hamiltonian geometry that are analogous to some classical results in symplectic geometry. In particular, we show (Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\]) that the Lie 2-algebra of multiplicative vector fields preserving the connective structure on a bundle gerbe is quasi-isomorphic to the Poisson-Lie-2-algebra of the 2-plectic manifold $(M,\chi)$, where $\chi$ denotes the 3-curvature of the connective structure. We end the paper with a quasi-Hamiltonian analogue (Theorem \[t:qHamKost\]) of a formula in symplectic geometry due to Kostant.
Preliminaries and notation {#s:prelim}
==========================
Throughout this paper, all manifolds and maps between manifolds are assumed to be smooth. We assume the reader has some familiarity with Lie groupoids, though we recall some aspects next to establish notation. Recall that a Lie groupoid $G_1 {{~\rightrightarrows~}}G_0$ gives rise to a simplicial manifold $G_\bullet$: for $k \geq 2$, write $$G_k = \underbrace{G_1 \times_{G_0} G_1 \times_{G_0} \cdots \times_{G_0} G_1}_{k \text{ factors}}$$ whose elements are $k$-tuples $(g_1, \ldots, g_k)$ of composable arrows (with $s(g_i)=t(g_{i+1})$). For $0 \leq i \leq k$, let $\partial_i:G_k \to G_{k-1}$ be the *face maps* given by $$\partial_i(g_1, \ldots, g_k) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(g_2, \ldots, g_k) & \text{if }i=0 \\
(g_1, \ldots, g_ig_{i+1},\ldots, g_k) & \text{if }0<i<k \\
(g_1, \ldots, g_{k-1}) & \text{if }i=k. \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ For convenience, we set $\partial_0=s$ and $\partial_1=t$ on $G_1$. The face maps satisfy the simplicial identities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:simplicialidentities}
\partial_i \partial_j & = \partial_{j-1} \partial_i \quad \text{for }i<j, \end{aligned}$$ and hence $\partial = \sum (-1)^i \partial_i^*$ defines a differential for the complexes $\Omega^k(G_{\bullet})$, $k\geq 0$.
In particular, for a surjective submersion, $\pi: X\to M$, we may consider the *submersion groupoid* $X\times_M X {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$, and obtain the simplicial manifold $X^{[\bullet+1]}$, where $$X^{[n]} = \{ (x_1, \ldots, x_{n}) \, | \, \pi(x_1) = \cdots =\pi(x_{n})\}.$$ As shown in [@murray1996bundle], the following complexes are exact: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deltaexact}
0 \longrightarrow \Omega^k(M) \stackrel{\pi^*}{\longrightarrow} \Omega^k(X) \stackrel{\partial}{\longrightarrow} \Omega^k(X^{[2]}) \stackrel{\partial}{\longrightarrow} \cdots\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for proper Lie groupoids $G_1 {{~\rightrightarrows~}}G_0$, the sequence $$\Omega^0(G_0) \stackrel{\partial}{\longrightarrow} \Omega^0(G_1) \stackrel{\partial}{\longrightarrow} \Omega^0(G_2) \stackrel{\partial}{\longrightarrow} \cdots$$ is exact [@crainic2003differentiable].
For a compact Lie group $K$ acting on manifolds $X$ and $M$, and a $K$-equivariant surjective submersion $\pi:X\to M$, there are natural $K$-equivariant analogues of the above. Recall briefly that for a $K$-manifold $M$, the Cartan model of $K$-equivariant differential forms is given by $\Omega_K(M) = (S({{\mathfrak{g}}}^*)\otimes \Omega(M))^K$, the algebra of $K$-equivariant polynomials $\alpha:{{\mathfrak{g}}}\to \Omega(M)$, with differential $(d_K\alpha)(\xi) = d\alpha(\xi) - \iota_{\xi_M}\alpha(\xi)$. Here, $\xi_M \in \mathfrak{X}(M)$ denotes the generating vector field for $\xi \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$: $\xi_M(m) = \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} \exp(-t\xi)\cdot m$. The map $\partial$ extends to $K$-equivariant forms, and the $K$-equivariant version of is also exact—see [@stienon2010equivariant].
Finally, for a principal $S^1$-bundle $P\to M$, we identify $\mathrm{Lie}(S^1) \cong {{\mathbb{R}}}$ and write ${\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}$ for the generating vector field of the principal $S^1$-action.
$S^1$-gerbes over manifolds {#s:gerbes}
===========================
This section employs multiplicative vector fields on Lie groupoids as infinitesimal symmetries of $S^1$-bundle gerbes, and introduces their connection-preserving counterparts. After a brief review of $S^1$-bundle gerbes, we consider some basic properties of the category of multiplicative vector fields on bundle gerbes, showing that the connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields form a full subcategory (Corollary \[c:subcat\]). In Section \[ss:infsym\], we sketch an equivalence of categories between (connection-preserving) multiplicative vector fields on bundle gerbes (with connective structure) and the category of (connection-preserving) infinitesimal symmetries of $S^1$-banded gerbes [@collier2011infinitesimal].
Bundle gerbes with connective structure {#ss:gerbes}
---------------------------------------
We review some elementary aspects of $S^1$-bundle gerbes over a manifold, following [@nikolaus2011equivariance]. For a detailed introduction to bundle gerbes, we refer the reader to Murray’s original paper [@murray1996bundle] as well as [@murray2000bundle] and [@stevenson2000geometry].
\[d:bgerbe\] Let $M$ be a manifold. An *$S^1$-bundle gerbe* (or simply, *bundle gerbe*) ${\mathcal{G}}=(X, P, \mu)$ over $M$ consists of a surjective submersion $\pi:X\to M$, a principal $S^1$-bundle $P\to X^{[2]}$, and a bundle isomorphism $\mu:\partial_2^*P \otimes \partial_0^*P \to \partial_1^*P$ over $X^{[3]}$, called the gerbe product, satisfying the associativity condition $\partial_1^*\mu \circ (\partial_3^*\mu\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}) = \partial_2^*\mu \circ ({{\operatorname{id}}}\otimes \partial_0^*\mu)$ over $X^{[4]}$.
\[d:connex\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X, P, \mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over a manifold $M$. A *connection* on ${\mathcal{G}}$ is a connection 1-form $\gamma \in \Omega^1(P)$ such that the bundle isomorphism $\mu$ is connection-preserving: $\mu^*(\hat{\partial}_1^* \gamma) = \hat{\partial}_2^* \gamma \otimes \hat{\partial}_0^*\gamma$, where $\hat{\partial}_j:\partial_j^*P \to P$ denotes the natural map covering $\partial_j$. A *curving* for the connection $\gamma$ is a 2-form $B\in \Omega^2(X)$ satisfying $\partial B={{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma)$. We will call the pair $(B,\gamma)$ a *connective structure* for ${\mathcal{G}}$.
Since $\partial dB = d \partial B = d{{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma)=0$, there exists a unique closed form $\chi \in \Omega^3(M)$, called the *3-curvature* of the connective structure, satisfying $\pi^*\chi = dB$.
\[eg:trivialgerbe\] The trivial bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{I}}$ over $M$ is the bundle gerbe with $\pi={{\operatorname{id}}}_M$, $P=M\times S^1$, and canonical gerbe product $\mu$. For $\omega \in \Omega^2(M)$, ${\mathcal{I}}_{\omega}$, is the bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{I}}$ with trivial connection on $M\times S^1 \to M$ and curving $\omega$. Note that the 3-curvature of this trivial connection with curving $\omega$ is $d\omega$.
\[eg:cechdata\] Let $\{U_i\}$ denote a good open cover of a smooth manifold $M$, and let $X=\bigsqcup U_i \to M$ denote the map whose restrictions $U_i \hookrightarrow M$ are the inclusions. Then we may identify $X^{[2]} = \bigsqcup U_{ij}$, where $U_{ij}$ denotes the intersection $U_i\cap U_j$ (and similarly for $X^{[n]}$ and $n$-tuples of indices, e.g., $X^{[3]} = \sqcup U_{ijk}$). Suppose $\{g_{ijk}:U_{ijk}\to S^1\}$ denotes a collection of smooth functions. Let $P=\bigsqcup U_{ij} \times S^1 \to \bigsqcup U_{ij}$ and set $$\mu(x,z,w) = (x,zwg_{ijk}(x)),$$ where we are identifying $x\in M$ with its copies in the $U_{ij}$’s. It’s straightforward to see that $\mu$ defines a bundle gerbe product as in Definition \[d:bgerbe\], provided $g_{ijk}$ defines a Čech 2-cocycle. Denote the resulting bundle gerbe by ${\mathcal{G}}_{g_{ijk}}$.
A connective structure on such a gerbe is thus specified by a collection $\{\gamma_{ij} = {{\operatorname{pr}}}^*A_{ij} + z^{-1}dz \}$, or more simply by the forms $A_{ij} \in \Omega^1(U_{ij})$ that must satisfy $A_{jk} - A_{ik} + A_{ij} = g_{ijk}^{-1} dg_{ijk}$ on each $U_{ijk}$, together with a collection $B_i\in \Omega^2(U_i)$ satisfying $B_j-B_i = dA_{ij}$ on each $U_{ij}$. In other words, a bundle gerbe with connective structure with respect to the covering $\{U_i\}$ is specified by a Čech-Deligne 2-cocycle $(g,A,B)$ [@brylinski2007loop].
Recall that a *common refinement* of two surjective submersions $\pi: X \to M$ and $\pi': X' \to M$ is a surjective submersion $\varpi:Y\to M$ together with surjective submersions $\lambda: Y \to X$ and $\rho: Y\to X'$ such that $\pi \circ \lambda = \varpi = \pi' \circ \rho$. For example, the fibre product $Y=X\times_M X'$ is such a common refinement.
\[d:gerbe1arrow\] [@nikolaus2011equivariance] Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ and ${\mathcal{G}}'=(X',P',\mu')$ be bundle gerbes over a manifold $M$. An *isomorphism ${\mathcal{G}}{{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}{\mathcal{G}}'$ of bundle gerbes* consists of a common refinement $Y\to M$ of $\pi$ and $\pi'$, together with a principal $S^1$-bundle $Q \to Y$ and an isomorphism of $S^1$-bundles $\varphi:\rho^*P' \otimes \partial_0^*Q \to \partial_1^*Q \otimes \lambda^* P$ over $Y^{[2]}$ satisfying the coherence condition $$({{\operatorname{id}}}\otimes \lambda^*\mu) \circ (\partial_2^* \varphi \otimes {{\operatorname{id}}}) \circ ({{\operatorname{id}}}\otimes \partial_0^*\varphi) = \partial_1^*\varphi \circ (\rho^*\mu'\otimes {{\operatorname{id}}})$$ over $Y^{[3]}$. We will denote such an isomorphism by $(Q,\varphi)$, or sometimes simply $Q$.
An *isomorphism of bundle gerbes with connective structure* $({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma) {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}({\mathcal{G}}', B', \gamma')$ is an isomorphism $(Q,\varphi)$ as above, together with a connection 1-form $\gamma_Q \in \Omega^1(Q)$ such that ${{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q) = \rho^*B' - \lambda^*B$ and $\varphi$ is connection-preserving. We will denote such an isomorphism by $(Q,\varphi,\gamma_Q)$, or sometimes simply $(Q,\gamma_Q)$.
\[e:trivialization\] In the literature, a trivialization of a bundle gerbe $({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma)$ with connective structure is sometimes presented as follows (e.g., see [@murray2000bundle] or [@meinrenken2003basic]). Let $(Q,\gamma_Q)$ be a principal $S^1$-bundle with connection over $X$ together with a connection-preserving isomorphism $ \partial_1^* Q^* \otimes \partial_0^* Q \to P$ satisfying $$B-{{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q)= \pi^*\omega,$$ for some $\omega \in \Omega^2(M)$, sometimes called the *error 2-form*. It is straightforward to repackage this data as an isomorphism $(Q,\gamma_Q): {\mathcal{I}}_\omega {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma)$. Note that such a trivialization requires that the 3-curvature of $({\mathcal{G}}, B, \gamma)$ equals $d\omega$.
Bundle gerbes on a manifold $M$ are classified by their *Dixmier-Douady* class (or DD-class) in $ H^3(M;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$, analogous to the Chern-Weil classification of principal $S^1$-bundles by their Chern class in $H^2(M;{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. Moreover, the DD-class maps to the cohomology class of the 3-curvature via the coefficient homomorphism $H^3(M;{{\mathbb{Z}}}) \to H^3(M;{{\mathbb{R}}}) \cong H^3_{dR}(M)$. For bundle gerbes on $M$ with connective structure, the classification takes values in the group of differential characters of degree 3 (e.g., see [@krepski2018differential]).
Let $G$ be a compact Lie group. For manifolds equipped with a smooth $G$-action, there are various notions of equivariant bundle gerbes in the literature—see, for instance, [@meinrenken2003basic], [@stienon2010equivariant], [@murray2016equivariant], [@nikolaus2011equivariance]. Moreover, there are $G$-equivariant analogues of the aforementioned classifications: $G$-equivariant bundle gerbes are classified by their $G$-equivariant DD-class, while $G$-equivariant bundle gerbes with connective structure are classified by $G$-equivariant differential characters.
An important family of examples of bundle gerbes naturally occur on Lie groups. Let $G$ be a compact simple Lie group, with an invariant inner product $\langle-,-\rangle$ on its Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Let ${\theta^L}$ and ${\theta^R}$ denote the left and right invariant Maurer-Cartan forms. Let $\eta = \frac{1}{12} \langle {\theta^L}, [{\theta^L}, {\theta^L}] \rangle$ denote the Cartan 3-form, and recall that $\eta$ has an equivariant extension $
\eta_G(\xi) = \eta + \frac{1}{2} \langle {\theta^L}+ {\theta^R}, \xi \rangle \in \Omega^3_G(G),
$ with respect to the conjugation action. For certain choices of inner product (parameterized by the so-called *level*), there are a number of explicit constructions in the literature of a bundle gerbe with connective structure $({\mathcal{G}}, B, \gamma)$ over $G$ whose 3-curvature is $\eta$, as well as $G$-equivariant versions—e.g., see [@meinrenken2003basic], [@gawedzki2004basic] and [@krepski2018basic].
Bundle gerbes as $S^1$-central extensions {#ss:centext}
-----------------------------------------
Bundle gerbes may be recast as $S^1$-central extensions of Lie groupoids. This interpretation is briefly reviewed next. Given a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}= (X,P,\mu)$, we consider the Lie groupoid $P {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$, with source and target maps, $s=\pi_0:= \partial_0 \circ \pi_P$ and $t=:\pi_1 = \partial_1 \circ \pi_P$, respectively, where $\pi_P:P\to X^{[2]}$ denotes the bundle projection. The groupoid multiplication $m:P\times_X P \to P$ (also denoted by $\cdot$) is induced by the gerbe product, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(x,y,z;p\otimes q) = (x,y,z;m(p,q)),\end{aligned}$$ as are the unit $\epsilon:X \to P$ and inverse $i:P\to P$, by setting $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^{-1}(x,x,y;p) = (x,x,y; \epsilon(x)\otimes p), \quad \text{and} \quad \mu^{-1} (x,y,x; \epsilon(x)) = (x,y,x; p\otimes i(p))\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\in P$ lying over $(x,y)\in X^{[2]}$. In this viewpoint, we see that $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ is an *$S^1$-central extension* of the submersion groupoid $X^{[2]} {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$. That is, the bundle projection $P\to X^{[2]}$ is a morphism of Lie groupoids, $$\xymatrix{
P \ar@<-.7ex>[d]\ar@<.7ex>[d] \ar[r] & X^{[2]} \ar@<-.7ex>[d]\ar@<.7ex>[d] \\
X \ar@{=}[r] & X
}$$ and the $S^1$-action on $P$ is compatible with the groupoid multiplication: $$(zp)\cdot (wq) = (zw)(p\cdot q)$$ for all composable $p,q \in P$ and $z,w\in S^1$.
Suppose $(B,\gamma)$ defines a connective structure on ${\mathcal{G}}$. Then $\pi_P^*\partial B = d\gamma$, where recall $\partial$ denotes the simplicial differential on $X^{[\bullet+1]}$. Letting $\delta$ denote the simplicial differential on $P_\bullet$, the simplicial manifold associated to $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$, we have $\delta B = d\gamma$. Also, since the bundle isomorphism $\mu$ is connection-preserving, we see that $\delta \gamma = 0$. In other words, $\gamma$ is *multiplicative*: $m^*\gamma = {{\operatorname{pr}}}_1^*\gamma+ {{\operatorname{pr}}}_2^*\gamma$.
\[r:differentialnotation\] (Notation) Throughout the paper, we shall use $\partial$ and $\delta$ to distinguish between the simplicial maps of $X^{[\bullet+1]}$ and $P_\bullet$, respectively, as in the preceding paragraph.
Multiplicative vector fields on bundle gerbes {#ss:mult}
---------------------------------------------
Recall from [@mackenzie1998classical] that a *multiplicative vector field* on a Lie groupoid $\mathbf{G}=\{G_1{{~\rightrightarrows~}}G_0\}$ is a functor $\xi:\mathbf{G} \to T\mathbf{G}$ such that $\pi_{\mathbf{G}}\circ \xi = {{\operatorname{id}}}_{\mathbf{G}}$. Such a functor $\xi$ is therefore given by a pair of vector fields $(\xi_0,\xi_1) \in \mathfrak{X}(G_0) \times \mathfrak{X}(G_1)$ that must be compatible with units and the groupoid multiplications on $\mathbf{G}$ and $T\mathbf{G}$. The collection of multiplicative vector fields on $\mathbf{G}$ are the objects of a category $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})$, whose morphisms are natural transformations $\eta:\xi \Rightarrow \xi'$ satisfying $\pi_\mathbf{G}(\eta(x))=\epsilon(x)$ for every object $x\in G_0$, where $\epsilon:G_0\to G_1$ denotes the unit map [@hepworth2009vector].
Let us now specialize to the Lie groupoid $\mathbf{P}=\{P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X\}$ associated to a bundle gerbe $(X,P,\mu)$. Consider a multiplicative vector field $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ on $\mathbf{P}$. Since $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ defines a functor, we have that $\check{\xi} \sim_{\pi_j} \widetilde{\xi}$ for $j=0,1$, and hence $d\pi(\widetilde{\xi}(x)) = d\pi(\widetilde{\xi}(y))$ for all $(x,y) \in X^{[2]}$. Hence $\widetilde{\xi}$ descends to a vector field $\xi$ on $M$.
Moreover, $(\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\xi})$ defines a vector field on $X^{[2]}$, and similarly on $X^{[n]}$ for any $n>1$; denote such vector fields by $\widetilde{\xi}^{[n]}$. In particular, we have that $\check{\xi} \sim_{\pi_P} \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]}$. Similarly, there is a naturally defined vector field $(\check{\xi},\check{\xi})$ on $P\times_X P$ (denoted by $\check{\xi}\ast \check{\xi}$ in [@mackenzie1998classical]) such that $(\check{\xi},\check{\xi}) \sim_m \check{\xi}$ and hence $(\check{\xi},\check{\xi}) \sim_{\delta_j} \check{\xi}$ for $j=0,1,2$.
\[p:multvf\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe, and let $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ be a multiplicative vector field on the corresponding Lie groupoid $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$.
1. The vector field $\check{\xi}$ is $S^1$-invariant.
2. $\check{\xi} \sim_{\pi_j} \widetilde{\xi}$ for $j=0,1$.
3. $\check{\xi}_2\otimes \check{\xi}_0 \sim_\mu \check{\xi}_1$, where $\check{\xi}_j$ denotes the vector field on $\partial_j^*P$ induced by $(\widetilde{\xi}^{[3]},\check{\xi})$.
Moreover, any pair of vector fields $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi}) \in \mathfrak{X}(X)\times \mathfrak{X}(P)$ satisfying the above conditions is a multiplicative vector field on $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$.
To show (1), we verify that $[{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}},\check{\xi}]=0$. Choose a connection $\gamma$ as in Definition \[d:connex\]. Since $[{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}},\check{\xi}]$ is vertical, it suffices to show $\iota_{[{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}},\check{\xi}]} \gamma =0$. Note that since $\delta \gamma = 0$, it follows that $\delta \iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma =0$ and since $\mathbf{P}$ is proper there exists $g:X\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that $\delta g= \iota_{\check{\xi}}\gamma$, which is $S^1$-invariant. Hence $\iota_{[{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}},\check{\xi}]} \gamma = L_{{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}} \iota_{\check{\xi}}\gamma - \iota_{\check{\xi}}L_{{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}} \gamma = L_{{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}} \delta g =0$, as required. Statement (2) has already been established, and (3) is a straightforward consequence of (1) and the discussion preceding the proposition. To verify the last statement, it is straightforward to see that conditions (2) and (3) show that $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ defines a functor, provided it respects the unit maps. It thus suffices to check that $d\epsilon (\widetilde{\xi})(x) = \check{\xi}(\epsilon(x))$, which follows immediately from (2) and the observation that $\epsilon$ is a section of $\pi_j$ (for $j=0$ or $1$).
\[eg:collier:symmetry\] Consider a multiplicative vector field $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ on a bundle gerbe $P$ given in terms of Čech data, as in Example \[eg:cechdata\]. In this case, we have that $\widetilde{\xi}$ is specified by a collection of local vector fields $\xi_i$ on $U_i$ and by the paragraph preceding Proposition \[p:multvf\], $\xi_i\big|_{U_{ij}} = \xi_j\big|_{U_{ij}}$ for all $i,j$ and thus the local vector fields are restrictions of a vector field $\xi$ on $M$. Denote the restriction of $\xi$ to $U_{i_1,i_2,\ldots}$ by $\xi_{i_1,i_2,\ldots}$.
The vector field $\check{\xi}$ must take the form $(\xi_{ij}(x),f_{ij}(x,z))$, where $f_{ij}(x,z) \in {{\mathbb{R}}}$ is the component in the $S^1$ direction (where we implicitly trivialize the tangent bundle of $S^1$). By Proposition \[p:multvf\] (1), the functions $f_{ij}$ are independent of $z\in S^1$; hence we abuse notation and write $f_{ij}:U_{ij} \to {{\mathbb{R}}}$. The composition $$\xymatrix@C=5em{
\xi_i(x) & \ar@/_1.5pc/[l]_-{(\xi_{ij},f_{ij}(x))} \xi_j(x) & \ar@/_1.5pc/[l]_-{(\xi_{jk},f_{jk}(x))} \xi_k(x)
}$$ in the tangent groupoid $TP{{~\rightrightarrows~}}TX$ is $(\xi_{jk},f_{ik}(x))$, as $\check{\xi}$ is multiplicative. By definition, this composition is obtained by applying the tangent map of the gerbe multiplication. Therefore, $$\label{eq:collier_objects}
f_{ik} = g_{ijk}^{-1} dg_{ijk}(\xi) + f_{ij} + f_{jk},$$ on $U_{ijk}$.
In [@collier2011infinitesimal], Collier studies the infinitesimal symmetries of an $S^1$-gerbe considered as a stack over $M$. In this context, the author defines a category $\mathcal{L}_{g_{ijk}}$ of *infinitesimal symmetries* of the gerbe with Čech cocyle $g_{ijk}$. The objects of this category are given by pairs $(\xi,\{-f_{ij}\})$ consisting of a vector field $\xi$ on $M$ and a collection of functions $f_{ij}$ satisfying .
In [@berwick2016lie], the authors show that the category $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})$ of multiplicative vector fields on a Lie groupoid $\mathbf{G}$ is a category internal to the category of vector spaces (i.e., a 2-vector space in the language of [@baez2004higher]). In fact, they show it is a Lie 2-algebra—we shall return to this in Section \[s:lie2\]. Though we are mainly interested in the case of Lie groupoids $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ arising from bundle gerbes, there is no added difficulty in describing the morphisms in the general case, as we recall next, following [@berwick2016lie].
For a general Lie groupoid $\mathbf{G}$, morphisms of multiplicative vector fields are given by sections of the Lie algebroid $A\to G_0$ of $\mathbf{G}$. (We shall implicitly make use of the equivalence of categories between 2-term chain complexes and 2-vector spaces—see [@berwick2016lie Remark 2.9] and [@baez2004higher].) To review some of the details, recall that the Lie algebroid $A=\ker ds \big|_{G_0}$, with anchor $\rho=dt:A\to TG_0$.
A section $a\in \Gamma(A)$ gives rise to a morphism of multiplicative vector fields as follows. Let $\widetilde{a} = dt(a)$ and $\check{a} = \overrightarrow{a} + \overleftarrow{a}$, where $\overrightarrow{a}(g)=dR_g(a(t(g)))$ and $\overleftarrow{a}(g) = d(L_g \circ i)(a(s(g)))$. (Here, for $g\in G_1$, $L_g$ and $R_g$ denote left and right multiplication by $g$, and $i:G_1\to G_1$ denotes inversion.) It follows that $(\widetilde{a},\check{a})$ is a multiplicative vector field [@mackenzie1998classical Example 3.4], and we may view $a$ as a morphism $a:(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi}) \to (\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta})$ whenever $(\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta})-(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi}) =(\widetilde{a},\check{a})$, with addition as composition.
Below we record some additional facts about multiplicative vector bundles for the case of bundle gerbes that we will use in Section \[s:lie2\]. In particular, we see from Proposition \[p:properties\] (4) that the multiplicative vector fields isomorphic to the zero vector are lifts of the zero vector on $M$.
\[l:v\_a\] Let $(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connection $(B,\gamma)$. Let $a\in \Gamma(A_P)$, where $A_P \to X$ denotes the Lie algebroid of the corresponding Lie groupoid $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$. Set $\mathsf{v}_a = \epsilon^*\iota_{\overrightarrow{a}} \gamma$. Then $\iota_{\check{a}} \gamma =- \delta \mathsf{v}_a$.
The proof is a straightforward computation that uses the multiplicativity of the connection form $\gamma$. Indeed, for $p\in P$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\iota_{\overrightarrow{a}} \gamma)(p) &= \gamma_p dR_p (a(t(p))) \\
&= \gamma_{\epsilon(t(p))p} dR_p (a( t(p))) \\
&= \gamma_{\epsilon(t(p))} (a( t(p))) \\
&= \mathsf{v}_a(( t(p))).\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $(\iota_{\overleftarrow{a}} \gamma)(p) = - \mathsf{v}_a(s(p))$, as required.
\[p:properties\] Let $(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connection $(B,\gamma)$, and let $A_P$ denote the Lie algebroid of $\mathbf{P}$.
1. For any $g:X\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$, $a=g{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}\big|_X$ defines a section of $A_P$ with $\check{a} = (\delta g) {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}$.
2. Let $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ be a multiplicative vector field. If $\widetilde{\xi} \sim_{\pi} 0$, then there exists a section $a\in \Gamma(A_P)$ with $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})=(\widetilde{a},\check{a})$.
The first item is straightforward. To verify (2), it suffices to consider the case that $\check{\xi}$ is horizontal, which is done next. Let $a= \mathrm{Lift}_\gamma (\widetilde{\xi},0)\big|_X$ denote the restriction of the horizontal lift of $(\widetilde{\xi},0)$ on $X^{[2]}$ to $P$. Since $\widetilde{a}=\widetilde{\xi}$, it remains to check $\check{a} = \check{\xi}$. By Lemma \[l:v\_a\], $\check{a}$ is horizontal, and it is straightforward to check that $\check{a} \sim_{\pi_P} (\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\xi})$. Therefore, $\check{a}=\check{\xi}$, as required.
\[eg:collier:morphisms\] Consider, as in Examples \[eg:cechdata\] and \[eg:collier:symmetry\] , a bundle gerbe $P$ given by Čech data. The Lie algebroid $A_P$ in this case consists of vectors in $\bigsqcup TU_{i} \times TS^1$ of the form $(0,u)$. Therefore, we may identify a section $a\in \Gamma(A_P)$ with a collection of functions $a=\{u_i: U_i \to {{\mathbb{R}}}\}$ that record the vertical components. Hence $\widetilde{a}=0$, and a straightforward computation shows that (after identifying vertical vectors with functions) $\check{a} = \{ u_j-u_i\}$. These are the morphisms of the category $\mathcal{L}_{g_{ijk}}$ in [@collier2011infinitesimal].
Multiplicative vector fields on bundle gerbes with connective structure {#ss:connex_multvf}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$. In this Section, we introduce the category of multiplicative vector fields on the corresponding groupoid $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ that preserve the connective structure.
We begin with the following Proposition, which gives an interpretation of what the connective structure $(B,\gamma)$ on ${\mathcal{G}}$ measures in terms of multiplicative vector fields, analogous to the interpretation given in [@collier2011infinitesimal Section 9].
\[p:curv\_measures\_bracket\_preserve\_failure\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$. Let $\widetilde{\xi}$ and $\widetilde{\zeta}$ be vector fields on $X$ that are lifts of vector fields $\xi$ and $\zeta$ on $M$.
1. Let $\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]}$ be the horizontal lift of $\widetilde{\xi}^{[2]}$ to $P$ with respect to $\gamma$. Then $(\widetilde{\xi},\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]})$ is a multiplicative vector field.
2. Let $g=\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} B$ and $a = g{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}\big|_X \in \Gamma(A_P)$. Then $a$ defines an isomorphism $$([\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\zeta}],[\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]},\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\zeta}^{[2]}])
\longrightarrow ([\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\zeta}],\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma [\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\zeta}]^{[2]})$$ of multiplicative vector fields.
To verify (1), observe that the first two items of Proposition \[p:multvf\] are easily checked for $(\widetilde{\xi},\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]})$. It remains to check compatibility with the groupoid multiplication. This follows from the observation that the product of horizontal vectors in $TP$ is horizontal, since the connection $\gamma$ is multiplicative. To verify (2), we note $$\begin{aligned}
\delta g &= \delta \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} B \\
&= \iota_{\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]}}\, \iota_{\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma\widetilde{\zeta}^{[2]}} \delta B \\
&= \iota_{\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]}}\, \iota_{\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma\widetilde{\zeta}^{[2]}} d\gamma \\
&= \iota_{[\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]},\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\zeta}^{[2]}]} \gamma\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by Proposition \[p:properties\] (3), $a \in \Gamma(A_P)$ satisfies $$(\widetilde{a},\check{a})=(0, [\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\xi}^{[2]},\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma \widetilde{\zeta}^{[2]}]- \mathrm{Lift}_\gamma [\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\zeta}]^{[2]}),$$ as required.
Let $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ be a multiplicative vector field on a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}= (X,P,\mu)$ over $M$ with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$. In Definition \[d:connexpresmultivf\] below, we propose what it means for $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ to preserve the connective structure. To give a heuristic motivation for the definition, suppose we are given a diffeomorphism $F:M\to M$. A bundle gerbe morphism covering $F$ is a *Morita morphism*—that is, an isomorphism $(Q,\gamma_Q):({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma) {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}({\mathcal{G}}, \widetilde{F}^*B, \check{F}^*\gamma)$ of bundle gerbes with connection. (Note that $F^*{\mathcal{G}}$ is naturally isomorphic to ${\mathcal{G}}$ since $F$ is a diffeomorphism.) Let us take such an isomorphism to be of the form $Q=X\times S^1$, $\gamma_Q = \pi_Q^* \alpha + d\theta$, where $\alpha\in \Omega^1(X)$. Hence, $$\widetilde{F}^*B - B = d\alpha \quad \text{ and } \quad \check{F}^*\gamma -\gamma = \delta \alpha.$$ Thinking of $\widetilde{F}$ and $\check{F}$ as the flows of $\widetilde{\xi}$ and $\check{\xi}$, respectively, we arrive at the Definition below.
\[d:connexpresmultivf\] Let $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ be a multiplicative vector field on a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}= (X,P,\mu)$ over $M$ with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$. We say $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ *preserves $(B,\gamma)$* if there exists a 1-form $\alpha \in \Omega^1(X)$ such that $$\label{e:preserve}
L_{\widetilde{\xi}} B = d\alpha \quad \text{ and } \quad L_{\check{\xi}} \gamma = \delta \alpha.$$
\[r:connexpresmultivf\] One could also consider multiplicative vector fields $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ on a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}$ that preserve a connection $\gamma$ (without necessarily preserving a curving). In this case, $\alpha$ is required to satisfy only the condition $ L_{\check{\xi}} \gamma = \delta \alpha$ from .
\[p:connex\_pres\_subcat\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}= (X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$, and let $a\in \Gamma(A_P)$. The multiplicative vector field $(\widetilde{a},\check{a})$ preserves $(B,\gamma)$.
Let $\alpha = \iota_{\widetilde{a}} B - d\mathsf{v}_a$, and use Lemma \[l:v\_a\] and the equality $\delta B=d\gamma$ to check that $
L_{\widetilde{a}} B = d\alpha$, and $L_{\check{a}} \gamma = \delta \alpha$.
\[c:subcat\] Let $(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$. There is a category $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P};B,\gamma)$ whose objects are pairs $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi}; \alpha) \in \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})_0 \times \Omega^1(X) $ satisfying equation , and whose morphisms are sections $a\in \Gamma(A_P)$: $$a:(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi};\alpha) \to (\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta};\beta), \quad \text{iff} \quad (\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta};\beta)-(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi};\alpha) =(\widetilde{a},\check{a},\iota_{\widetilde{a}}B - d\mathsf{v}_a).$$ Moreover, the forgetful functor $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P};B,\gamma) \longrightarrow \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})$ is full and faithful.
\[eg:multivf\_trivgerbe\] Consider the trivial bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{I}}_\omega$ with trivial connection and curving $\omega$. A multiplicative vector field is simply a vector field on $M$. Indeed, for a multiplicative vector field, the component on $P=M\times S^1$ must be the trivial lift of a vector field $\xi$ on $M$, since its vertical component would (by virtue of being multiplicative) define a continuous homomorphism $S^1\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$, which must be trivial. Therefore, a multiplicative vector field $(\xi,\xi+0)$ on $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}M$ preserves the connective structure if and only $L_\xi \omega$ is exact.
\[eg:collier:subcat\] Continuing from Examples \[eg:collier:symmetry\] and \[eg:collier:morphisms\], let $(\xi_{ij},f_{ij})$ be a multiplicative vector field on the bundle gerbe $P$ given in terms of Čech data. Let $(\{B_i\},\{A_{ij}\})$ be a collection of 2-forms on the $U_i$ and 1-forms on the $U_{ij}$ that specify a connective structure on $P$, and suppose that $(\xi_{ij},f_{ij})$ preserves the connective structure. Then there exists a collection of 1-forms $a_i \in \Omega^1(U_i)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
{{\operatorname{pr}}}^*(a_j- a_i)&= L_{\xi_{ij}+{{\operatorname{pr}}}^*f_{ij} {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}} ({{\operatorname{pr}}}^*A_{ij} + d\theta) \\
&= {{\operatorname{pr}}}^*L_{\xi_{ij}} A_{ij} + L_{{{\operatorname{pr}}}^*f_{ij} {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}} d\theta \\
&= {{\operatorname{pr}}}^*(L_{\xi_{ij}} A_{ij} + d f) \end{aligned}$$ on $U_{ij}$. That is, $$\label{e:collier_connexpres}
a_j- a_i = L_{\xi_{ij}} A_{ij} + d f.$$
In [@collier2011infinitesimal], Collier defines the category $\mathcal{L}_{(g_{ijk},A_{ij})}$ whose objects $(\xi,\{-f_{ij}\}, \{-a_i\})$ are triples consisting of a vector field $\xi$ on $M$, functions $f_{ij}$ satisfying , and 1-forms $a_i$ satisfying , as well as a (full) subcategory $\mathcal{L}_{(g_{ijk},B_i,A_{ij})}$ whose objects satisfy the additional constraint $L_\xi B_i = da_i$ (i.e., infinitesimal symmetries that preserve the connection and the curving). As in Example \[eg:collier:morphisms\], the morphisms are given by collections of functions $\{u_i:U_i \to {{\mathbb{R}}}\}$, which, as noted in that Example, correspond to sections $a$ of the underlying Lie algebroid. Therefore, $\{u_i\}$ is a morphism $(\xi,\{-f_{ij}\}, \{-a_i\}) \longrightarrow (\xi,\{-g_{ij}\}, \{-b_i\})$ if and only if $f_{ij}-g_{ij} = u_j-u_i$ and $b_i-a_i=du_i$, and we recover the category of connection-preserving infinitesimal symmetries from *op. cit.*
Multiplicative vector fields on bundle gerbes as infinitesimal symmetries of the underlying gerbe {#ss:infsym}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the discussion in Examples \[eg:collier:symmetry\] and \[eg:collier:morphisms\], the category of multiplicative vector fields on a bundle gerbe $\mathcal{G}_{g_{ijk}}$ over a manifold $M$, given in terms of a Čech cocycle $\{ g_{ijk} \}$ associated to an open cover $\{U_i\}$ of $M$, coincides with the category $\mathcal{L}_{g_{ijk}}$ of *infinitesimal symmetries* of the gerbe as defined by Collier in [@collier2011infinitesimal]. A similar discussion in Example \[eg:collier:subcat\] considers infinitesimal symmetries that preserve the connective structure of the gerbe. In this section, we verify more generally that the category of multiplicative vector fields $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})$ on a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ is equivalent to the category $\mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ in *op. cit. *of infinitesimal symmetries of the underlying gerbe (i.e., viewed as a *stack* over $M$), in the perspective of *op. cit. * A similar equivalence of categories incorporating a connective structure on ${\mathcal{G}}$ is also given.
The purpose of this section is to connect our work to Collier’s notion of infinitesimal symmetries of gerbes. In the interest of brevity, and since the content of this section is not used elsewhere in the paper, this section assumes a familiarity with the *presheaf of groupoids* (i.e., stack) viewpoint of $S^1$-gerbes (e.g., as in Brylinski’s book [@brylinski2007loop]). We shall follow Collier’s notation closely, and review some elements in [@collier2011infinitesimal] to state our results precisely in that context.
To begin, recall how a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ over $M$ gives rise to a gerbe, which by abuse of notation will also be denoted by ${\mathcal{G}}$. For each open set $U\subset M$, ${\mathcal{G}}(U)$ is the category of local trivializations of the bundle gerbe restricted to $U$. More precisely, objects of ${\mathcal{G}}(U)$ are pairs $(Q,\phi)$ consisting of an $S^1$-bundle $\pi_Q:Q \to X_U = \pi^{-1}(U)$ together with a bundle isomorphism $\phi:\partial Q = \partial_1^* Q^* \otimes \partial_0^* Q \to P_U =P\big|_{X_U^{[2]}}$, satisfying a compatibility condition with bundle gerbe product $\mu$ (*cf*. Definition \[d:gerbe1arrow\]). A morphism $(Q,\phi) \to (Q',\phi')$ is given by a bundle isomorphism $u:Q\to Q'$ that is compatible with $\phi$ and $\phi'$, $\phi \circ \partial u = \phi'$. The resulting presheaf of groupoids ${\mathcal{G}}$ is seen to be a *stack*; moreover, it naturally has *band* equal to the sheaf of $S^1$-valued functions on $M$. That is, ${\mathcal{G}}$ is an $S^1$-(banded) gerbe (see [@stevenson2000geometry] for details).
### Infinitesimal symmetries of $S^1$-gerbes {#infinitesimal-symmetries-of-s1-gerbes .unnumbered}
Let $\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M$ and $\underline{S}^1_M$ denote the sheaves of smooth real and circle valued functions on $M$, respectively. For a vector field $\xi$ on $M$ and a function $g:M\to S^1$, let $\iota_{\xi} d\, \log(g) = \iota_{\xi} g^{-1}dg$, which defines a morphism of sheaves $\iota_{\xi} d\, \log: \underline{S}^1_M \to \underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M$.
Given a vector field $\xi$ on $M$, Collier defines a category $\mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(\xi)$ whose objects are *infinitesimal symmetries* of an $S^1$-gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}$ that *lift* $\xi$. Specifically, an object in $\mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(\xi)$ is a morphism of gerbes (i.e., a morphism of presheaves or a pseudo-natural transformation) $$F:{\mathcal{G}}\to B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M,$$ intertwining the morphisms of sheaves, $-\iota_{\xi} d\, \log$. Here, $B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M$ denotes the trivial gerbe with band $\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M = C^\infty(M,{{\mathbb{R}}})$: given an open set $U\subset M$, $B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M(U)$ is the category of $\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_U$-torsors. In particular, we obtain a family of functors $F_U:{\mathcal{G}}(U) \to B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M(U)$ (or simply $F$ when the underlying open set $U$ is understood) such that for all objects $Q$ in ${\mathcal{G}}(U)$, $F(Q)$ is an $\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_U$-torsor; moreover, for all morphisms $u:Q\to Q$, and all $g:U\to S^1$, $F(u): F(Q) \to F(Q)$ satisfies $F(u\cdot g) = F(u) - \iota_{\xi} g^{-1}dg$.
A morphism $F\Rightarrow F'$ of infinitesimal symmetries lifting $\xi$ is a modification of the underlying pseudo-natural transformations. In particular, such a morphism is specified by a map of $\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_U$-torsors $T:F(Q) \to F'(Q)$ for every object $Q$ in ${\mathcal{G}}(U)$. Let $\mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ denote the category whose objects consist of the collection infinitesimal lifts $F$ of vector fields $\xi$ on $M$ as above, and whose morphisms are exactly those in $\mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(\xi)$ described above (i.e., there are no morphisms between infinitesimal lifts of different vector fields on $M$). Theorem \[t:equiv-mvf-col\] below shows $\mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ is equivalent to the category of multiplicative vector fields $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})$.
\[l:algebroid\] Let $\pi:X\to M$ be a surjective submersion, let $\pi_Q:Q \to X$ be a principal $S^1$-bundle, and let $\partial Q = \partial_1^*Q^* \otimes \partial_0^* Q \to X^{[2]}$ and $(X,\partial Q, \mu)$ be the resulting canonically trivialized bundle gerbe. Let $a\in \Gamma(A_{\partial Q})$, and recall $\widetilde{a}=dt (a)$, and $\check{a} = \overrightarrow{a} + \overleftarrow{a}$.
1. There is a unique vector field $\widehat{a} \in \mathfrak{X}(Q)^{S^1}$ such that the section $a$ is of the form $
a(x) = [(\widetilde{a}(x),0,\widehat{a}(q),0)]$, where $\pi_Q(q)=x.
$
2. $
\check{a}(x_1, x_2, q_1\otimes q_2) = [(\widetilde{a}(x_1),\widetilde{a}(x_2),\widehat{a}(q_1),\widehat{a}(q_2))]
$ for all $(x_1,x_2,q_1\otimes q_2) \in \partial Q$.
3. Let $\gamma_Q$ denote a connection form on $Q\to X$, inducing a bundle gerbe connection $\partial \gamma_Q$ on $\partial Q$. Then $\pi_Q^*\mathsf{v}_a = - \iota_{\widehat{a}} \gamma_Q$.
We begin by reviewing elementary aspects of the Lie algebroid $A_{\partial Q}$. For a point $\mathbf{q}=(x_1,x_2,q_1\otimes q_2) \in \partial Q$, where $(x_1,x_2)\in X^{[2]}$ and $\pi_Q(q_i)=x_i$, vectors in $T_{\mathbf{q}} \partial Q$ may be represented by equivalences classes $\mathbf{v}=[(u_1,u_2,v_1,v_2)]$ where $u_i \in T_{x_i} X$, $v_i \in T_{q_i} Q$ satisfy $d\pi(u_1)=d\pi(u_2)$ and $d\pi_Q(v_i) = u_i$ for $i=1,2$.
For $\mathbf{v} \in \ker ds$, where $s(\mathbf{q})=x_2$ is the source map of $\partial Q {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$, then $u_2=0$. Thus there exists a unique representative for $\mathbf{v}$ of the form $\mathbf{v}=[(u_1,0,w,0)]$. Therefore, letting $\widetilde{s}:\partial_1^*Q^* \times_{X^{[2]}} \partial_0^* Q \to X$ and $\widetilde{\partial}_1:\partial_1^*Q^* \times_{X^{[2]}} \partial_0^* Q \to Q$ denote the maps $\widetilde{s}(x_1,x_2,q_1,q_2) = x_2$ and $\widetilde{\partial}_1(x_1,x_2,q_1,q_2)=q_2$, respectively, we see that the map $$\begin{aligned}
(\ker d\widetilde{s} \cap \ker d\widetilde{\partial}_1)\big|_{Q} &\longrightarrow Q\times_X A_{\partial Q} \\
(x,x,q,q;u,0,w,0) & \longmapsto (q;x,x,q\otimes q; [u,0,w,0])\end{aligned}$$ is a diffeomorphism.
To prove (1), let $a\in \Gamma(A_{\partial Q})$. We obtain the vector field $\widehat{a} \in \mathfrak{X}(Q)$ as the composition $$\xymatrix@C=9ex{
Q \ar[r]^-{({{\operatorname{id}}},a \circ\pi_Q)} & Q\times_X A_{\partial Q} \ar[r] & (\ker d\widetilde{s} \cap \ker d\widetilde{\partial}_1)\big|_{Q} \ar[r]^-{{{\operatorname{pr}}}} & TQ.
}$$ The vector field $\widehat{a}$ is $S^1$-invariant: $$[(\widetilde{a}(x),0,\widehat{a}(q\cdot z),0)] = [(\widetilde{a}(x),0,\widehat{a}(q),0)] = [(\widetilde{a}(x),0,dR_z \, \widehat{a}(q),0)] .$$ Item (2) is a straightforward calculation. Similarly, since $\overrightarrow{a}(x_1,x_2,q_1\otimes q_2) = [(\widetilde{a}(x_1),0,\widehat{a}(q_1),0 )]$, and the induced connection on the bundle gerbe $\partial Q$ is $\partial \gamma_Q = \partial_1^*\gamma_Q^* \otimes \partial_0^*\gamma_Q$, we see that for $q\in Q$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathsf{v}_a (\pi_Q(q))& = ( \partial \gamma_Q )_{(\pi_Q(q),\pi_Q(q);q\otimes q)} [(\widetilde{a}(\pi_Q(q)),0,\widehat{a}(q),0 )] \\
&= -(\gamma_Q)_q(\widehat{a}(q)),\end{aligned}$$ as required.
\[t:equiv-mvf-col\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$. There is an equivalence of categories $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P}) \to \mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$.
We construct the functor $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P}) \to \mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$ directly and provide a sketch that it is an equivalence of categories. Let $\overline{\xi}=(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ be a multiplicative vector field that descends to a vector field $\xi$ on $M$. Let $F_{\overline{\xi}}:{\mathcal{G}}\to B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M$ be given as follows. To each object $(Q,\phi)$ in ${\mathcal{G}}(U)$, let $$F_{\overline{\xi}}(Q) = \{\widehat{\xi} \in \mathfrak{X}(Q)^{S^1}\, | \, \widehat{\xi} \sim_{\pi_Q} \widetilde{\xi}\big|_{X_U}, \, \text{and }\, d\phi(\delta\widehat{\xi}) = \check{\xi}\big|_{P_U} \}$$ be the corresponding $\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_U$-torsor. Here, using the $S^1$-invariance of $\widehat{\xi}$, $\delta\widehat{\xi}$ denotes the vector field on $\partial_0^*Q \otimes \partial_1^*Q$ induced from $(\widetilde{\xi},\widehat{\xi})$ on each factor $\partial_i^*Q$, $i=0,1$.
Let $a\in \Gamma(A_P)$, and let $a_U \in \Gamma(A_{P_U})$ denotes its restriction to $X_U$. Observe that $\phi:\partial Q \to P_U$ induces a Lie groupoid isomorphism $$\xymatrix{
\partial_0^* Q \otimes \partial_1^*Q \ar[r]^-\phi \ar@<-.7ex>[d]\ar@<.7ex>[d] & P_U \ar@<-.7ex>[d]\ar@<.7ex>[d] \\
X_U \ar@{=}[r] & X_U
}$$ and hence we may view $a_U$ as a section of the Lie algebroid of $\partial Q {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X_U$. The section $a_U$ gives rise to an $S^1$-invariant vector field $\widehat{a}$ on $Q$, as in Lemma \[l:algebroid\], which satisfies $\widehat{a} \sim_{\pi_Q} \widetilde{a}\big|_{X_U}, \, \text{and }\, d\phi(\delta\widehat{a}) = \check{a}\big|_{P_U}$.
Viewing $a:(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi}) \to (\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta})$ as a morphism in $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})$, the vector fields $\widehat{a}$ from the previous paragraph give rise to a morphism $T_a:F_{\overline{\xi}} \Rightarrow F_{\overline{\zeta}}$. Specifically, for each $(Q,\phi) \in {\mathcal{G}}(U)$, we obtain a map of $\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_U$-torsors $T_a:F_{\overline{\xi}}(Q) \to F_{\overline{\zeta}}(Q)$, by setting $
T_a(\widehat{\xi}) = \widehat{\xi}+\widehat{a}.
$ Hence, we obtain a functor $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P}) \to \mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}$.
To show that the functor constructed above is an equivalence of categories, note first that, by [@collier2011infinitesimal Corollary 6.1.8 (2)], it is immediate that the functor is essentially surjective. Faithfulness follows from the uniqueness of the vector field $\widehat{a}$, as in Lemma \[l:algebroid\]. To see that the functor is full, suppose we are given an equivalence of lifts $T:F_{\overline{\xi}}(Q) \to F_{\overline{\zeta}}(Q)$. There exists $a'\in \Gamma(A_P)$ with $(\widetilde{a'},\check{a'})=(\widetilde{\zeta} - \widetilde{\xi},\check{\zeta}-\check{\xi})$, and the collection of such sections $a'$ is a torsor for $C^\infty(M)$ (i.e., sections of the isotropy Lie algebra)—this follows from Prop \[p:properties\] (3) and (4) and the exact sequence \[eq:deltaexact\]. For $\widehat{\xi} \in F_{\overline{\xi}}(Q)$, $T(\widehat{\xi})-T_{a'}(\widehat{\xi})$ is an $S^1$-invariant lift of $0$ (restricted to $X_U$), which may thus identify with a (basic) function $f:U\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ that records its vertical component. Since $d\phi( \delta (T(\widehat{\xi})-T_{a'}(\widehat{\xi})))=0$, $\delta f=0$, and we have that such functions patch together to give a global function $g:M\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$. Letting $a=a' + (\pi^*g) {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}$, it is straightforward to check that $T=T_a$, as required.
### Infinitesimal symmetries of $S^1$-gerbes preserving a connective structure {#infinitesimal-symmetries-of-s1-gerbes-preserving-a-connective-structure .unnumbered}
Recall that for an $S^1$-gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}$, viewed as a presheaf of groupoids, a connection on ${\mathcal{G}}$ is a morphism of gerbes ${\mathcal{A}}:{\mathcal{G}}\to B\underline{\Omega}^1_M$ intertwining the morphism of sheaves $-d\log: \underline{S}^1_M \to \Omega^1_M$. Here, $B\underline{\Omega}^1_M$ denotes the trivial gerbe with band $\underline{\Omega}^1_M$: specifically, given an open set $U\subset M$, $\underline{\Omega}^1_M(U)$ is the category of $\underline{\Omega}^1_U$-torsors. In particular, we obtain a family of functors ${\mathcal{A}}_U: {\mathcal{G}}(U) \to B\underline{\Omega}^1_M(U)$ (or simply ${\mathcal{A}}$ when the underlying open set $U$ is understood) such that for all objects $Q\in {\mathcal{G}}(U)$, ${\mathcal{A}}(Q)$ is a $\underline{\Omega}^1_U$-torsor; moreover, for all morphisms $u:Q\to Q$, and all $g:U\to S^1$, ${\mathcal{A}}(u): {\mathcal{A}}(Q) \to {\mathcal{A}}(Q)$ satisfies ${\mathcal{A}}(u\cdot g) = {\mathcal{A}}(u) - d\log\, g$. A *curving* $K$ for the connection ${\mathcal{A}}$ assigns to each $Q\in {\mathcal{G}}(U)$ and each $\gamma \in {\mathcal{A}}(Q)$, a 2-form $K(\gamma)\in \Omega^2(U)$. This assignment is compatible with restrictions of open subsets, and morphisms $u:Q\to Q'$—that is, $K(({\mathcal{A}})(u)(\gamma))=K(\gamma)$. Moreover, $K$ is $\Omega^1(U)$-equivariant: for all $\alpha \in \Omega^1(U)$, $K(\gamma \cdot \alpha) = K(\gamma) + d\alpha$. We will call the pair $({\mathcal{A}},K)$ a *connective structure* for ${\mathcal{G}}$.
Observe that for an $S^1$-gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}$ associated to a bundle gerbe $(X,P,\mu)$, a connective structure $(B,\gamma)$ for the bundle gerbe gives rise to a connective structure in the sense described above. Namely, for $U\subset M$ and $(Q,\phi)\in {\mathcal{G}}(U)$, we set $${\mathcal{A}}(Q) = \{ \text{connection 1-forms } \gamma_Q \in \Omega^1(Q): \phi^*(\gamma|_{P_U}) = \partial \gamma_Q \},$$ where $\partial \gamma_Q = \partial_1^*\gamma_Q^* \otimes \partial_0^* \gamma_Q$ is the induced connection on $\partial Q$. The curving $K$ is then obtained as follows: observe that $\partial \mathrm{curv}(\gamma_Q) = \mathrm{curv}(\gamma|_{P_U}) =\partial B|_U$ and hence there exists a unique 2-form $K(\gamma_Q)$ satisfying $\pi^*K(\gamma_Q) = \mathrm{curv}(\gamma_Q) - B|_U$. Note that it follows that $dK(\gamma_Q) = -\chi|_U$.
In [@collier2011infinitesimal; @collier-PhDThesis2012], Collier defines categories $\mathcal{L}_{({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{A}})}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{A}},K)}$ of infinitesimal symmetries of ${\mathcal{G}}$ that preserve the connection and the connective structure, respectively. Recall that an infinitesimal symmetry lifting $\xi \in \mathfrak{X}(M)$ that preserves the connection $\mathcal{A}$, also called a *connective lift* of $\xi$, is a pair $(F,\Theta)$ consisting of an infinitesimal lift $F:{\mathcal{G}}\to B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M$ in $\mathcal{L}_{{\mathcal{G}}}(\xi)$ and a (2-)morphism $\Theta$ for the diagram: $$\xymatrix{
{\mathcal{G}}\ar[r]^-{{\mathcal{A}}} \ar[d]_{F} \drtwocell\omit{<0>\Theta} & B\underline{\Omega}^1_M \ar[d]^{L_{-\xi}[\,]} \\
B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M \ar[r]^{-d[\,]} & B\underline{\Omega}^1_M
}$$ That is, $\Theta$ is a modification for the two composite pseudo-natural transformations represented in the diagram. Recall that in this context, $-d[\,]:B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M \to B\underline{\Omega}^1_M$ may be described as follows: for each open set $U\subset M$ we obtain a family of functors $B\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_M(U) \to B\underline{\Omega}^1_M(U)$ associating to each $\underline{{{\mathbb{R}}}}_U$-torsor, the $\underline{\Omega}^1_U$-torsor associated to it via $-d:C^\infty(U) \to \Omega^1(U)$. That is, for any open $V\subset U$ and any $C^\infty(V)$-torsor $A$ over $V$, $-d[A] = (A\times \Omega^1(V))/\sim$, where by definition $(a\cdot f,\mu)\sim (a,\mu-df)$ for any $f:V\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$. The map $L_{-\xi}[\,]$ may be described similarly.
A connection-preserving multiplicative vector field $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi}; \alpha) \in \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P};B, \gamma)$ naturally gives rise to a connective lift $(F_{\overline{\xi}},\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)})$ as follows. The infinitesimal symmetry $F_{\overline{\xi}}$ is as above. To describe $\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)}$, we define for each $U\subset M$ and $(Q,\phi)\in {\mathcal{G}}(U)$, a map of $\Omega^1(U)$-torsors $\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)}(Q):L_{-\xi}[{\mathcal{A}}(Q)] \to -d[F_{\overline{\xi}}(Q)]$. To that end, since $\delta \iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma =0$, there exists a function $g \in C^\infty(X)$ satisfying $\iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma = \delta g$, and we may set $$\widehat{\xi}_g= \mathrm{Lift}_{\gamma_Q}(\widetilde{\xi}) + (\pi_Q^*g|_{X_U}) {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}\in F_{\overline{\xi}}(Q).$$ Since $\delta(\alpha-\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\, B - dg) =0$, there exists a unique 1-form $\varepsilon_g \in \Omega^1(M)$ such that $\pi^*\varepsilon_g = \alpha-\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\, B - dg$. Now for $[(\gamma_Q,\tau)] \in L_{-\xi}[{\mathcal{A}}(Q)]$, let $$\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)}(Q)[(\gamma_Q,\tau)] = [(\widehat{\xi}_g,\tau - \iota_{\xi} K(\gamma_Q) - \varepsilon_g)].$$ Observe that the above map is independent of the choice of $g$: any other such choice $g'$ must be of the form $g'=g+\pi^*h$ for some $h\in C^\infty(M)$, which yields $\varepsilon_{g'}=\varepsilon_g - dh$, and $\widehat{\xi}_{g'} = \widehat{\xi}_g + (\pi^*_Q \pi^* h|_{X_U}) {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}$. Hence, $
(\widehat{\xi}_{g'},\tau - \iota_{\xi} K(\gamma_Q) - \varepsilon_{g'}) \sim (\widehat{\xi}_{g},\tau - \iota_{\xi} K(\gamma_Q) - \varepsilon_{g}).
$
To check $\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)}(Q)$ is well-defined, $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)}(Q)&[(\gamma_Q+\pi_Q^*\pi^*\nu,\tau+L_{\xi}\nu)] \\
&= [(\widehat{\xi}_g - \pi_Q^*\pi^*\iota_\xi \nu {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}, \tau +L_{\xi}\nu - \iota_{\xi} K(\gamma_Q+\pi_Q^*\pi^*\nu) - \varepsilon_g)] \\
&= [(\widehat{\xi}_g , \tau +L_{\xi}\nu - \iota_{\xi} (K(\gamma_Q) + d\nu )- \varepsilon_g -d\iota_{\xi} \nu)] \\
&= \Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)}(Q)[(\gamma_Q,\tau)].\end{aligned}$$
A connective lift $(F,\Theta)$ preserves the curving $K$ if for each $(Q,\phi) \in {\mathcal{G}}(U)$ and each $\gamma \in {\mathcal{A}}(Q)$, $$d\Theta(Q)(\gamma) = -L_{\xi} K(\gamma).$$ In this context, recall that if we write $\Theta(Q)[(\gamma,0)]=[(\widehat{\xi},\mu)]$, then $d\mu \in \Omega^2(U)$ is well-defined, and hence we set $d\Theta(Q)(\gamma) = d\mu$. Therefore, continuing from the above discussion, the connective lift $(F_{\overline{\xi}},\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)})$ associated to $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi}; \alpha) \in \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P};B, \gamma)$ preserves the curving $K$ if $ d(- \iota_{\xi} K(\gamma_Q) - \varepsilon_{g}) = -L_{\xi}K(\gamma_Q) $, or equivalently $d\varepsilon_g~=~\iota_\xi dK(\gamma_Q)$. Since $dK(\gamma_Q) = -\chi|_U$, we see that $(F_{\overline{\xi}},\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)})$ preserves the curving if $\xi$ is Hamiltonian, with Hamiltonian 1-form $\varepsilon_g$.
A morphism $(F,\Theta) \Rightarrow (F',\Theta')$ of connective lifts is a so-called *connective equivalence*; i.e., a morphism of $F\Rightarrow F'$ of the underlying infinitesimal symmetries that is compatible with $\Theta$ and $\Theta'$. A morphism of connective lifts that preserve the curving is simply a morphism of the underlying connective lifts. (*cf*. [@collier-PhDThesis2012 Definition 4.1.16]).
For a morphism $a:(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi};\alpha) \to (\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta};\beta)$ of multiplicative vector fields preserving the connective structure, we may associate a morphism $T_a:F_{\overline{\xi}} \Rightarrow F_{\overline{\zeta}}$, as in the proof of Theorem \[t:equiv-mvf-col\]. It is straightforward to see that $T_a$ is compatible with $\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)}$ and $\Theta_{(\overline{\zeta},\beta)}$. In this context, compatibility amounts to the commutativity of the following diagram, $$\xymatrix{
L_{-\xi}[{\mathcal{A}}(Q)] \ar[r]^-{\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)}} \ar[rd]_-{\Theta_{(\overline{\zeta},\beta)}} & -d[F_{\overline{\xi}}(Q)] \ar[d]^-{-d[T_a]} \\
& -d[F_{\overline{\zeta}}(Q)]
}$$ Before this is verified, we first choose $g\in C^\infty(X)$ satisfying $\iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma = \delta g$, and set $h=g-\mathsf{v}_a$. Then, it is easy to see that $\varepsilon_g = \varepsilon_h \in \Omega^1(M)$ (as defined earlier). Moreover, by Lemma \[l:algebroid\] (3), we have $\widehat{\zeta}_h = \widehat{\xi}_g+ \widehat{a}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
-d[T_a] \circ \Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)} [(\gamma_Q,\tau)] &=-d [T_a] [(\widehat{\xi}_g,\tau - \iota_{\xi} K(\gamma_Q) - \varepsilon_g)] \\
&= [(T_a(\widehat{\xi}_g),\tau - \iota_{\xi} K(\gamma_Q) - \varepsilon_g)] \\
&= [(\widehat{\zeta}_h,\tau - \iota_{\xi} K(\gamma_Q) - \varepsilon_h)] \\
&= \Theta_{(\overline{\zeta},\beta)} [(\gamma_Q,\tau)],\end{aligned}$$ as required.
Similar to Theorem \[t:equiv-mvf-col\], we see that the above discussion describes a functor $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P}; \gamma) \to \mathcal{L}_{({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{A}})}$, which is an equivalence of categories.
\[t:equiv-mvf-col-withconnex\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$. There is an equivalence of categories $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P}; \gamma) \to \mathcal{L}_{({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{A}})}$, which restricts to an equivalence of categories $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P}; B, \gamma) \to \mathcal{L}_{({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{A}}, K)}$.
That the functor $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P}; \gamma) \to \mathcal{L}_{({\mathcal{G}},{\mathcal{A}})}$ is full and faithful is straightforward. It remains to show it is essentially surjective.
Let $(F,\Theta)$ be a connective lift of some vector field $\xi$ on $M$. By Theorem \[t:equiv-mvf-col\], there exists a multiplicative vector field $\overline{\xi}=(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ and an isomorphism $S:F\Rightarrow F_{\overline{\xi}}$. Moreover, setting $\Theta' = (S * {{\operatorname{id}}}_{-d[\, ]}) \circ \Theta$, we extend $F_{\overline{\xi}}$ to a connective lift $(F_{\overline{\xi}}, \Theta')$, which is isomorphic to $(F,\Theta)$.
Let $g \in C^{\infty}(X)$ satisfy $\delta g = \iota_{\xi} \gamma$, and consider $\alpha_g = \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} B + dg \in \Omega^1(X)$. It is easy to see that $L_{\check{\xi}} \gamma = \delta \alpha_g$, and that the collection of $\alpha$ for which $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi};\alpha) \in \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P};\gamma)$ is a $\Omega^1(M)$-torsor. Since $(F_{\overline{\xi}},\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha_g)})$ is a connective lift extending $F_{\overline{\xi}}$, and the set of such connective lifts is also a $\Omega^1(M)$-torsor (by [@collier2011infinitesimal Corollary 10.46]), $(F_{\overline{\xi}}, \Theta')$ is isomorphic to some $(F_{\overline{\xi}},\Theta_{(\overline{\xi},\alpha)})$, as required.
The statement about restricting the functor follows from the observation that if there exists $(F,\Theta) \Rightarrow (F',\Theta')$, then $(F,\Theta)$ preserves the curving iff $(F',\Theta')$ does (*cf*. [@collier-PhDThesis2012 Def. 4.1.16]).
Lie 2-algebras and 2-plectic geometry {#s:lie2}
=====================================
Following a review of the bicategory of Lie 2-algebras, we introduce the main examples of interest in this paper—namely, the Poisson Lie 2-algebra of a 2-plectic manifold and the connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields on (i.e., infinitesimal symmetries of) a bundle gerbe (Proposition \[p:multivfLie2\]).
Review of Lie 2-algebras {#ss:Lie2defs}
------------------------
In this paper, we work with Lie 2-algebras using Noohi’s bicategory ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty^\flat}$ of 2-term $L_\infty$-algebras, with butterflies as 1-arrows, and morphisms of butterflies as 2-arrows [@noohi2013integrating]. As shown in *op. cit.*, ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty^\flat}$ is the localization of the bicategory ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty}$ of 2-term $L_\infty$-algebras defined by Baez and Crans [@baez2004higher] with respect to quasi-isomorphisms. We begin with a brief review of ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty}$, using definitions from [@rogers2011higher]; see also [@baez2004higher Lemma 4.3.3].
\[d:lietwo\] A *Lie 2-algebra* is a 2-term chain complex ${{\mathbb{V}}}=[V_1 \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow}V_0]$ equipped with a skew-symmetric chain map $[-,-]: {{\mathbb{V}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{V}}}\to {{\mathbb{V}}}$ and a skew symmetric chain homotopy $J:{{\mathbb{V}}}^{\otimes 3} \to {{\mathbb{V}}}$, called the *Jacobiator*, from the chain map $${{\mathbb{V}}}^{\otimes 3} \to {{\mathbb{V}}}, \quad x\otimes y \otimes z \mapsto [x,[y,z]],$$ to the chain map $${{\mathbb{V}}}^{\otimes 3} \to {{\mathbb{V}}}, \quad x\otimes y \otimes z \mapsto [[x,y],z] + [y,[x,z]],$$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
[x, & J(y,z,w)] + J(x,[y,z],w) + J(x,z,[y,w]) + [J(x,y,z),w]
+ [z,J(x,y,w)] \\
&= J(x,y,[z,w]) + J([x,y],z,w) + [y,J(x,z,w)] +J(y,[x,z],w) + J(y,z,[x,w]).\end{aligned}$$
A Lie 2-algebra with vanishing Jacobiator is called a strict Lie-2-algebra.
\[d:lietwomap\] A *morphism of Lie 2-algebras* $\mathsf{F}:{{\mathbb{V}}}\to {{\mathbb{W}}}$ consists of a chain map $\mathsf{F}_\bullet:V_\bullet \to W_\bullet$ together with a chain homotopy $F:{{\mathbb{V}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{V}}}\to {{\mathbb{W}}}$, from the chain map $${{\mathbb{V}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{V}}}\to {{\mathbb{W}}}\quad x\otimes y \mapsto \mathsf{F}([x,y])$$ to the chain map $${{\mathbb{V}}}\otimes {{\mathbb{V}}}\to {{\mathbb{W}}}\quad x\otimes y \mapsto [\mathsf{F}(x),\mathsf{F}(y)],$$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:morph_Jac_ch}
\mathsf{F}_1(J(x,y,z)) - J(\mathsf{F}_0(x),&\mathsf{F}_0(y),\mathsf{F}_0(z)) = F(x,[y,z]) - F([x,y],z) - F(y,[x,z]) \nonumber \\
&-[F(x,y),\mathsf{F}_0(z)] + [\mathsf{F}_0(x),F(y,z)] - [\mathsf{F}_0(y),F(x,z)].\end{aligned}$$
For completeness, we note that given a pair of morphisms of Lie 2-algebras, $\mathsf{F}, \mathsf{G}:{{\mathbb{V}}}\to {{\mathbb{W}}}$, a *2-morphism* between $\mathsf{F}$ and $\mathsf{G}$ is a chain homotopy between them that is compatible with the underlying chain homotopies $F$ and $G$. The 2-category of Lie 2-algebras with the above morphisms and 2-morphisms is denoted by ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty}$ [@baez2004higher].
We will work with the bicategory ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty^\flat}$ defined by Noohi [@noohi2013integrating], which we recall next. The objects remain the same; however, the arrows are replaced with butterflies.
\[d:butterfly\] A *butterfly* $\mathsf{E}:{{\mathbb{V}}}{{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}{{\mathbb{W}}}$ of Lie 2-algebras is a vector space $E$ equipped with a skew-symmetric bracket $[-,-]$, together with a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix@R=1em{
V_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dr]^-{\kappa} & & W_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dl]_-\lambda \\
& E\ar[dl]^-\sigma \ar[dr]_-\rho & \\
V_0 & & W_0
}$$ such that:
- $\rho\circ \kappa =0$ and the NE–SW sequence $
0 \to W_1 \to E \to V_0 \to 0
$ is short exact;
- $\rho$ and $\sigma$ preserve brackets;
- for every $a\in E$, $u\in W_1$, $x\in V_1$, $$[a,\lambda(u)] = \lambda([\rho(a),u]), \quad \text{and} \quad [a, \kappa(x)] = \kappa([\sigma(a),x]);$$
- for every $a,b,c\in E$, $$\lambda J(\rho(a),\rho(b),\rho(c)) + \kappa J(\sigma(a),\sigma(b),\sigma(c)) = [a,[b,c]] + [b,[c,a]] + [c,[a,b]].$$
\[d:lietwo2arrow\] Given a pair of butterflies $\mathsf{E},\mathsf{F}:{{\mathbb{V}}}{{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}{{\mathbb{W}}}$, a *morphism of butterflies* $\varphi: \mathsf{E} \Rightarrow \mathsf{F}$ is a linear map $E \to F$ that commutes with the brackets and all the structure maps of the butterflies. (As noted in [@noohi2013integrating], the linear map in a morphism of butterflies is necessarily an isomorphism.)
The composition of butterflies $
\xymatrix{
{{\mathbb{U}}}\ar@{-->}[r]^{\mathsf{E}} &{{\mathbb{V}}}\ar@{-->}[r]^{\mathsf{E}'} & {{\mathbb{W}}}}
$ is given by $$\xymatrix@R=1em{
U_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dr]^-{(\kappa,0)} & & W_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dl]_-{(0,\lambda')} \\
& {E \mathrel{\substack{{V_1}\\\oplus\\{V_0}}} E'} \ar[dl]^-{\sigma \circ {{\operatorname{pr}}}} \ar[dr]_-{\rho'\circ {{\operatorname{pr}}}} & \\
U_0 & & W_0
}$$ where $E \mathrel{\substack{{V_1}\\\oplus\\{V_0}}} E'$ denotes the quotient of $E\oplus_{V_0} E'$ by the image of $V_1$ under $(\lambda,\kappa')$, with bracket defined on components.
As shown in [@noohi2013integrating], Lie 2-algebras with butterflies as 1-arrows and morphism of butterflies as 2-arrows form a bicategory ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty^\flat}$. Moreover, Noohi explicitly defines a functor ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty}\to {\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty^\flat}$, and shows that this descends to an equivalence of categories on the localization of ${\mathsf{2TermL}_\infty}$ with respect to quasi-isomorphisms (i.e., morphisms inducing an isomorphism on homology). In particular, quasi-isomorphisms correspond to invertible butterflies—butterflies whose NW-SE sequence is also short exact. (Recall that the inverse of an invertible butterfly is obtained by simply ‘flipping’ the butterfly diagram along the vertical axis.)
We will implicitly make use of this functor in what follows—for instance, when writing down 1-arrows of Lie 2-algebras, we may write a morphism of Lie 2-algebras, rather than the corresponding butterfly. For clarity, however, we will distinguish between the two kinds of 1-arrows by employing either a solid or dashed arrow for morphisms or butterflies, respectively.
Lie 2-algebras associated to pre-2-plectic manifolds and bundle gerbes {#ss:egsLie2alg}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lie 2-algebras appear naturally in 2-pectic geometry [@rogers20132plectic], and as infinitesimal symmetries of bundle gerbes [@collier2011infinitesimal]. In this section, we recall the 2-plectic analogue of the Poisson-Lie algebra of smooth functions on a symplectic manifold. Continuing (or ‘quantizing’) this analogy, we recall the Lie 2-algebra of multiplicative vector fields on the Lie groupoid $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ associated to a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$, and give the Lie 2-algebra structure for connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields in Proposition \[p:multivfLie2\]. We see that a connective structure on a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}$ gives rise to a natural horizontal lift of multiplicative vector fields on $X^{[2]} {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ to multiplicative vector fields on $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$, and that the resulting 3-curvature measures the failure of the horizontal lift to be a morphism of Lie 2-algebras (Theorem \[p:3curv\_obs\]).
### The Poisson-Lie 2-algebra {#ss:poisson-lie}
Recall that a *2-plectic manifold* is a manifold equipped with a closed non-degenerate 3-form (in analogy with symplectic manifolds and closed non-degenerate 2-forms). If we omit the non-degeneracy condition, we say the manifold is *pre*-2-plectic [@rogers20132plectic].
\[d:rogers\] Let $(M,\chi)$ be a pre-2-plectic manifold. The *Poisson-Lie* 2-algebra ${{\mathbb{L}}}(M,\chi)$ has underlying 2-term complex given by $$\xymatrix{
C^{\infty}(M) \ar[r]^-{(0,d)} &
\{ (\xi,\beta) \in \mathfrak{X}(M) \times \Omega^1(M) \, | \, \iota_\xi \chi = -d\beta\}
}.$$ with bracket given by $$[(\xi_1,\beta_1),(\xi_2,\beta_2)] = ([\xi_1,\xi_2],\iota_{\xi_2}\,\iota_{\xi_1} \chi)$$ on $L_0\otimes L_0$ and zero otherwise. The Jacobiator $J:L_0^{\otimes 3} \to L_1$ is given by $$J(\xi_1,\beta_1;\xi_2,\beta_2;\xi_3,\beta_3) = -\iota_{\xi_3}\iota_{\xi_2}\iota_{\xi_1}\chi.$$
### Lie 2-algebras of infinitesimal symmetries of $S^1$-gerbes {#ss:multivfLie2}
As mentioned in Section \[ss:mult\], the category $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})$ of multiplicative vector fields on a Lie groupoid $\mathbf{G}=G_1 {{~\rightrightarrows~}}G_0$ is a (strict) Lie 2-algebra [@berwick2016lie]. Indeed, viewing $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})$ as a 2-term chain complex $$\Gamma(A) \longrightarrow \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})_0,$$ the bracket on $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})_0\otimes \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})_0$ is given on components: $[(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi}), (\widetilde{\zeta}, \check{\zeta})] = ([\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\zeta}], [\check{\xi},\check{\zeta}])$, while on $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})_0\otimes \Gamma(A)$, it is given by $[(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi}),a] = [\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_{G_0}$. (The bracket on $\Gamma(A)\otimes \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{G})_0$ is determined by skew-symmetry.) Here, recall that for $a\in \Gamma(A)$, and $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$ multiplicative, $[\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}] \in \ker ds$ and is right-invariant [@mackenzie1998classical], and hence its restriction to $G_0$ defines a section in $\Gamma(A)$.
Therefore, associated to a bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ over a manifold $M$, we naturally obtain (strict) Lie 2-algebras $\mathbb{X}(X^{[2]} {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)$ and $\mathbb{X}(P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)$ as above. Recall from Proposition \[p:curv\_measures\_bracket\_preserve\_failure\] (1) that a connective structure $(B,\gamma)$ on ${\mathcal{G}}$ give rise to a map of multiplicative vector fields $\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma:\mathbb{X}(X^{[2]} {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)_0 \to \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})_0$, which (*cf*. the proof of Proposition \[p:properties\] (4)) may be completed to a chain map $$\label{e:chmap}
\mathrm{Lift}_{\gamma,\bullet}:\mathbb{X}(X^{[2]} {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)_\bullet \longrightarrow \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})_\bullet.$$ By Proposition \[p:curv\_measures\_bracket\_preserve\_failure\] (2), the curving $B$ gives rise to a map $$\label{e:chhomotopy}
F_B:\mathbb{X}(X^{[2]} {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)_0\times \mathbb{X}(X^{[2]} {{~\rightrightarrows~}}X)_0 \longrightarrow \Gamma(A_P)$$ by setting $F_B(\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\xi}^{[2]};\widetilde{\zeta},\widetilde{\zeta}^{[2]})=\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}}B {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}\big|_X$, which we may view as defining a chain homotopy that controls the failure of $\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma$ to preserve the bracket (as in Definition \[d:lietwomap\]). However, $\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma$ fails to be a morphism of Lie 2-algebras (as in Definition \[d:lietwomap\]). Indeed, analogous to the horizontal lift for principal $S^1$-bundles, the failure of the horizontal lift to be a morphism of Lie 2-algebras (i.e., Condition in Definition \[d:lietwomap\]) is measured by the 3-curvature of the bundle gerbe, as the next Theorem shows.
\[p:3curv\_obs\] Let $({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connective structure and 3-curvature $\chi$. The horizontal lift $\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma$ and chain homotopy $F_B$ from and define a Lie 2-algebra morphism if and only if $\chi=0$.
Following the paragraph preceding the Proposition, it remains to consider Condition from Definition \[d:lietwomap\]. To that end, consider vector fields $\xi_1$, $\xi_2$, and $\xi_3$ on $M$ with corresponding lifts $\widetilde{\xi}_1$, $\widetilde{\xi}_2$, and $\widetilde{\xi}_3$ on $X$. Write $\overline{\xi} = (\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\xi}^{[2]})$.
Since the Lie 2-algebras under consideration are strict (i.e., with vanishing Jacobiator), $\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma$ and $F_B$ will define a Lie 2-algebra morphism if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
0=&
F_B(\overline{\xi}_1,[\overline{\xi}_2,\overline{\xi}_3]) - F_B([\overline{\xi}_1,\overline{\xi}_2],\overline{\xi}_3) - F_B(\overline{\xi}_2,[\overline{\xi}_1,\overline{\xi}_3]) \nonumber \\
& - [F_B(\overline{\xi}_1,\overline{\xi}_2), \mathrm{Lift}_\gamma(\overline{\xi}_3)] + [ \mathrm{Lift}_\gamma(\overline{\xi}_1) , F_B(\overline{\xi}_2,\overline{\xi}_3)] - [ \mathrm{Lift}_\gamma(\overline{\xi}_2) , F_B(\overline{\xi}_1,\overline{\xi}_3)]. \label{eq:dB1}\end{aligned}$$ Since the image of $F_B$ consists of vertical sections of $A_P$, each of the last three terms above is also a vertical section. To determine the vertical components of these terms, let $a_{jk}=F_B(\overline{\xi}_j,\overline{\xi}_k)$, and $\check{\xi}_i = \mathrm{Lift}_\gamma(\overline{\xi}_i)$, and observe that $
\iota_{[\check{\xi}_i,\overrightarrow{a}_{jk}]} \gamma = L_{\check{\xi}_i} \iota_{\overrightarrow{a}_{jk}} \gamma ,
$ since $\check{\xi}_i$ is horizontal and $\overrightarrow{a}_{jk}$ is vertical. Restricting to $X$, we see that $$\iota_{[\check{\xi}_i,\overrightarrow{a}_{jk}]} \gamma \big|_X =
L_{\widetilde{\xi}_i} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_j} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_k} B$$ Therefore, taking vertical components in , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0&=
\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} \iota_{[\widetilde{\xi}_2,\widetilde{\xi}_3]} B - \iota_{[\widetilde{\xi}_1,\widetilde{\xi}_2]} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_3} B - \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} \iota_{[\widetilde{\xi}_1,\widetilde{\xi}_3]} B + L_{\widetilde{\xi}_3} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} B +
L_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_3} B -
L_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_3} B \\
&=\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_3} dB\end{aligned}$$ Hence Condition holds if and only if $\pi^*\chi=dB=0$, which completes the proof, since $\pi:X\to M$ is a submersion.
The category $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P};B,\gamma)$ from Corollary \[c:subcat\] of connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields is easily seen to be a 2-vector space. Proposition \[p:multivfLie2\] below shows it is a Lie 2-algebra, whose brackets are inherited from $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})$.
\[l:vbracket\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$, and $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ the associated Lie groupoid. Let $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi};\alpha) \in \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P};B,\gamma)_0$ and $a \in \Gamma(A_P)$. Then $ \mathsf{v}_{[\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_X} =L_{\widetilde{\xi}} \mathsf{v}_a + \iota_{\widetilde{a}} \alpha$.
First, recall that $\overrightarrow{a} \sim_{\delta_1} \widetilde{a}$ and $\overrightarrow{a} \sim_{\delta_0} 0$. Therefore, $$\mathsf{v}_{[\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_X}
= \epsilon^* \iota_{[\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]} \gamma = \epsilon^*(L_{\check{\xi}} \iota_{\overrightarrow{a}} \gamma -\iota_{\overrightarrow{a}} L_{\check{\xi}} \gamma) = L_{\widetilde{\xi}} \mathsf{v}_a - \epsilon^* \iota_{\overrightarrow{a}} \delta \alpha = L_{\widetilde{\xi}} \mathsf{v}_a + \iota_{\widetilde{a}} \alpha .$$
\[p:multivfLie2\] Let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe over $M$ with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$. Let $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}}; B,\gamma) = \{V_1 \to V_0 \}$ denote the 2-term complex $$\Gamma(A_P) \stackrel{d}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P};B,\gamma)_0,$$ with differential given by $da=(\widetilde{a},\check{a}; \iota_{\widetilde{a}} B - d\mathsf{v}_a)$. Define a bracket on $V_0\otimes V_0$ by $$[(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi}; \alpha), (\widetilde{\zeta}, \check{\zeta}; \beta)] = ([\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\zeta}], [\check{\xi},\check{\zeta}]; L_{\widetilde{\xi}}\beta - L_{\widetilde{\zeta}}\alpha )$$ and on $V_0\otimes V_1$ by $$[(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi};\alpha),a] = [\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_{X}.$$ Then $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}}; B,\gamma)$ is a strict Lie 2-algebra (i.e., with Jacobiator $J\equiv 0$).
Let ${{\mathbb{V}}}=\{ V_1 \to V_0\}$ as in the statement of the Proposition. It is straightforward to see that the bracket and differential are well-defined. To show the resulting bracket is compatible with the differential (i.e., that it gives a chain map $\mathbb{V}\otimes \mathbb{V} \to \mathbb{V}$), we must verify that for $(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi};\alpha) \in V_0$ and $a,b\in V_1$: $$\begin{aligned}
d\, [(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi};\alpha),a] &= [(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi};\alpha),da], \quad \text{and} \label{eq:d1} \\
[d a, b] & =- [d b, a]. \label{eq:d2}\end{aligned}$$ For , first recall that $([\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_X)^{\sim}= [\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{a}]$ and $([\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_X)^{\vee} = [\check{\xi},\check{a}]$ (e.g., see the proof of [@berwick2016lie Theorem 3.4]). Therefore, using Lemma \[l:vbracket\], $$\begin{aligned}
d\, [(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi};\alpha),a] &= ([\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{a}] , [\check{\xi},\check{a}],\iota_{[\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{a}]} B -d\mathsf{v}_{[\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_X} ) \\
&=([\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{a}] , [\check{\xi},\check{a}],
L_{\widetilde{\xi}} \iota_{\widetilde{a}} B - \iota_{\widetilde{a}} L_{\widetilde{\xi}} B - d(L_{\widetilde{\xi}} \mathsf{v}_a + \iota_{\widetilde{a}} \alpha)) \\
&= ([\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{a}] , [\check{\xi},\check{a}],
L_{\widetilde{\xi}}( \iota_{\widetilde{a}} B - d\mathsf{v}_a) - L_{\widetilde{a}} \alpha) \\
&= [(\widetilde{\xi}, \check{\xi};\alpha),da].\end{aligned}$$
For , we first recall that $[\check{a},\overrightarrow{b}] = [\overrightarrow{a} + \overleftarrow{a},\overrightarrow{b}] = [\overrightarrow{a} ,\overrightarrow{b}]$, since left and right invariant vector fields commute. Therefore, $$[da,b] = [\check{a},\overrightarrow{b}]\big|_X
=-[\check{b},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_X
=-[db,a],$$ as required. The vanishing of the Jacobiator is straightforward.
\[eg:Lie2-trivgerbe\] Consider the connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields for the trivial bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{I}}_\omega$ from Example \[eg:multivf\_trivgerbe\]. As a Lie 2-algebra $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_\omega) =\{W_1\to W_0\}$ has $W_1\cong C^\infty(M)$, since vectors in the Lie algebroid must necessarily be vertical vectors, and $ W_0$ consists of pairs $(\xi,A)$ such that $L_\xi \omega=dA$. The differential $d:W_1\to W_0$ is $f\mapsto (0, -df)$. The bracket on $W_0\otimes W_0$ is given by $$[(\xi_1,A_1),(\xi_2,A_2)] = ([\xi_1,\xi_2],L_{\xi_1}A_2 - L_{\xi_2} A_1),$$ and on $W_0\otimes W_1$ it is given by $$[(\xi,A),f] = \xi(f).$$
Note that there is a morphism of Lie 2-algebras $\mathsf{F}:\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_\omega) \to \mathbb{L}(M,d\omega)$, which in degree 0 sends $(\xi,A) \mapsto (\xi,\iota_\xi \omega +A)$. It is straightforward to see that $\mathsf{F}$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\] generalizes this observation.
\[r:Lie2Cechdata\_multvf\] In Example \[eg:collier:morphisms\], we saw that the category of multiplicative vector fields $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})$ on a bundle gerbe $P$ given by a Čech 2-cocycle $g_{ijk}$ recovers the category $\mathcal{L}_{g_{ijk}}$ of infinitesimal symmetries from [@collier2011infinitesimal]. In *op. cit. *, Collier also shows $\mathcal{L}_{g_{ijk}}$ is a Lie 2-algebra—the Lie 2-algebra structure coincides with $\mathbb{X}(\mathbf{P})$ from [@berwick2016lie]. The analogous statement holds as well for the category $\mathcal{L}_{(g_{ijk},B_i,A_{ij})}$ of infinitesimal symmetries preserving the curving and $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}}_{g_{ijk}},\{B_i\},\{A_{ij}\})$.
Applications to 2-plectic and quasi-Hamiltonian geometry {#s:app}
========================================================
In this section, we establish some 2-plectic and quasi-Hamiltonian analogues of classical results in symplectic geometry. In Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\], we show the Poisson Lie 2-algebra of a 2-plectic manifold $(M,\chi)$ is quasi-isomorphic to the connection-preserving multiplicative vector fields on a bundle gerbe with connective structure and 3-curvature $\chi$.
Let $G$ be a compact Lie group with Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. We apply the aforementioned quasi-isomorphism to the framework of quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-actions with $G$-valued moment maps and find an analogue of Kostant’s theorem (Theorem \[t:qHamKost\]) lifting a quasi-Hamiltonian ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action to a given ‘prequantization’ in that setting.
Infinitesimal symmetries of $S^1$-gerbes and pre-2-plectic manifolds {#ss:quasi-isos}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $(M,\omega)$ be a symplectic manifold, and suppose we are given a prequantization: a principal $S^1$-bundle $\pi: P\to M$ with connection $\gamma \in \Omega^1(P)$ whose curvature $\mathrm{curv}(\gamma)=\omega$. Recall that the formula $$f\mapsto \mathrm{Lift}_\gamma(X_f) + \pi^*f\,{\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}$$ defines a Lie algebra isomorphism $\xymatrix{C^\infty(M) \ar[r]^-{\cong} & \mathcal{Q}(P,\gamma)}$, where $\mathrm{Lift}_\gamma(X_f)$ denotes the horizontal lift of $X_f$, the Hamiltonian vector field of $f$, and $$\mathcal{Q}(P,\gamma) = \{ X\in \mathfrak{X}(P)\, : \, L_X\gamma =0 \}$$ denotes the so-called *infinitesimal quantomorphisms* of $P$ [@kostant1970quantization; @vaughan2015metaplectic]. In Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\] below, we give the 2-plectic analogue:
\[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\] Let $(M,\chi)$ be a pre-2-plectic manifold, and let ${\mathcal{G}}=(X,P,\mu)$ be a bundle gerbe with connective structure $(B,\gamma)$ and 3-curvature $\chi$. There is an invertible butterfly $\mathsf{E}: \mathbb{L}(M,\chi) {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}}; B,\gamma)$.
For a multiplicative vector field $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})$, observe that $\delta(\iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma)= \iota_{(\check{\xi},\check{\xi})} \delta \gamma =0$; therefore, since $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$ is proper, there exists $g:X\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that $\delta g = \iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma$. We will show that $
E=\{
(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi};\alpha,g) \in V_0 \times C^\infty(X) \, \big|\, \delta g = \iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma
\}
$ is the required invertible butterfly: $$\xymatrix@R=1em{
L_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dr]^-{\kappa} & & V_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dl]_-{\lambda}\\
& E\ar[dl]^-\sigma \ar[dr]_-\rho & \\
L_0 & & V_0
}$$ The indicated structure maps are defined as follows. Let $\rho={{\operatorname{pr}}}_1$ be the obvious projection, $\lambda(a) = (da,-\mathsf{v}_a)$, and $\kappa(f) = (0,0;0,\pi^*f)$. To define $\sigma$, first observe that $\delta(\alpha-\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\, B - dg) =0$, and hence there exists a unique 1-form $\varepsilon \in \Omega^1(M)$ such that $\pi^*\varepsilon = \alpha-\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\, B - dg$. Hence $\pi^*\iota_{\xi}\chi = \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\, dB = \pi^*d\varepsilon$. Set $\sigma(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi};\alpha,g) = (\xi,-\varepsilon)$.
Define the bracket on $E$ by $$[(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g),(\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta},\beta,h)] = ([(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha),(\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta},\beta)], \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} \beta - \iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} \alpha + \iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} B).$$
Next, we verify the required compatibility of the bracket with the structure maps. Clearly $\sigma$ preserves the brackets. Also, $$[(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g), \kappa(h)] = [(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g), (\overline{0},0,\pi^*h)] = 0 = \kappa[(\xi,\varepsilon),h],$$ since brackets of elements of mixed degree vanish in ${{\mathbb{L}}}(M,\chi)$. By Lemma \[l:vbracket\] and the properties of the bracket for $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}}, B,\gamma)$, we have $[(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g), \lambda(a)] = \lambda[(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha),a]$. Finally, to see that $\sigma$ preserves the brackets, it suffices to verify that $$-\pi^* \iota_\zeta \iota_\xi \chi = L_{\widetilde{\xi}} \beta - L_{\widetilde{\zeta}} \alpha - \iota_{[\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\zeta}]} B - d(\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} \beta - \iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} \alpha + \iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} B),$$ which follows from standard applications of Cartan calculus on differential forms.
Since the Jacobiator for $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma)$ is trivial, the Jacobiator condition on $\mathsf{E}$ simplifies to $$\kappa J_{\mathbb{L}}(\xi_1,\varepsilon_1;\xi_2,\varepsilon_2;\xi_3,\varepsilon_3) = [(\widetilde{\xi}_1,\check{\xi}_1;\alpha_1), [ (\widetilde{\xi}_2,\check{\xi}_2;\alpha_2),(\widetilde{\xi}_3,\check{\xi}_3;\alpha_3)]] + \textit{cyc.\ perm.\ }$$ The $V_0$-component in the above equality follows from the vanishing of the Jacobiator for $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}}, B, \gamma)$. To verify the component in $C^\infty(X)$, it should be verified that $$-\pi^*\iota_{\xi_3}\iota_{\xi_2}\iota_{\xi_1}\chi = \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} (L_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} \alpha_3 - L_{\widetilde{\xi}_3} \alpha_2) - \iota_{[\widetilde{\xi}_2,\widetilde{\xi}_3]} \alpha_1 + \iota_{[\widetilde{\xi}_2,\widetilde{\xi}_3]} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} B + \textit{cyc.\ perm.,\ }$$ which is a straightforward, albeit tedious, application of Cartan calculus on differential forms—see Proposition \[p:jacobiator\]
To show $\mathsf{E}$ is an invertible butterfly, we must check that the diagonal sequences are short exact. That the NW–SE sequence is short exact follows easily from properness of the Lie groupoid $P{{~\rightrightarrows~}}X$. Exactness of the NE–SW sequence is verified next.
To check surjectivity of $\sigma$: given $(\xi,\varepsilon)\in L_0$, choose a multiplicative lift of $\xi$ and take $\alpha' = -\pi^*\varepsilon + \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} B$. Next, find a function $f$ with $\delta f = \iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma$ and set $\alpha=\alpha' +df$. Then $\sigma(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi};\alpha,f)=(\xi,\varepsilon)$
To check injectivity of $\lambda$: suppose $a\in \Gamma (A_P)$ is a section of the Lie algebroid and $da=0$ and $\mathsf{v}_a =0$. From $da=0$, we get that $\widetilde{a} = 0$, which gives that $a$ lies in the the isotropy Lie algebra (in this case trivial, i.e., $X\times {{\mathbb{R}}}$), whence we view $a$ as a function on $X$, and we get that $\check{a}=0$, which gives that $\delta a=0$ and hence $a$ descends to $M$. From $\mathsf{v}_a=0$, we see that the vertical part of $a$ must vanish, but since $\widetilde{a}=0$ all of $a$ is vertical, so $a$ must vanish.
Exactness at $E$: It’s easy to see that $\sigma\circ \lambda=0$ since $\pi$ is a submersion. Suppose $\sigma (\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g) =0$. Then $\xi=0$ and $\alpha - \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} B - dg=0$. The first of those gives $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi})=(\widetilde{a},\check{a})$ for some $a\in \Gamma(A_P)$ (See Proposition \[p:properties\].) Since $\delta \mathsf{v}_a = \delta g$, there exists a (unique) $f:M \to {{\mathbb{R}}}$ such that $\pi^*f = g-\mathsf{v}_a$. We may view $f$ as defining a section of the isotropy Lie algebra, as noted in the previous paragraph, by setting $b=\pi^*f$. That is, $b:X\to A_P$ is a vertical vector in $TP\big|_X$ given by $b(x) = f(\pi(x)) {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}\big|_{\epsilon(x)}$. Note that $\mathsf{v}_b = \pi^*f$, and $\widetilde{b}=0$. Moreover, $\check{b}=0$ by Proposition \[p:properties\] . Therefore, $\lambda(a+b)=(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g)$.
\[r:FRS\] In [@fiorenza2014algebras Thm 4.6], the authors prove, in the more general context of $n$-plectic geometry and $L_\infty$-algebras, a result similar to Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\]. Specializing to $n=2$, the result in *op. cit.* shows that ${{\mathbb{L}}}(M,\chi)$ is quasi-isomorphic to a Lie 2-algebra the authors call the *infinitesimal quantomorphisms* of a principal $U(1)$-2-bundle with connection. In that context, a principal $U(1)$-2-bundle is represented by a Čech-Deligne cocycle, which is equivalent to the data of an $S^1$-gerbe with connective structure given in terms of Čech data, while the corresponding Lie 2-algebra of infinitesimal quantomorphisms is essentially the Lie 2-algebra of infinitesimal symmetries preserving the connective structure from [@collier2011infinitesimal]. (*Cf.* Example \[eg:collier:subcat\] and Remark \[r:Lie2Cechdata\_multvf\] .)
Consider a Lie group $G$ acting on a symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$, and suppose $\pi:P \to M$ is a prequantization. Let ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ denote the Lie algebra of $G$. If the $G$-action on $(M,\omega)$ is Hamiltonian, with moment map $\mu:M\to \mathfrak{g}^*$, we may compose the Kostant Lie algebra isomorphism $C^\infty(M) \cong \mathcal{Q}(P,\gamma)$ with the (co)moment map $\langle \mu,-\rangle : {{\mathfrak{g}}}\to C^\infty(M)$, to obtain a lift of the infinitesimal action $\mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{X}_{\mathrm{Ham}}(M,\omega)$, $\xi\mapsto \xi_M$, to a connection-preserving ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action on $P$, according to Kostant’s formula [@kostant1970quantization], $$\label{eq:kostant}
\mathfrak{g} \longrightarrow \mathcal{Q}(P,\gamma), \quad \xi \mapsto \mathrm{Lift}_\gamma(\xi_M) + \pi^*\langle\mu,\xi\rangle {\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}}.$$
Analogously, consider a Lie group $G$ acting on a pre-2-plectic manifold $(M,\chi)$. If the $G$-action preserves $\chi$ and the corresponding ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action $\xi\mapsto \xi_M$ is via Hamiltonian vector fields (i.e., there exist 1-forms $\varepsilon \in \Omega^1(M)$ such that $\iota_{\xi_M} \chi = -d\varepsilon$), the authors in [@callies2016homotopy] define a *homotopy moment map* to be a morphism of Lie 2-algebras that lifts the natural projection $\mathbb{L}(M,\chi) \to \mathfrak{X}(M,\chi)$, as in the following diagram. $$\xymatrix{
& \mathbb{L}(M,\chi) \ar[d] \\
{{\mathfrak{g}}}\ar@{-->}[ur] \ar[r] & \mathfrak{X}(M,\chi).
}$$ Suppose $({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma)$ is a bundle gerbe over $M$ with 3-curvature $\chi$. If the ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action on $(M,\chi)$ admits a homotopy moment map, we may compose it with the invertible butterfly of Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\] and obtain a Lie 2-algebra butterfly $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathfrak{g}}}\ar@{-->}[r] & {{\mathbb{X}}}({\mathcal{G}};B,\gamma),
}$$ which is analogous to Kostant’s formula above in 2-plectic geometry.
The following Theorem shows that the invertible butterfly from Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\] is compatible with trivializations, which will be useful in Section \[s:kost\] where we discuss the quasi-Hamiltonian context.
\[t:triv-iso\] A trivialization $(Q,\gamma_Q): \mathcal{I}_\omega {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}(\mathcal{G},B,\gamma)$ of bundle gerbes with connection induces an invertible butterfly $\mathsf{Q}: \mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_\omega) {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}{{\mathbb{X}}}({\mathcal{G}};B,\gamma).$ Additionally, there is a canonical 2-isomorphism $\varphi: \mathsf{Q} \circ \mathsf{E}' \Longrightarrow \mathsf{E}$, $$\xymatrix@R=3em@C=1em{
& \mathbb{L}(M,d\omega) \ar@{-->}[dl]_-{\mathsf{E}'} \ar@{-->}[dr]^-{\mathsf{E}} & \\
\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_\omega) \ar@{-->}[rr]_-{\mathsf{Q}} && {{\mathbb{X}}}({\mathcal{G}};B,\gamma) \ulltwocell\omit{<0>\varphi}
}$$ where $\mathsf{E}$ and $\mathsf{E}'$ are the invertible butterflies from Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\] corresponding to $(\mathcal{G},B,\gamma)$ and $\mathcal{I}_\omega$, respectively.
Let $(Q,\gamma_Q):\mathcal{I}_\omega {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}(\mathcal{G},B,\gamma)$ denote a trivialization (see Example \[e:trivialization\]). Denote the underlying 2-term chain complexes by $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_\omega) = \{W_1 \to W_0 \}$ (see Example \[eg:Lie2-trivgerbe\]) and ${{\mathbb{X}}}({\mathcal{G}};B,\gamma) = \{ V_1 \to V_0 \}$ (see Proposition \[p:multivfLie2\]). As a vector space, let $$F=\{
(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g) \in V_0 \times C^\infty(X) \, \big|\, \delta g = \iota_{\check{\xi}} \gamma
\}.$$ We will show that $F$ gives rise to an invertible butterfly $\mathsf{Q}$: $$\xymatrix@R=1em{
W_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dr]^-{\kappa} & & V_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dl]_-\lambda \\
& F\ar[dl]^-\sigma \ar[dr]_-\rho & \\
W_0 & & V_0
}$$ The structure maps are defined as follows. Let $\kappa(f) = (0,0;0,\pi^*f)$, $\lambda(a) = (da,-\mathsf{v}_a)$, $\rho={{\operatorname{pr}}}$, and $\sigma(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g) = (\xi,A)$, where $\xi$ is the vector field on $M$ onto which $\widetilde{\xi}$ descends, and $A\in \Omega^1(M)$ is determined by $\pi^*A = \alpha-\iota_{\widetilde{\xi}}\mathrm{curv}(\gamma_Q) - dg$. Finally, the bracket on $F$ is given by $$[(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g),(\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta},\beta,h)] = ([(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha),(\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta},\beta)],
L_{\widetilde{\xi}} h - L_{\widetilde{\zeta}} g + \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} \iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} \mathrm{curv}(\gamma_Q)).$$
Next, we verify the required compatibility of the bracket with the structure maps. Clearly, $\rho$ preserves brackets. Let $(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g)$ and $(\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta},\beta,h)$ in $F$. To check that $\sigma$ preserves brackets, let $\sigma(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g)= (\xi,A_\alpha)$ and $\sigma(\widetilde{\zeta},\check{\zeta},\beta,h) = (\zeta,A_\beta)$. Then it suffices to check that $$\begin{aligned}
\pi^*(L_{\xi}A_\beta - L_{\zeta} A_\alpha) &= L_{\widetilde{\xi}} (\beta - \iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} {{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q) - dh ) - L_{\widetilde{\zeta}} (\alpha - \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} {{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q) - dg
) \\
&= L_{\widetilde{\xi}} \beta - L_{\widetilde{\zeta}} \alpha - \iota_{[\widetilde{\xi},\widetilde{\zeta}]} {{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q) - d(L_{\widetilde{\xi}} h - L_{\widetilde{\zeta}} g + \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} \iota_{\widetilde{\zeta}} \mathrm{curv}(\gamma_Q)).\end{aligned}$$ For $f\in W_1$, $$[(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g) , \kappa(f)] = (0,0;0, L_{\widetilde{\xi}}(\pi^*f))
= \kappa(\xi(f)) = \kappa [\sigma(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g),f],$$ as required. For $a\in V_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
[(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g) , \lambda(a)] & =
([(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha),da] ,
-L_{\widetilde{\xi}} (\mathsf{v}_a) - L_{\widetilde{a}} g + \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} \iota_{\widetilde{a}} \mathrm{curv}(\gamma_Q)), \end{aligned}$$ while $$\lambda [\rho(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha,g) , a] = \lambda [(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha) , a]
= (d\, [(\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha),a], -\mathsf{v}_{[\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_X}).$$ Since $$\begin{aligned}
-L_{\widetilde{\xi}} (\mathsf{v}_a) -L_{\widetilde{a}} g + \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} \iota_{\widetilde{a}} \mathrm{curv}(\gamma_Q) &= -L_{\widetilde{\xi}} (\mathsf{v}_a)
-\iota_{\widetilde{a}} (dg+ \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}} {{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q))
\\
&=-L_{\widetilde{\xi}} (\mathsf{v}_a)-\iota_{\widetilde{a}} (\alpha - \pi^*A_\alpha)
\\
&= -\mathsf{v}_{[\check{\xi},\overrightarrow{a}]\big|_X},\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \[l:vbracket\], the desired compatibility is shown.
Finally, since both Lie 2-algebras are strict, we must show that the bracket on $F$ satisfies the Jacobi identity. Since the Jacobiator vanishes on $V_0^{\otimes 3}$, we need only check the component in $C^\infty(X)$ vanishes. Hence it remains to show that for $(\widetilde{\xi}_i,\check{\xi}_i,\alpha_i;g_i)$ ($i=1,2,3$): $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} (L_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} g_3 - L_{\widetilde{\xi}_3}g_2 + \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_2} & {{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q) ) - L_{[\widetilde{\xi}_2,\widetilde{\xi}_3]} g_1 \\
&+ \iota_{\widetilde{\xi}_1} \iota_{[\widetilde{\xi}_2,\widetilde{\xi}_3]} {{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q) + \textit{cyc.\ perm.\ } =0\end{aligned}$$ This follows from the fact that $d\, {{\operatorname{curv}}}(\gamma_Q)=0$.
The exactness of the diagonal sequences of the butterfly are verified in the same way as in the proof of Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\].
Next we verify the statement about the compatibility of $\mathsf{Q}$ with the invertible butterflies exhibited in (the proof of) Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\]. Let $\mathsf{E}: \mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}}, B, \gamma) {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}\mathbb{L}(M,d\omega)$ and $\mathsf{E}': \mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_\omega) {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}\mathbb{L}(M,d\omega)$ be the resulting invertible butterflies. Given the identification of $\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_\omega) =\{W_1 {{~\rightrightarrows~}}W_0 \}$ used above (i.e., as in Example \[eg:Lie2-trivgerbe\]) , observe that $\mathsf{E}'$ may be written as $$\xymatrix@R=1em{
W_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dr]^-{\kappa'} & & L_1 \ar[dd] \ar[dl]_-{\lambda'} \\
& E'\ar[dl]^-{\sigma'} \ar[dr]_-{\rho'} & \\
W_0 & & L_0
}$$ where $E'=W_0\times C^\infty(M)$, with structure maps $\kappa'(f)=(0,-df,-f)$, $\sigma' = {{\operatorname{pr}}}$, $\lambda'(f)=(0,0,f)$ and $\rho'(\xi,A,f) = -A+\iota_{\xi}\omega + df$.
The composition $
\xymatrix{
\mathbb{L}(M,d\omega) \ar@{-->}[r]^-{\mathsf{E'}}& \mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_\omega) \ar@{-->}[r]^-{\mathsf{Q}} &\mathbb{X}({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma)
}
$ is given by $E' \mathrel{\substack{{W_1}\\\oplus\\{W_0}}} F$.
Writing elements of the fibre product $E'\oplus_{W_0} F$ as $(\xi,A,f;\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha;g)$, we see that the map $$E' \mathrel{\substack{{W_1}\\\oplus\\{W_0}}} F \to E, \quad
[(\xi,A,f;\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha;g)] \mapsto (\widetilde{\xi},\check{\xi},\alpha;g+\pi^*f)$$ is the desired 2-isomorphism.
Kostant’s formula for Lie group-valued moment maps {#s:kost}
--------------------------------------------------
In this section, we apply the results of Section \[ss:quasi-isos\] to the setting of quasi-Hamiltonian group actions with Lie group-valued moment maps to obtain an analogue of Kostant’s formula for lifting (infinitesimally) a Hamiltonian Lie group action on a symplectic manifold to a given prequantization. For the remainder of this section, $G$ shall denote a connected, compact Lie group with Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$, equipped with an invariant inner product $\langle-,-\rangle$.
### Lie group-valued moment maps {#lie-group-valued-moment-maps .unnumbered}
Let ${\theta^L}$ and ${\theta^R}$ denote the left and right invariant Maurer-Cartan forms on a compact Lie group $G$, and let $\eta = \frac{1}{12} \langle {\theta^L}, [{\theta^L}, {\theta^L}] \rangle \in \Omega^3(G)$ denote the Cartan 3-form. We view $G$ as a $G$-manifold equipped with the conjugation action.
[@alekseev1998lie] \[d:qHamiltonian\] A *quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-space* is a triple $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ consisting of a $G$-manifold $M$, a $G$-invariant 2-form $\omega \in \Omega^2(M)^G$ and a $G$-equivariant map $\Phi:M \to G$, satisfying
1. $d\omega + \Phi^* \eta =0$,
2. $\iota_{\xi_M}\omega + \frac{1}{2} \Phi^*\langle {\theta^L}+ {\theta^R}, \xi \rangle =0\quad \text{for all } \xi \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$, and
3. at every point $x\in M$, $\ker \omega_x \cap \ker d\Phi_x = \{ 0 \}$.
Analogous to coadjoint orbits in the dual of the Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^*$ as fundamental examples of symplectic manifolds with Hamiltonian $G$-actions, conjugacy classes $\mathcal{C}\hookrightarrow G$ are important examples of quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-spaces. Another important example is the double $G\times G$, with $G$ acting by conjugation on each factor and $G$-valued moment map given by the commutator $(g,h)\mapsto ghg^{-1}h^{-1}$. Using the *fusion product* operation, these examples form the building blocks for a (finite dimensional) quasi-Hamiltonian description of the moduli space of flat $G$-bundles over a compact surface $\Sigma$, with prescribed holonomies along the boundary curves. See [@alekseev1998lie] for details.
In [@meinrenken2012twisted], Meinrenken defines prequantization of quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-spaces using Dixmier-Douady bundles (or simply DD-bundles), which are equivalent to $S^1$-bundle gerbes. More precisely, the bicategory of DD-bundles over a fixed manifold is equivalent to the bicategory of bundle gerbes (and similarly for their $G$-equivariant counterparts) [@krepski2018differential]. We recall the definition of prequantization next, providing a formulation using bundle gerbes.
To begin, observe that for a quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-space $(M,\omega,\Phi)$, the first condition in Definition \[d:qHamiltonian\] (together with the fact that $d\eta=0$) shows that the pair $(\omega,\eta)$ defines a closed *relative* differential form in $\Omega^3(\Phi)$. In fact, together with the second condition in Definition \[d:qHamiltonian\], we have that $(\omega,\eta_G)$ defines a closed relative $G$-equivariant differential form in $\Omega^3_G(\Phi)$. A *prequantization* of a quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-space $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ is a *relative $G$-equivariant bundle gerbe* $(Q,{\mathcal{G}})$ for $\Phi$—i.e., a $G$-equivariant bundle gerbe ${\mathcal{G}}\to G$, together with a $G$-equivariant trivialization $ Q: {\mathcal{I}}{{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}\Phi^* {\mathcal{G}}$, whose relative DD-class maps to $[(\omega,\eta_G)] \in H^3_G(\Phi;{{\mathbb{R}}})$ via the map induced in cohomology from the coefficient homomorphism ${{\mathbb{Z}}}\to {{\mathbb{R}}}$.
Let $({\mathcal{G}}, B_G,\gamma)$ be a $G$-equivariant bundle gerbe over $G$ with connective structure and $G$-equivariant 3-curvature $\eta_G$. Then a $G$-equivariant trivialization $(Q,\gamma_Q): {\mathcal{I}}_{-\omega} {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}({\mathcal{G}}, B_G, \gamma)$ gives a prequantization for $(M,\omega,\Phi)$.
Note that a prequantization for $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ exists if and only if the relative cohomology class $[(\omega,\eta_G)] \in H^3_{G}(\Phi;{{\mathbb{R}}}) $ is integral (i.e., in the image of the coefficient homomorphism $H^3_{G}(\Phi;{{\mathbb{R}}}) \to H^3(_G\Phi:{{\mathbb{Z}}})$. For related work on the integrality conditions required for prequantization of the moduli space of flat $G$-bundles, see [@krepski2008pre; @krepski2014prequantization; @krepski2013verlinde; @meinrenken2003basic].
### A quasi-Hamiltonian analogue of Kostant’s formula {#a-quasi-hamiltonian-analogue-of-kostants-formula .unnumbered}
For Hamiltonian $G$-spaces $(M,\omega)$ with prequantization $P\to M$, Kostant’s formula provides a lift of the ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action on $M$ to a connection-preserving ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-action on $P$. In this Section, we propose an analogue of such a lift for quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-spaces.
Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-space. Suppose we are given a (not necessarily $G$-equivariant) bundle gerbe $({\mathcal{G}}, B,\gamma)$ over $G$ with connective structure whose 3-curvature is $\eta$, together with a trivialization $(Q,\gamma_Q): {\mathcal{I}}_{-\omega} {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}({\mathcal{G}}, B, \gamma)$. By Theorem \[t:triv-iso\], the trivialization $(Q,\gamma_Q)$ gives rise to an invertible butterfly of Lie 2-algebras $\mathsf{Q}: \mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_{-\omega}) {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}\mathbb{X}(\Phi^*({\mathcal{G}}, B, \gamma))$, and such a butterfly is compatible with the butterflies resulting from Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\]. This proves the following Proposition.
\[p:square\] Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-space. Suppose $({\mathcal{G}}, B,\gamma)$ is a bundle gerbe over $G$ with connective structure whose 3-curvature is $\eta$, and let $(Q,\gamma_Q): {\mathcal{I}}_{-\omega} {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}\Phi^*({\mathcal{G}}, B, \gamma)$ be a trivialization. Then the diagram $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathbb{L}}}(M,-d\omega) \ar@{-->}[r] \ar@{=}[d] \drtwocell \omit{}& \mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_{-\omega})
\ar@{-->}[d]^{\mathsf{Q}}
\\
{{\mathbb{L}}}(M,\Phi^*\eta) \ar@{-->}[r] & \mathbb{X}(\Phi^*({\mathcal{G}};B,\gamma))
}$$ 2-commutes, where the horizontal morphisms are the invertible butterflies from Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\], and $\mathsf{Q}$ is as in Theorem \[t:triv-iso\].
In [@callies2016homotopy], the authors show that a $G$-equivariant extension of a closed $G$-invariant 3-form $\chi$ on a $G$-manifold $M$ gives rise to a homotopy moment map ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\to {{\mathbb{L}}}(M,\chi)$. For a quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-space $(M,\omega,\Phi)$, we may view $(M,-d\omega)$ as a pre-2-plectic manifold. From condition (i) of Definition \[d:qHamiltonian\], it follows that ${{\mathbb{L}}}(M,-d\omega)={{\mathbb{L}}}(M,\Phi^*\eta)$, and condition (ii) shows that the two $G$-equivariant extensions of $-d\omega$, $$-(d_G\omega)(\xi) = -d\omega + \iota_{\xi_M}\omega, \quad \text{and} \quad (\Phi^*\eta_G)(\xi) = \Phi^*\eta + \frac{1}{2} \Phi^*\langle {\theta^L}+ {\theta^R}, \xi \rangle$$ agree. Therefore, the resulting homotopy moment maps agree. Combining this observation with Proposition \[p:square\], we obtain the diagram in the following Theorem, which we consider a quasi-Hamiltonian analogue of the Kostant formula . In other words, we may lift the ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-actions on $M$ and $G$ to infinitesimal symmetries on ${\mathcal{I}}_{-\omega}$ and $({\mathcal{G}},B,\gamma)$ that are compatible with the given trivialization $(Q,\gamma_Q)$.
\[t:qHamKost\] Let $(M,\omega,\Phi)$ be a quasi-Hamiltonian $G$-space. Suppose $({\mathcal{G}}, B,\gamma)$ is a bundle gerbe over $G$ with connective structure whose 3-curvature is $\eta$, and let $(Q,\gamma_Q): {\mathcal{I}}_{-\omega} {{\;\dashrightarrow\;}}\Phi^*({\mathcal{G}}, B, \gamma)$ be a trivialization. The following diagram 2-commutes: $$\xymatrix@R=1em{
&{{\mathbb{L}}}(M,-d\omega) \ar@{-->}[r] \ar@{=}[dd] \ddrtwocell \omit{} & \mathbb{X}({\mathcal{I}}_{-\omega}) \ar@{-->}[dd]^{\mathsf{Q}} \\
{{\mathfrak{g}}}\ar[ur] \ar[dr]&&\\
&{{\mathbb{L}}}(M,\Phi^*\eta) \ar@{-->}[r] & \mathbb{X}(\Phi^*({\mathcal{G}};B,\gamma))
}$$
A formula used in the proof of Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\]
========================================================================
We include the verification of a formula used in the proof of Theorem \[t:invertbutterflymulti-rogers\].
\[p:jacobiator\] Let $N$ be a manifold, and let $B \in \Omega^2(N)$. Let $X,Y$, and $Z$ denote vector fields on $N$, and suppose that there exist differential 1-forms $a,b$, and $c$ such that $L_X B =da$, $L_Y B=db$, and $L_Z B=dc$. Then, $$-\iota_{Z}\iota_{Y}\iota_{X}dB = \iota_{X} (L_{Y} c - L_{Z} b) - \iota_{[Y,Z]} a + \iota_{[Y,Z]} \iota_{X} B + \text{cyc.\ perm.,\ }$$
This is a straightforward application of the given relations and the Cartan calculus. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\iota_X \iota_Y \iota_Z dB &= \iota_X\iota_YL_Z B - \iota_X\iota_Y d\iota_Z B \\
&= \iota_X \iota_Y dc - \iota_X L_Y \iota_Z B + \iota_X d\iota_Y \iota_Z B \\
&= \iota_X \iota_Y dc - \iota_X \iota_{[Y,Z]} B - \iota_X \iota_Z L_Y B + \iota_X d\iota_Y \iota_Z B \\
&= \iota_X \iota_Y dc - \iota_X \iota_{[Y,Z]} B - L_X \iota_Y \iota_Z B \\
&= \iota_X \iota_Y dc - \iota_X \iota_Z db - \iota_X \iota_{[Y,Z]} B + \iota_{[X.Y]} \iota_Z B + \iota_Y L_X \iota_Z B \\
&= \iota_X \iota_Y dc - \iota_X \iota_Z db - \iota_X \iota_{[Y,Z]} B + \iota_{[X.Y]} \iota_Z B + \iota_Y \iota_{[X,Z]} B + \iota_Y \iota Z da \\
&= \iota_X L_Y c - L_X \iota_Y c - \iota_X L_Z b +L_X \iota_Z b + \iota_YL_Z a - L_Y\iota_Z a - \iota_X \iota_{[Y,Z]} B \\
& \quad -\iota_Z \iota_{[X,Y]} B - \iota_Y \iota_{[Z,X]} B \\
&= \iota_X L_Y c - \iota_{[X,Y]} c - \iota_Y L_X c - \iota_X L_Z b + \iota_{[X,Z]} b + \iota_Z L_X b + \iota_Y L_Z a - \iota_{[Y,Z]} a \\
&\quad - \iota_Z L_Y a - \iota_X \iota_{[Y,Z]}B - \iota_Z \iota_{[X,Y]} B - \iota_Y\iota_{[Z,X]} B \end{aligned}$$
[10]{}
Anton Alekseev, Anton Malkin, and Eckhard Meinrenken. Lie group valued moment maps. , 48(3):445–495, 1998.
John Baez and Alissa Crans. Higher-dimensional algebra [VI]{}: [L]{}ie 2-algebras. , 12(15):492–528, 2004.
John C. Baez and Urs Schreiber. Higher gauge theory. , 431:7–30, 2007.
Kai Behrend and Ping Xu. Differentiable stacks and gerbes. , 9(3):285–341, 2011.
Daniel Berwick-Evans and Eugene Lerman. ie 2-algebras of vector fields. , 2016.
Jean-Luc Brylinski. , volume 107 of [*Progress in mathematics*]{}. Birkhaüser Boston, 1993.
Martin Callies, Yael Fregier, Christopher L Rogers, and Marco Zambon. Homotopy moment maps. , 303:954–1043, 2016.
David Saumitra Chatterjee. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1998.
Braxton L Collier. Infinitesimal symmetries of [D]{}ixmier-[D]{}ouady gerbes. , 2011.
Braxton L Collier. . PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2012.
Marius Crainic. Differentiable and algebroid cohomology, van [E]{}st isomorphisms, and characteristic classes. , 78(4):681–721, 2003.
Jacques Dixmier and Adrien Douady. Champs continus d’espaces [H]{}ilbertiens et de $C^*$-alg[è]{}bres. , 91:227–284, 1963.
Domenico Fiorenza, Christopher L Rogers, and Urs Schreiber. ${L}_{\infty}$-algebras of local observables from higher prequantum bundles, 2013; e-print. , 16(2):107–142, 2014.
Krzysztof Gawȩdzki and Nuno Reis. Basic gerbe over non-simply connected compact groups. , 50(1):28–55, 2004.
Jean Giraud. . Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1971. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 179.
Richard Hepworth. Vector fields and flows on differentiable stacks. , 22(21):542–587, 2009.
Nigel Hitchin. Lectures on special lagrangian submanifolds. , 23:151–182, 2001.
Bertram Kostant. Quantization and unitary representations. In [*Lectures in [M]{}odern [A]{}nalysis and [A]{}pplications [III]{}*]{}, pages 87–208. Springer, 1970.
Derek Krepski. Pre-quantization of the moduli space of flat ${G}$-bundles over a surface. , 58(11):1624–1637, 2008.
Derek Krepski. Prequantization of the moduli space of flat ${PU} (p)$-bundles with prescribed boundary holonomies. , 10:109, 2014.
Derek Krepski. Basic equivariant gerbes on non-simply connected compact simple [L]{}ie groups. , 133:30–41, 2018.
Derek Krepski and Eckhard Meinrenken. On the [V]{}erlinde formulas for ${SO} (3)$-bundles. , 64(1):235–252, 2013.
Derek Krepski and Jordan Watts. Differential cocycles and [D]{}ixmier–[D]{}ouady bundles. , 130:168–183, 2018.
Kirill CH Mackenzie and Ping Xu. Classical lifting processes and multiplicative vector fields. , 49(193):59–85, 1998.
Eckhard Meinrenken. The basic gerbe over a compact simple [L]{}ie group. , 49:307–333, 2003.
Eckhard Meinrenken. Twisted [K]{}-homology and group-valued moment maps. , 2012(20):4563–4618, 2012.
Michael K. Murray. Bundle gerbes. , 54(2):403–416, 1996.
Michael K Murray, David Michael Roberts, Danny Stevenson, and Raymond F Vozzo. Equivariant bundle gerbes. , 21(4):921–975, 2017.
Michael K Murray and Daniel Stevenson. Bundle gerbes: stable isomorphism and local theory. , 62(03):925–937, 2000.
Thomas Nikolaus and Christoph Schweigert. Equivariance in higher geometry. , 226(4):3367–3408, 2011.
Thomas Nikolaus and Konrad Waldorf. Four equivalent versions of nonabelian gerbes. , 264(2):355–420, 2013.
Behrang Noohi. Integrating morphisms of [L]{}ie 2-algebras. , 149(2):264–294, 2013.
Christopher L Rogers. . PhD thesis, University of California, Riverside, 2011.
Christopher L Rogers et al. 2-plectic geometry, [C]{}ourant algebroids, and categorified prequantization. , 11(1):53–91, 2013.
Daniel Stevenson. . PhD thesis, University of Adelaide, 2000.
Mathieu Stiénon. Equivariant [D]{}ixmier-[D]{}ouady classes. , 17(1):127–145, 2010.
Jennifer Vaughan. Metaplectic-c quantomorphisms. , 11:25–15, 2015.
André Weil. Sur les théorèmes de de [R]{}ham. , 26:119–145, 1952.
Christoph Wockel. Principal 2-bundles and their gauge 2-groups. , 23(3):565–610, 2011.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.